Real Value Of Federal Minimum Wage, 1956-2003, in 2000 Dollars

the only reason I posted this is because the other day I casually mentioned that 'the minimum wage in 1965 was higher than today's mini wage after inflation'. And people said I was crazy. Inflation really pulls the wool over people's eyes and hides a lot doesn't it.

Also, people are very ignorant about unemployment rates. We've had historically high unemployment rates ever since 1970. The unemployment rate today is about 3 times what it was exactly 40 years ago. If you look at a chart of unemployment rates that goes back to 1870 and merely exclude 1930-1945, then you see that unemployment has been very elevated on historical standards since 1970.

As a nation we've imposed cost after cost after cost onto the economy that makes it difficult for us to live and we are ignorant of what we've done. Also, we've become very cold hearted towards the poor. It used to be that if a fellow needed a job, then somebody would make one for that fellow. Not any more.

Some people think that government social programs take care of things. Those programs are dysfunctional. And increasingly the private sector economy is dysfunctional. We've lost 2 million private sector jobs in 2 years and I've actually heard people say that this is normal.

Sure, and there are sales taxes, excise taxes, tarrifs, fees and levies of all sorts, local, State and Federal, direct and indirect, and the wage earner/consumer bears the costs of them ALL, one way or another..

And so?

It is no secret that taxes are too high and that they support bloated, inefficient, useless, bueaucracies. It is agreed that basically, inequitable taxation is theft. Although some taxation is a necessary evil, it must be apportioned equitable among ALL citizens and not made to fall disproportionately on the "rich".

But any analysis of all this needs to proceed from some point of clairty, and that is not served by lumping the Federal Income Tax together with FICA, even if it is a fact that the wage earner bears the cost of both.

As for the inclusion of non-citizens in FICA, yes, this is something that has recently come about for Mexico, although it has been a fact of life for more years than that for other countires, such as Korea. That's why I can collect a Korean pension, as well as my US social security when the time comes. Rationalization of the national pension schemes of different countries has been going on for a long time and ultimately it will reduce costs by eliminating pension overlap. As part of this rationalization it is necessary to deal with those individuals that may have participated in multiple schemes. This is the grandfathering I am talking about and it is self-limiting.

Look, Social Security reform MUST be advanced on the Bush agenda, but it doesn't serve anyone to scare people with unrealistic scenarios.

that's a good question. and I read this stat a long time ago I'm not 100% sure it's still current, but I bet it is. But the article I read said transfer payments were just transfering money from the taxpayers to individuals and not for salaries, but just transferring the money for some other reason. THis would be welfare, social security, medicaire, agriculture subsidies, low income housing tax credits, these types of things called corporate welfare. any time they transfer money to somebody just for income redistribution. The agriculture subsidies today are massive. The farmers who get em are almost all millionaires. The low income housing tax credits are much bigger today than 10 years ago. These go straight to big corps that have a lot of money. I used to work in lowincome housing tax credits. The big rich corps benefit a lot more from that program than the poor. One reason some people get rich is they find a government program that pays out money for this purpose or that and they fill out applications to get the money. It happens a lot. People understand that social security is generally a welfare program because the beneficiaries of social security generally don't pay their own way, they receive transfer payments. But a lot of people don't know that the upper income people over 65 get a lot more in transfer payments than the poor over 65 get. Social security historically gives back a lot more than you pay in, but if you are upper income your money is multiplied much more than if you are poor. The whole idea that our federal budget is so big because of compassion for the poor is just silly. IT's not true at all. We spend money in every direction. The bureaucrats benefit a lot more than the poor. And as I said the rich get more in transfer payments than the poor do. THe middle class get little compared to either the rich or tte poor. Just trying to clear up misconceptions.

That is interesting information which I will have to digest. In general, I believe that all transfer payments are morally wrong - after all, the government is coercing people to pay money directly to another person with nothing of equal value given to them in return, at the point of a gun, both figuratively and literally, combined with the threat of loss of liberty. That is virtually indistinguishable from any other form of theft, extortion, coercion, except that the entity doing the theft is larger and more powerful than the typical criminal.

My first thought about some of the "transfer payments" attributed to the uppermost percentile of income earners, though, is that it is an "apples to oranges" comparison which obscures the situation rather than exposing it for rational analysis.

A payment for which the government (a.k.a. "the people") ostensibly receives something tangible in return (low income housing credits, agricultural subsidies) is categorically different from a payment for which there is no return of something of putatively equal value (Social Security, welfare, Medicare). [admittedly, some people would make the collectivist argument that feeding and sheltering the poor is a tangible benefit, but that would require a tortured interpretation of the concept of paying dollars and receiving equal value in return] Although they both suffer from the same defect in that the benefit, tangible or otherwise, goes to someone other than the one who paid for it. Arguably that also applies to things such as construction of roads (if they are paid for out of general revenues - that objection would seem to disappear if they were financed solely through tax levies placed on actual users of roads, airports, etc. in proper proportion), and so both agricultural subsidies and low income housing subsidies are deficient in that regard.

But I am still troubled by lumping together such distinctly different types of transfers under the same category. For example, it would certainly cost the government substantial sums to provide low income housing directly rather than through surrogates - either way, money is expended and something tangible is returned. That is distinctly different from Social Security, Medicare, welfare, etc.

Another troubling flaw in the practice of lumping together those disparate things under the category of "transfer payments" is that the use of the "per capita" measurement is grossly misleading on its face. For broadly-based transfer payments such as Social Security, Medicare, and welfare, there are large numbers of recipients, and so the concept of "per capita" is probably meaningful. By contrast, lumping together transfers such as low income housing credits and agricultural subsidies that go to a small number of recipients in that top quintile along with payments such as Social Security that go to large numbers of recipients makes the "per capita" measurement effectively meaningless. In fact, it is clear that those two categorically different types of transfers are being lumped together precisely for the purpose of using the "per capita" statistic to mislead readers, instead of to enlighten their understanding. In effect, statistical trickery is being perpetrated on the reader by the misleading use of a meaningless "per capita" measurement. It's an insidious misuse of statistics - that kind of manipulation should be obvious to any person with a high school education, however it requires application of critical thinking skills which require more effort than many people are willing to invest when reading an article or listening to an argument.

So, I believe that recognition of that fact rather convincingly takes all of the air out of your argument that the poor are getting a raw deal. I do think that you have a supportable argument about the unfairness of the agricultural subsidy, however, and you may or may not have a sustainable argument about low income housing credits.

I think you are right on. Maybe my memory is failing but it seems to me that in 1965 if a person made three times the minimum wage he could support a family. Three times today's minimum wage would support a single person perhaps but I think it would be very difficult to for a young man to support a wife and children on it and I live in a low living cost area. My father worked as a carpenter in the fifties and supported my mother and four sons. Admittedly we didn't live like people do today but in my area today a carpenter has zero chance of supporting a wife and four children without any other income. Carpenter's wages here would barely support the carpenter today if he lives in a single wide trailer. I knew people when I was growing up who lived a lifestyle that would be considered poor today and yet they owned a hundred acres of land or more.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.