Can you live on minimum wage? (Calculator)

schuylaar

Well-Known Member

In 1948, Reagan gave the speech Obama should have given this week. Ronald Reagan - then a liberal Democrat - Slams the GOP out of the park! He could craft a message.

Reagan campaigns on the radio for President Truman in 1948. He also supports Hubert Humphrey for Senator from Minnesota and opposes the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 which had been passed by the Republican congress over Truman's veto.

"This is Ronald Reagan speaking to you from Hollywood. You know me as a motion picture actor but tonight I'm just a citizen pretty concerned about the national election next month and more than a little impatient with those promises the Republicans made before they got control of Congress a couple years ago.
I remember listening to the radio on election night in 1946. Joseph Martin, the Republican Speaker of the House, said very solemnly, and I quote,

"We Republicans intend to work for a real increase in income for everybody by encouraging more production and lower prices without impairing wages or working conditions", unquote.

Remember that promise: a real increase in income for everybody. But what actually happened?

The profits of corporations have doubled, while workers' wages have increased by only one-quarter. In other words, profits have gone up four times as much as wages, and the small increase workers did receive was more than eaten up by rising prices, which have also bored into their savings.

For example, here is an Associate Press Dispatch I read the other day about Smith L. Carpenter, a craftsman in Union Springs, New York. It seems that Mr. Carpenter retired some years ago thinking he had enough money saved up that he could live out his last years without having to worry. But he didn’t figure on this Republican inflation, which ate up all of his savings, and so he's gone back to work. The reason this is news, is Mr. Carpenter is 91 years old.
Now, take as a contrast the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, which reported a net profit of $210 million after taxes for the first half of 1948; an increase of 70% in one year. In other words, high prices have not been caused by higher wages, but by bigger and bigger profits.


The Republican promises sounded pretty good in 1946, but what has happened since then, since the 80th Congress took over?

<> Prices have climbed to the highest level in history, although the death of the OPA was supposed to bring prices down through "the natural process of free competition".
<> Labor has been handcuffed with the vicious Taft-Hartley law.

<> Social Security benefits have been snatched away from almost a million workers by the Gearhart bill.

<> Fair employment practices, which had worked so well during war time, have been abandoned.

<> Veterans' pleas for low cost homes have been ignored, and many people are still living in made-over chicken coops and garages.

<> Tax-reduction bills have been passed to benefit the higher-income brackets alone.

<>The average worker saved only $1.73 a week.

<> In the false name of economy, millions of children have been deprived of milk once provided through the federal school lunch program.

This was the payoff of the Republicans' promises.

And this is why we must have new faces in the Congress of the United States: Democratic faces.......
 

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
i'm sorry, who is the only one on this forum to post proof that they pay taxes?

that would be me.

and it is not hypocritical in the least for me to point out how mindmelted lives off of his wife and/or can't do math at the level of a first grader, since i do not live off my wife in any way.

although i do need her to watch these pups so i can go out and buy the lumber for my new 16'x10' indoor greenhouse.
And just how do i live off my wife?
She died january 14 2014
And she was disabled before that since 2000!
So you go a head and keep assuming all you want.
And that $1100 is buying food also.
Sorry to say i do not receive or want any assistance from the government.
And funny that i OWN my home.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
OK, i get it.

you think the government should provide welfare so that corporations do not have to pay a living wage.

in other words, you have no problem with walmart being the biggest welfare queen in the nation.

this is a perfect illustration of why we no longer need unions!
Did the person sign the contract, or did Wall Mart kidnap them and force them to work?

Why do you think an employee should be able to use Govt coercion to unilaterally renegotiate a mutually agreed contract?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
that's not what you were arguing mere moments ago. you said that people earning slightly more than minimum wage should not have to endure the inhumanity of a minimum wage increase.

now you are saying these people should just bootstrap themselves.

why can't you just pick one tune and whistle that one?
The people earning above minimum wage obviously did/are advancing themselves...because theyre no longer at minimum wage.

Seriously, my opinion of you has been trending heavily downwards recently.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
as much as required by law, and not a penny more. just like mitt romney, your savior.
Dude, I said Obama was the lesser of two evils... And I think Obama is dumb as fuck.

Good cop out on the taxes tho, typical "do as I say, not as I do" leftyism.
 

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
so then you qualify for $36 a month health insurance thanks to the subsidies in obamacare now that your wife is dead and being consumed by worms as we speak.

a single wide is not generally considered a house, although some may call it home.

More assumptions from the local know it all.
And no she was burnt up and swimming in the ocean.
And we where really not married,we decide not to long ago.
So have a nice day ub,You are such a outstanding human being.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member

In 1948, Reagan gave the speech Obama should have given this week. Ronald Reagan - then a liberal Democrat - Slams the GOP out of the park! He could craft a message.

Reagan campaigns on the radio for President Truman in 1948. He also supports Hubert Humphrey for Senator from Minnesota and opposes the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 which had been passed by the Republican congress over Truman's veto.

"This is Ronald Reagan speaking to you from Hollywood. You know me as a motion picture actor but tonight I'm just a citizen pretty concerned about the national election next month and more than a little impatient with those promises the Republicans made before they got control of Congress a couple years ago.
I remember listening to the radio on election night in 1946. Joseph Martin, the Republican Speaker of the House, said very solemnly, and I quote,

"We Republicans intend to work for a real increase in income for everybody by encouraging more production and lower prices without impairing wages or working conditions", unquote.

Remember that promise: a real increase in income for everybody. But what actually happened?

The profits of corporations have doubled, while workers' wages have increased by only one-quarter. In other words, profits have gone up four times as much as wages, and the small increase workers did receive was more than eaten up by rising prices, which have also bored into their savings.

For example, here is an Associate Press Dispatch I read the other day about Smith L. Carpenter, a craftsman in Union Springs, New York. It seems that Mr. Carpenter retired some years ago thinking he had enough money saved up that he could live out his last years without having to worry. But he didn’t figure on this Republican inflation, which ate up all of his savings, and so he's gone back to work. The reason this is news, is Mr. Carpenter is 91 years old.
Now, take as a contrast the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, which reported a net profit of $210 million after taxes for the first half of 1948; an increase of 70% in one year. In other words, high prices have not been caused by higher wages, but by bigger and bigger profits.

The Republican promises sounded pretty good in 1946, but what has happened since then, since the 80th Congress took over?

<> Prices have climbed to the highest level in history, although the death of the OPA was supposed to bring prices down through "the natural process of free competition".
<> Labor has been handcuffed with the vicious Taft-Hartley law.

<> Social Security benefits have been snatched away from almost a million workers by the Gearhart bill.

<> Fair employment practices, which had worked so well during war time, have been abandoned.

<> Veterans' pleas for low cost homes have been ignored, and many people are still living in made-over chicken coops and garages.

<> Tax-reduction bills have been passed to benefit the higher-income brackets alone.

<>The average worker saved only $1.73 a week.

<> In the false name of economy, millions of children have been deprived of milk once provided through the federal school lunch program.

This was the payoff of the Republicans' promises.

And this is why we must have new faces in the Congress of the United States: Democratic faces.......
Holy litany of false equivalency, Batman!
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Did the person sign the contract, or did Wall Mart kidnap them and force them to work?

Why do you think an employee should be able to use Govt coercion to unilaterally renegotiate a mutually agreed contract?
we get it, you think that the government should subsidize corporations with welfare so that they do not have to pay a living wage.

but you complain about the welfare state endlessly.

you are a sad little contradiction, and marching in lockstep with your puppet masters.

:clap:

be proud.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The people earning above minimum wage obviously did/are advancing themselves...because theyre no longer at minimum wage.
but you said everyone should try to advance themselves.

you also said that people earning slightly more than minimum wage should not have to endure a minimum wage increase.

but shouldn't they continue to try to advance themselves? they have more resources to bootstrap up, too.

you're just a ball of contradictions today.
 

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
And just how do i live off my wife?
She died january 14 2014
And she was disabled before that since 2000!
So you go a head and keep assuming all you want.
And that $1100 is buying food also.
Sorry to say i do not receive or want any assistance from the government.
And funny that i OWN my home.
Damn. Sorry, brother. Owning one's property is pretty fucking cool. I'm a little jealous (May not be appropriate - socially retarded - appologies)
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
but you said everyone should try to advance themselves.

you also said that people earning slightly more than minimum wage should not have to endure a minimum wage increase.

but shouldn't they continue to try to advance themselves? they have more resources to bootstrap up, too.

you're just a ball of contradictions today.
Word salad and cock swaggle.

No, people earning above minimum wage should not have to deal with an above inflation adjusted minimum wage.

Why do you support swelling the lower class to try advance the lower class?

Its oxyMORONIC.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
No, people earning above minimum wage should not have to deal with an above inflation adjusted minimum wage.
so they don't need to improve themselves? just a moment ago, you said EVERYONE should improve themselves.

Why do you support swelling the lower class to try advance the lower class?
i support a minimum wage indexed to inflation such that anyone who works a full time job does not have to stand in a government welfare line.

i do not think it is the government's place to subsidize a corporation's unlivable wages.

do you think the government should subsidize corporations with welfare? do you think full time workers should stand in welfare lines?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
so they don't need to improve themselves? just a moment ago, you said EVERYONE should improve themselves.



i support a minimum wage indexed to inflation such that anyone who works a full time job does not have to stand in a government welfare line.

i do not think it is the government's place to subsidize a corporation's unlivable wages.

do you think the government should subsidize corporations with welfare? do you think full time workers should stand in welfare lines?
I think people should live with the consequences of their actions, especially if they voluntarily and contractually agreed to trade labour with a corporation for a specified and mutually agreed hourly rate.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I think people should live with the consequences of their actions, especially if they voluntarily and contractually agreed to trade labour with a corporation for a specified and mutually agreed hourly rate.
so in other words, you think it is OK for the government to subsidize corporations with welfare so that their employees may eat?

and you think that full time workers who stock shelves for 40 hours a week should have to stand in a welfare line when they get off of work?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I think people should live with the consequences of their actions, especially if they voluntarily and contractually agreed to trade labour with a corporation for a specified and mutually agreed hourly rate.
If a worker agreed to work for > minimum wage, would that be acceptable?
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
so in other words, you think it is OK for the government to subsidize corporations with welfare so that their employees may eat?

and you think that full time workers who stock shelves for 40 hours a week should have to stand in a welfare line when they get off of work?
Let me pose you a question, since Iv answered a litany of your inane ones.

If AnalExcessGay agrees to cut your lawn for $20, should he be allowed tell you while he's cutting that instead you're going to pay him $22.50, simply because you can afford it?
 
Top