Individual perceptions

Rick wrote: I've looked through what he said a few times noow and don't see this condescension in tone, unless saying "I'll give you a hint" is what you are talking about. Too bad LJ isn't here, then you could really see what a condescension in tone looks like.

Oh well, this thread has run it's course anyway.

I can see where you might not get the condescension in this particular post, and, yes, it is the "I'll give you a hint" in this one that made me react the way I did because, truth is, this is only one of a whole bunch of others (as previously stated). Your comment regarding LJ is irrelevant to this discussion. As far as this thread running its course is concerned, perhaps you're right - but perhaps you're wrong, too. Time will tell.

Very well written, IMO.

www.epi.org/publication/safety-net-savin...aising-minimum-wage/

Goes to everything being discussed in this thread.

ZHawke wrote: Very well written, IMO.

www.epi.org/publication/safety-net-savin...aising-minimum-wage/

Goes to everything being discussed in this thread.

It's actually a pack of lies packaged together to make it sound reasonable. In 1950 the federal minimum wage was $0.75/hr, equivalent to $7.41/hr today when the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. In Colorado, the minimum wage is higher, $8.00/hr, and by constitutional decree it will go up every year. That is where the minimum wage should be set, at the State level, rather than have a one size fits none federal standard. $7.25 in NYC isn't anything approaching $7.25 in Denver, CO and yet because of federal law, the employers in NYC are able to set that wage for their workers. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it. Yeah, gotta love centralized government and the harm it does to the general welfare of not only the Union but every individual residing in it in circumstances such as this.

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: Very well written, IMO.

www.epi.org/publication/safety-net-savin...aising-minimum-wage/

Goes to everything being discussed in this thread.

It's actually a pack of lies packaged together to make it sound reasonable. In 1950 the federal minimum wage was $0.75/hr, equivalent to $7.41/hr today when the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. In Colorado, the minimum wage is higher, $8.00/hr, and by constitutional decree it will go up every year. That is where the minimum wage should be set, at the State level, rather than have a one size fits none federal standard. $7.25 in NYC isn't anything approaching $7.25 in Denver, CO and yet because of federal law, the employers in NYC are able to set that wage for their workers. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it. Yeah, gotta love centralized government and the harm it does to the general welfare of not only the Union but every individual residing in it in circumstances such as this.

A "pack of lies", eh? You provide no source for your data. I'm not saying your information is false. I'd just like to see where you got it. If individual states could be relied upon to set a realistic minimum wage for their working poor I'd be all for it. I agree a "one size fits all" approach isn't necessarily a good thing. Leaving it to the individual states may, in fact, be the way to go. It may not, as well. Time would only tell.

Data comes from US Dept of Labor Wage and Hour Division and the Bureau of Labor Statistics dot gov inflation calculator. If'n you want to compare it to the original minimum wage set by the federal government, $0.25/hr as a result of the 1938 law, adjusted for inflation that would come to $4.22/hr. Of course the statists are going to pick a different year, 1968, after the steepest increase to the minimum wage law was enacted by "progressive" Democrats, which illustrates just how deceptive the statists are on this subject.

But I want you to consider just how soon after the 1968 law was signed by LBJ that it was that the dollar was totally divorced from being attached to gold and started being valued according to debt instruments, a policy that continues to this day. Think of that for a moment Z. In 1968, prior to the launch of the "Great Society", minimum wages were set at $1.60/hr. Twelve short years later that figure had essentially doubled just to keep pace with the inflation that resulted from the Keynesians artificial expansion of the economy of the Union with their raising the minimum wage by 60% compared to what it was the year Kennedy was elected. And they want to do essentially the same thing now? I guess it's true, those that fail to learn the lessons of history are indeed doomed to repeat them . . .

PrintSmith wrote: Data comes from US Dept of Labor Wage and Hour Division and the Bureau of Labor Statistics dot gov inflation calculator. If'n you want to compare it to the original minimum wage set by the federal government, $0.25/hr as a result of the 1938 law, adjusted for inflation that would come to $4.22/hr. Of course the statists are going to pick a different year, 1968, after the steepest increase to the minimum wage law was enacted by "progressive" Democrats, which illustrates just how deceptive the statists are on this subject.

But I want you to consider just how soon after the 1968 law was signed by LBJ that it was that the dollar was totally divorced from being attached to gold and started being valued according to debt instruments, a policy that continues to this day. Think of that for a moment Z. In 1968, prior to the launch of the "Great Society", minimum wages were set at $1.60/hr. Twelve short years later that figure had essentially doubled just to keep pace with the inflation that resulted from the Keynesians artificial expansion of the economy of the Union with their raising the minimum wage by 60% compared to what it was the year Kennedy was elected. And they want to do essentially the same thing now? I guess it's true, those that fail to learn the lessons of history are indeed doomed to repeat them . . .

Once again, would you consider providing an actual link?

PrintSmith wrote: Data comes from US Dept of Labor Wage and Hour Division and the Bureau of Labor Statistics dot gov inflation calculator. If'n you want to compare it to the original minimum wage set by the federal government, $0.25/hr as a result of the 1938 law, adjusted for inflation that would come to $4.22/hr. Of course the statists are going to pick a different year, 1968, after the steepest increase to the minimum wage law was enacted by "progressive" Democrats, which illustrates just how deceptive the statists are on this subject.

But I want you to consider just how soon after the 1968 law was signed by LBJ that it was that the dollar was totally divorced from being attached to gold and started being valued according to debt instruments, a policy that continues to this day. Think of that for a moment Z. In 1968, prior to the launch of the "Great Society", minimum wages were set at $1.60/hr. Twelve short years later that figure had essentially doubled just to keep pace with the inflation that resulted from the Keynesians artificial expansion of the economy of the Union with their raising the minimum wage by 60% compared to what it was the year Kennedy was elected. And they want to do essentially the same thing now? I guess it's true, those that fail to learn the lessons of history are indeed doomed to repeat them . . .

I did find this link: money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/

It helped explain a lot for me, personally. I don't think I can agree with you that raising the minimum wage, no matter at what point, was the "cause" of all our societal ills - at least that's the implied message I'm getting from you. If I'm wrong on that, please accept my apologies.

I also found this link: www.minimum-wage.org/history.asp

From a more "social(ist?)" perspective, I can see why a Federal minimum wage was put in place. Individual states can, and often-times do, vary their own minimum wage standards from the one at the Federal level.

I just do not understand why, given our nation's history of exploitation of low wage workers, children, and more, that anyone would be opposed to something like this. But, that's just me.

And then there's this:

That you would even attempt to give legitimacy to a graph that assigns 3 years to one group, four to another and roughly 40 to the last one and think it legitimate only demonstrates the depths of deception that you are willing to stoop to in pursuit of an ideology. Sorry Z, you'll have to do much better than that in this forum.

PrintSmith wrote: That you would even attempt to give legitimacy to a graph that assigns 3 years to one group, four to another and roughly 40 to the last one and think it legitimate only demonstrates the depths of deception that you are willing to stoop to in pursuit of an ideology. Sorry Z, you'll have to do much better than that in this forum.

Interesting you should say that given the fact you still haven't provided any viable links to information you've shared previously. The meme I provided cites as its source the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You've said your sources are taken from, and I quote:

US Dept of Labor Wage and Hour Division and the Bureau of Labor Statistics dot gov inflation calculator

So, I must ask why the information I posted is flawed, but yours is supposedly real? I'll share with you the actual source of this meme if you agree to share your source. Fair enough?