OT: Minimum Wage and What It Buys You: 1950s to Now

Really interesting article from The Fiscal Times:

By LEAH KONEN, The Fiscal Times
April 04, 2012

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Sli ... px?index=1

1950

Often looked to as a model era, the 1950s may have been nearly as picture-perfect as Leave it to Beaver seemed to suggest minimum wage workers could pay rent for a month for less than a week and a half of full-time work or catch Disney’s Cinderella for just over a half-hour of labor.

Minimum wage: $0.75/hour
Gas: $0.27 or 22m
Movie ticket: $0.48 or 38m
Rent: $42 or 56hrs

(All figures represent the average cost of a movie ticket, a gallon of gas, and the median rent.)

1960

By 1960, the minimum wage of $1 had not quite kept up with inflation, making rent a bit less affordable though still not quite two weeks of minimum-wage work. On the other hand, filling up the Corvette was actually relatively cheaper it took just under twenty minutes of work to get a gallon of gas.

Minimum wage: $1/hour
Gas: $0.31 or 19m
Movie ticket: $0.69 or 41m
Rent: $71 or 71hrs

1970

In 1970, the outlook for minimum-wage workers was about as bright as a spinning disco ball. Compared to ten years before, the cost of rent and gas actually decreased. Movie tickets were the one exception gaining in popularity and breadth (31 movies were released in 1970, compared to just 19 in 1960 and 11 in 1950), the cost of a ticket saw a big hike, and was the equivalent of a near hour of work.

Minimum wage: $1.60/hour
Gas: $0.36 or 14m
Movie ticket: $1.55 or 58m
Rent: $108 or 67.5hrs

1980

The beginning of Reagan’s era marked the last in which paying the median rent was semi-feasible on a single minimum-wage income. A minimum wage worker could still pay rent with just under two weeks of work (but that’s still double the ratio that HUD recommends). Of course, if you lived in a more affordable area, you’d be in better shape. In Mississippi, for example, you’d only have to put in 58 hours of work to pay the median rent there.

Minimum wage: $3.10/hour
Gas: $1.25 or 24m
Movie ticket: $2.60 or 50m
Rent: $243 or 78hrs

[*Poster's Comment:: The beginning of "Reaganomics" (the "trickle down theory"), i.e. "pee on the peons"!]*Slinky

1990

By 1990, renting an average place on minimum-wage pay became near impossible. Employees would need to work 118 hours (that’s nearly 70 percent of gross monthly pay) to get shelter. And entertainment was no easier. You’d have to work over an hour to see Home Alone or Pretty Woman. The one bright spot was gas prices were actually down from ten years prior, meaning earners only had to put in about a third of an hour of work to afford a gallon.

Minimum wage: $3.80/hour
Gas: $1.13 or 18m
Movie ticket: $4.23 or 1hr, 7m
Rent: $447 or 118hrs

2000

By the time George W. Bush got to office, things were no better though arguably, no worse. With a minimum wage of only $5.15 (it hadn’t raised since 1995, and wouldn’t again until eight years later in 2008) workers still had to work nearly 120 hours to afford median rent and more than an hour for a trip to the cinema.

Minimum wage: $5.15/hour
Gas: $1.49 or 17m
Movie ticket: $5. 39 or 1hr, 3m
Rent: $602 or 117hrs

2010

Though the housing crash actually made rent more affordable, minimum-wage workers still had to put in 109 hours of work (or more than 60% of monthly income) in 2010. Of course, in cities like New York, the numbers are much higher. In 2010, the NY-Northern NJ-Long Island area had a median gross rent of $1,125, which equals 155 hours of work. Basically, if you worked full-time, didn’t eat, commute, or pay utilities, and gave nearly every penny to your landlord, you could just make it in the Big Apple.

Minimum wage: $7.25/hour
Gas: $2.78 or 23m
Movie ticket: $7.95 or 1hr, 6m
Rent: $790 or 109hrs

Slinky wrote: Minimum wage: $7.25/hour
Gas: $2.78 or 23m
Movie ticket: $7.95 or 1hr, 6m
Rent: $790 or 109hrs

I think maybe their #'s are a bit off. I got triggered by "though the housing crash actually made rent more affordable" to investigate, because that's not quite right because the demand for renting has gone up, hence a tendency to cause prices to rise with demand. After looking at the facts, both forces are driving rents and rent has plateau'd at about $700/mo. So, I just got the workbook for the median rent for the USA from census.gov and it's $716 for the 2nd Quarter, 2012 or 98 hrs of work, which seems right to me (I rent 2 apartments for my college sons). So, gas is about the same as "way back", movies have gotten quite a bit more expensive (and much more sophisticated in their production) and rent is similar to somewhere to the 80's and 90's.

I remember back in the early 60s when my brother in law and his pregnant wife moved from Michigan to California (all their belongings on a flatbed truck we really didn't have any faith would make it that far - but it did!!!). It was considerably cheaper to buy a house than to rent!!

And land of opportunity they've done wonderfully out there, raised a large family, built a beautiful home ....

I'll take 1968, please.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html

Comparing pre and post Reaganomics minimum wage levels is like comparing apples and oranges.

The pre-Reaganomics economy was still based on a manufacturing economy that still produced US exports and GDP in parallel with our debt growth.

The post Reaganomics economy we currently find ourselves in is based on an addiction to mass consumption of imports paid for with out-of-control and unsustainable exponential debt growth pushed on us by the financial fraud industry.


Basically, Reaganomics introduced the silent coup d'état of our government (yes, both political parties) by Wall Street banksters, who by the way contribute zero to GDP.



Can you say "redistribution of wealth"?

What actually trickled down was an unsustainable debt burden on the lower income working class.

Like I said: "Reaganomics" = "trickle down theory" = "PEE ON THE PEONS!"

Slinky wrote:Like I said: "Reaganomics" = "trickle down theory" = "PEE ON THE PEONS!"

I failed to make myself clear to my good friend Slinky, and I apologize. It is NOT a matter of pinning the tail on the Donkey ... or the Elephant.

The tail belongs squarely on the financial fraud industry ... the bankster cartel. Basically, our political, financial, and economic systems are joined and corrupted to the core and the damage is irreversible, the consequences inevitable.

Here is a link to a to a well presented explanation of why the minimum wage, tax cuts, obamacare, war on drugs/terror/poverty/etc, or any other political wedge issue is irrelevant ... some good YouTube videos included for those who don't like to read.

http://www.crisishq.com/why-prepare/eco ... nevitable/

The only solution is to make others aware and for each of us to prepare ... the more of us there are aware and prepared, the easier it will be for us to help each other out to get through the transition we all face during the next decade.

DreamStalker wrote: . . . the damage is irreversible, the consequences inevitable. . . . make others aware and for each of us to prepare ... the more of us there are aware and prepared, the easier it will be for us to help each other out to get through the transition we all face . . . .

No prophet is accepted in his own home forum. -- Luke 4:24.

I still say give me 1968.

jnk wrote:
I still say give me 1968.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -- Mathew 7:7


I still say awaken thyself from the American Nightmare and prepare to meet your brothers and sisters.

Wow! I suddenly have the urge to put flowers in my hair and to drive my Beetle to San Franscisco!

Very funny, DreamStalker!

Slinky wrote: minimum wage

Before making comparisons we should first know the item we want to compare.

I will quote some recent statistics from memory.

A mere 3.3% of the workforce makes minimum wage and those making less than minimum wage (all jobs are not covered by the min wage laws) bring the total up to 5%.


Yes, 95% of the jobs voluntarily pay more than minimum wage because employers want better employees.

Now another statistic this time about the households that minimum-wage earners live in. The average household income is $51,000. Not what you expected?

So who makes minimum wage? Students, teenagers, people working for the first time, people desiring a low-stress part time job, people with no experience entering the job market for the first time who quickly move up or out to a better paying job once they have a work record.

Who is hurt badly by minimum wage laws? The people I just mentioned who have fewer opportunities because the min wage laws reduce the number of low-skilled, low-experience, part time, etc., jobs.

Who is hurt terribly? Black youth who have an unemployment rate of at least 40%. These are people who do not have the work experience to be able to contribute labor equal to the min wage. If we would lower the minimum wage to say $4 (or better yet get rid of it) then businesses would give many of these youth a chance to develop some work experience and improve their lot in the labor market.

Earning $100 per week and gaining some work experience is a much better life for a young person than having nothing to do because of the min wage laws. This applies equally to all races.

I got a bunch of state's teen unemployment rate and the minimum wage and did a scatter plot:



Appears that for each $1 you increase minimum wage, the teen unemployment rate goes up by about 3.3%.

MaxDarkside wrote:I got a bunch of state's teen unemployment rate and the minimum wage and did a scatter plot:



Appears that for each $1 you increase minimum wage, the teen unemployment rate goes up by about 3.3%.

Aw that's too bad ... by projecting your line, teens are never going to make a bank CEO salary ... heck,. they won't ever even make $3,012.83 per hour. Mark Zuckerburg only made $377.60 per hour last year (assuming he worked all 1920 hours).

DreamStalker wrote:Aw that's too bad ... by projecting your line, teens are never going to make a bank CEO salary ... heck,. they won't ever even make $3,012.83 per hour. Mark Zuckerburg only made $377.60 per hour last year (assuming he worked all 1920 hours).

LOL. Ya, they'll never make a banker's salary on minimum wage.

MaxDarkside wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:Aw that's too bad ... by projecting your line, teens are never going to make a bank CEO salary ... heck,. they won't ever even make $3,012.83 per hour. Mark Zuckerburg only made $377.60 per hour last year (assuming he worked all 1920 hours).

LOL. Ya, they'll never make a banker's salary on minimum wage.

Never say never. "When" the USD crashes (and it will as sure as there will be another California earthquake) ... we'll all be making bankster CEO salaries with bonuses.