|
1945->2013 Wage conversion
10 florins per pound
wage 400 pounds
1/3 ounce per florin
current silver value $23.77 per ounce
Minimum Wage: $94,129.2 (that's $45/hour, 8 hour day, 5 days per week, 52 weeks a year)
So if you are on Minimum Wage you should be getting Eighty thousand dollars per year more than you are at the moment.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
String theory invalidates inflation, therefore purple are ducks. With massive wind farms. And shipping container ghettos. For women immigrants only. Unless they have ever been caught on tape stealing mangoes.
Does purchasing power of silver now is the same as in 1945?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many silvers is 40,000 quatloos?
why do you think the american government took their currency off the precious metal standard?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rephrase the question as whether you have less purchasing power than you would have in 1945. The answer would be yes. Back then, you could make a living off of the minimum wage.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the ratio is that bad but I do think wages are far behind where they should be.
Either that or my father's stories of paying for college while working a minimum wage job is full of lies.
Or alternatively, that the prices of certain things have risen far more than they should have.
|
|
why do you think the american government took their currency off the precious metal standard?For the same reason everyone else did?
Arbitrarily tying your money supply to the amount of particular metals you have is silly. And damaging to your economy.
South Africa Laughs and says Want some Gold coins?
Also, back then public colleges got far more direct government funding than they do now. Now much more of their budget comes from tuition. Still subsidized of course, but now it's in the form of loans.I don't think the ratio is that bad but I do think wages are far behind where they should be.
Either that or my father's stories of paying for college while working a minimum wage job is full of lies.
Yeah. In the UK, five years ago I started on my degree and had my course fees paid plus a small grant for materials/equipment.
I had to stop partway through the first year, and recently restarted.
Now all I get is a loan for the fees, which have also risen further than inflation.
|
|
I'd rephrase the question as whether you have less purchasing power than you would have in 1945. The answer would be yes. Back then, you could make a living off of the minimum wage.
And in a straight silver conversion your wage back then was worth 94 thousand...so yes you could buy a sack of apples for a florin Which as something that cost about seven dollars today in the same buying power in silver.
So Wage go down...you just shown shell game to make you think it go up.
South Africa Laughs and says Want some Gold coins?why do you think the american government took their currency off the precious metal standard?For the same reason everyone else did?
Arbitrarily tying your money supply to the amount of particular metals you have is silly. And damaging to your economy.
here's some economics homework, so you can know what you're talking about.
And gigantopithecus was a herbivore.
South Africa got off the gold standard before the US did.
|
|
South Africa Laughs and says Want some Gold coins?why do you think the american government took their currency off the precious metal standard?For the same reason everyone else did?
Arbitrarily tying your money supply to the amount of particular metals you have is silly. And damaging to your economy.
Despite it's gold South Africa has less of an economy than New York City does.
And by the way, South Africa's currency isn't tied to gold any more than the United States does. South Africa's gold coins are like those minted in the United States. They're minted for collectors, and sold for far above their currency and metal value.
And eventually they will feel the same effect.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm definitely making more money now. I wasn't even alive in 1945!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, when it comes to purchasing power, they recently did a study (I'll post the link when I have more time to google...) about how much it costs in major cities to support a 4-person family (two parents, two kids) at a minimum standard of living (2-bedroom apartment, paid-off car, nutritious but not luxurious food, etc.).
In Seattle, it costs about $70,000 a year to do that.
Minimum wage comes out to about $15,000 a year. So, two parents both working two full-time minimum wage jobs can't do it. Given that supposedly in the 1950s you could raise a family with one parent working one minimum wage job, I'd say there's an issue there as far as what we consider fair wages.
I would even have as much of a problem with the idea that both parents have to work one full-time minimum-wage job to make it, but the fact that they can't do it with both of them working 80 hours a week is ridiculous.
[Whistles innocently while surreptitiously dropping a fun commie link and trying to appear incognito]
Vive le Galt!!
Alright, this is what you do: divide the country into 10 roughly equivalent in population "economic zones." You then raise the minimum wage in one (chosen at random) to $10/hour. Study the way the economy is affected in the zone for three years. If overall beneficial, wherein the cost of living does not rapidly increase due to the increase in wages, then implement it again in another randomly selected economic zone, but study it there for two years. Once again, if overall more beneficial, the continue to slowly implement in the other eight zones over 16 years with one small control: cost of living increase continually, so continually increase minimum wage. A good way to manage this is to account for cost of living for a decent if not splendorous life as seen in Jessica Price's post above mine.
I was just wondering how long it would take Comrade Anklebiter to crash this party... welcome, sir!
Yeah, my father has stories of putting himself through college by working at a cannery over the summers, which I'm sure didn't pay much more than minimum wage; I'm sure we would laugh hysterically over anyone trying to do that now.
Jessica, please do post that link when you find it; I'm interested as to where my part of the country falls in their measurements.
[Whistles innocently while surreptitiously dropping a fun commie link and trying to appear incognito]
Vive le Galt!!
Hey, Minneapolis is my home town! Coolness! Thanks for the link, Comrade A. Whoops, I wasn't supposed to know that was you, was I. Sorry!
Here you go -- this focuses on Seattle, but it's got a link to the study, which covers most major metropolitan areas: http://kuow.org/post/study-family-seattle-needs-70000-year-live-modestly
Well, when it comes to purchasing power, they recently did a study (I'll post the link when I have more time to google...) about how much it costs in major cities to support a 4-person family (two parents, two kids) at a minimum standard of living (2-bedroom apartment, paid-off car, nutritious but not luxurious food, etc.).
In Seattle, it costs about $70,000 a year to do that.
Minimum wage comes out to about $15,000 a year. So, two parents both working two full-time minimum wage jobs can't do it. Given that supposedly in the 1950s you could raise a family with one parent working one minimum wage job, I'd say there's an issue there as far as what we consider fair wages.
I would even have as much of a problem with the idea that both parents have to work one full-time minimum-wage job to make it, but the fact that they can't do it with both of them working 80 hours a week is ridiculous.
I have less of a problem with minimum wage levels (they are terrible) than I have with middle-wage stagnation and reduction. The fact that the guy working the fryer 25 hours a week at jack-in-the-box makes $7.35 an hour is not as big a problem (to me) as that guy's boss making $9.50. The number of jobs paying $30-$100k are shrinking and those jobs which are still around are paying less in forms of benefits and actual wage (both pay cuts and inflation). Retail in general has been hit extremely hard by this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a problem with both, as neither is really enough to live on.
But I have a bigger problem with the minimum wage levels because, call me a bleeding heart, but I think if you work a 40 hour a week job, you should be able to afford at least a studio apartment, a modest car payment, and sufficient groceries -- that is, any full-time job should be enough to support yourself in most major cities. And if you get married, and have a kid, you and your spouse shouldn't have to work 80 hours a week each to feed, clothe, house and transport your kid.
Taking your example, if $7.35 an hour were actually enough to do all that, I wouldn't have an issue with the guy's boss being paid only $9.50, because that scale doesn't seem unreasonable (a worker being paid $50,000, for example, with a boss being paid $65,000, seems normal, and it's roughly the same ratio).
The issue is, neither of them is making anywhere close to what they need for the basics I listed above. But I don't understand how the fact that the boss is also getting screwed makes the minimum wage less of an issue -- especially, given that the boss's salary is probably calculated based on what the minimum is.
[Whistles innocently while surreptitiously dropping a fun commie link and trying to appear incognito]
Vive le Galt!!
Now I imagined Goblin with over the top mustache glued to his upper lip...
Jessica, could image of Doodlebug with mustaches drawn on be added to list of available images? Or make it into a custom avatar for our resident communist goblin at least?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Whistles innocently while surreptitiously dropping a fun commie link and trying to appear incognito]
Vive le Galt!!
Now I imagined Goblin with over the top mustache glued to his upper lip...
Jessica, could image of Doodlebug with mustaches drawn on be added to list of available images? Or make it into a custom avatar for our resident communist goblin at least?
Groucho Marx glasses & mustache. For a Marxist.
Note: I am not an expert or even educated in economics below is a combination or random musings and opinion...
I agree that minimum wage is way too low, infact the wages for almost all low to middle class jobs are too low and are only getting lower. But I cant think of anyway to fix it short of getting out the final blades and showing the 1% what we think of their treatment (viva la galt!) but I dont think things have gotten bad enough to warrant that yet.
You raise minimum wage...cost of living goes up...leave it the same...nothing changes...its lose/lose
But about the fact that minimum wage went alot farther in 1945. One thing we have to remember is that there are alot more things that we pay for and consider "needs" that didnt exist back then. Such as internet, cell phones, and expencive modern medications. Im not saying that these things are not things we need I am just saying that combined with normal inflation this has had an impact.
Hey, Minneapolis is my home town! Coolness! Thanks for the link, Comrade A. Whoops, I wasn't supposed to know that was you, was I. Sorry!
Honk, honk!
[Harpo Anklebiter performs a cartwheel and out of his pocket falls a fun commie link.]
Vive le Galt!
|
|
Well, when it comes to purchasing power, they recently did a study (I'll post the link when I have more time to google...) about how much it costs in major cities to support a 4-person family (two parents, two kids) at a minimum standard of living (2-bedroom apartment, paid-off car, nutritious but not luxurious food, etc.).
In Seattle, it costs about $70,000 a year to do that.
Minimum wage comes out to about $15,000 a year. So, two parents both working two full-time minimum wage jobs can't do it. Given that supposedly in the 1950s you could raise a family with one parent working one minimum wage job, I'd say there's an issue there as far as what we consider fair wages.
I would even have as much of a problem with the idea that both parents have to work one full-time minimum-wage job to make it, but the fact that they can't do it with both of them working 80 hours a week is ridiculous.
*Not looking to do a sexist thing here* During The Great War American men went to war and American Women were left to work the factories and such in a large scale. War ended, men came home, women and men now worked and for a time all was prosperous and wonderful. Big Business sees excess money in American families' pockets and slowly raises the cost of things to coincide with the new standard of 2 people income households, leveling the cost with the income of such standards (why should people have excess funds for fun and excesses like good educations and cars and such). This eventually becomes the norm.
That said, I don't understand how one minimum wage income could raise a family and now 2 can't even come close, but our standard for how many people's wages it takes to raise a household changed mostly due to WW2. I wish that the only thing that changed was that women could work and support the family as a sole provider on an equal footing as men could during the time but unfortunately that isn't what happened. A sole provider can't even attempt to be such without a minimum of 50k a year, and that is cutting corners and not living in high income areas.
After World War II, returning American GIs mostly displaced women from the workforce. It wasn't until the '74 stock market crash and the opening shots of the capitalists' war on the proletariat's standard of living that both partners working started to become the norm.
|
|
After World War II, returning American GIs mostly displaced women from the workforce. It wasn't until the '74 stock market crash and the opening shots of the capitalists' war on the proletariat's standard of living that both partners working started to become the norm.
I agree, but the door was opened in WW2 and from WW2 until the 70's people could be 2-income households easier and reap the benefits of being such. Sure it took 30 years to become the norm but the outline was put into place during WW2 and once this became the norm (mid 70s sounds right to me) we have seen the cost of living adjust to what income is being made by the families instead of what the cost to manufacture thing needed by families is. The breakdown here is that the excess is not be funneled into the 99% who work-a-day through life. It is going into people's pockets who are not content having 10X what the 99% have, they want 100X or 1000X, or 10,000X, etc.
The disparity between the working class and the rich has grown. Meanwhile families struggle with having both parents working and the absence and strain caused by working translates into less time actually parenting and raising children with morals and values and we get to see the results translated into a worsening of society in general.And everywhere I turn I get to see Kim Kardashian's stupid face as she spends more on a cake than my family has to spend for a year.
When is the Night of the Long Knives coming again?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly, as much as we can complain about those "with the money", there's precious little that can or will happen to make them go "crap, people are poor and we should help." In fact, many of the wealthiest people pour tons of money into various charities, and the fact that the company continues to turn a profit is why they have the benefits for employees they do have.
What we need to do is realize that there are great jobs out there that people don't necessarily want. We've been told since high school (or earlier, depending on how old you are) that certain jobs/fields were somehow "not good". For example, working fast food, being in a call center, sanitation work, factory jobs, etc. The sad thing is that many of these jobs beat out the minimum (or barely above minimum) jobs that many of us wind up seeking out when we finish up school. Let me give you an example.
I'm 32, I have 3 different B.A. degrees, and a cumulative 10+ years of call center experience. I make about 15-16 dollars/hour (I'm salaried, but that's what my PTO pays out). Now my friend, with zero education, was working for a factory, getting paid $20/hour, with mandatory overtime of 10 hours a week (so $30/hour for OT). I make roughly $35k a year, he makes $57k. In another example, my friend decided to work at McDonald's to try something new. Within 6 months she was a shift manager and makes just as much as I do today (with my 10 years experience).
So what's the point? If we want to directly impact what people are getting paid, we as a generation need to start looking at these "undesirable" jobs and start taking them. Currently we have a glut of over-qualified people in our workforce. This allows companies to pick and choose who they want, and pay what they want to pay, because there is an over-supply of people to do the job. If we start taking the "crap" jobs, we'll make money, and corporations will need to start raising wages to compete with the low-skill job market.
Seriously though, I'm so angry no one ever slapped me and told me to build tractors. At 57k a year out of high school I'd be retiring in about 10 years now.
I live in ND. I live off 35k a year currently, at 57k I'd be able to put 20k a year straight into retirement.
Edit: Of course, that's me being single, living with a roommate in a 3 bedroom trailer house. Not exactly Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, but we get by.
Well keep in mind we have winter weather that frequently creeps into the 30 below or worse (when including windchill and other factors). So a lot of folks can't handle our weather.
And despite what the media would have you believe, we do not have a ton of "great paying oil jobs" in our state. Those jobs are awful and the whole industry is really creating a negative impact in that part of the state.
The big reason I can live as cheaply as I do is housing. I pay about $330 in rent (and utilities) each month for my aforementioned trailer. A nice 2-bedroom apartment in Fargo will probably run someone 650-900 a month. Public transportation blows, so you'll need a vehicle (gas around 3.50/gallon currently).
Yeah the required values will be much lower, generally, the smaller a city you live in, or the further from a major metropolitan area you are. Rural living can be really inexpensive. On the same token, though, the average earnings in such areas tend to be lower as well.
I live just outside Chattanooga, TN and make about $20,000/year not counting overtime and before taxes. I don't have a ton of spare cash, but I can make my required expenses more often than not.
The answer is that if you wanted to live like you did in 1945, you could do so quite a bit cheaper than what people think it takes to live today.
So if you want to do a true comparison between a minimum wage earner today and back then, factor in living in a much smaller house, or more likely, a tenement, no air conditioning, no TV, no cable, no internet, no refrigerator, probably no washer/dryer, an electric bill that mostly covered light bulbs and maybe some fans, a basic no-frills automobile (if that, 1945 is about when automobiles were becoming commonplace), etc.
In 1945 for the relative few who owned their own homes, their mortgage was by far the single largest expense of the household, there was no significant electricity bill, no cable TV bill, no internet, no homeowners association fees, no car loan payment, etc. Their second largest expense was probably groceries, and then clothing. After that it was maybe a movie or a trip to the drugstore for a malted soda from time to time.
All that modern convenience actually costs money you know. I know that's hard to grasp, but it's really not free. None of it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The answer is that if you wanted to live like you did in 1945, you could do so quite a bit cheaper than what people think it takes to live today.
I think you may want to check out that study I posted.
So if you want to do a true comparison between a minimum wage earner today and back then, factor in living in a much smaller house, or more likely, a tenement
The study I posted budgeted, for a two-parent, two-child family, for renting a two-bedroom apartment in the 40th percentile of rent costs -- that is, housing that was deemed "structurally safe" and "sanitary."
no air conditioning,
The study I posted did not budget for air conditioning, unless it was standard for the percentile.
no TV, no cable,
Study did not include cable costs in the budget.
no internet, no refrigerator, probably no washer/dryer, an electric bill that mostly covered light bulbs and maybe some fans,
Given that the utilities costs were small, paying for the electricity for these things is not the difference between surviving and not surviving on the budget outlined. The study also does not appear to budget for internet access.
a basic no-frills automobile (if that, 1945 is about when automobiles were becoming commonplace), etc.
The budget included the costs of operating a car to get to work. As far as I can tell, it did not include car payments, just owning/operating costs.
In 1945 for the relative few who owned their own homes, their mortgage was by far the single largest expense of the household,
In 1945, 53% of the population owned homes. Hardly "the relative few." But as I noted, the study I linked had a budget for renting, not owning.
Their second largest expense was probably groceries, and then clothing. After that it was maybe a movie or a trip to the drugstore for a malted soda from time to time.
Budget uses the low-cost food budget put forth by the USDA, which assumes almost all food is prepared at home.
All that modern convenience actually costs money you know. I know that's hard to grasp, but it's really not free. None of it is.
Nope. The standard of living compared is pretty similar, and doesn't include much in the way of "modern convenience." And you can't do it, here in the Seattle area at least, for less than $70k.
thejeff, yes, it is true that poor people are punished by generally having to choose economically disadvantageous options because they lack the leverage that wealthier people have, and that tends to keep them from saving money to move them out of poverty.
However, this thread isn't supposed to be about poverty, but whether comparable social strata have comparable lifestyles between now and 1945.
Jessica, I'm not going by any published study when I mention the costs of the "conveniences" I mentioned. I'm looking at my own budget, and I can tell you right now that if I didn't pay for cable, cell phones, internet, air conditioning and a slew of other things, I'd have a lot more money in my pocket each month. A lot more. Easily enough to buy a much bigger house, a second car or a fancy boat if I wanted.
Also, there was some study done at some point that looked at the economic impact of moving from a one-income family to a two-income family that predicted that eventually the cost of living would migrate towards the average income of the average house, not the average income of a single wage earner. And that's probably what is really happening here. Minimum wage may well be "less" now than in 1945, but that may be entirely due to the economy adjusting to an average house now having more than one income. That would mean that a single-income family would have been punished by economic forces, not by minimum wage policies.
Also, using Seattle as an example of an "average" city.
Bwwaaahahhhahhaaaaahaahaaaa!