Social security and medicare taxes for small business owners

[Art]

I think the $5.25 minimum wage was set in the 1960's. Why on earth hasn't it been adjusted in the last 48 years

Now there's a statement I can't let fly by. The minimum wage in the '60 was $.75 that means 75 cents, then it went to .90 then to a dollar an hour.

If you are going to spout "facts" they should at least be credible. It amazes me how someone can just say anything the want, regardless of any vague resemblance to the truth and nobody complains. Hummmmmm, sounds like the very administration everyone "hopes" will "change" all those inequities.

Art

[electrathon]

I think the $5.25 minimum wage was set in the 1960's. Why on earth hasn't it been adjusted in the last 48 years

Now there's a statement I can't let fly by. The minimum wage in the '60 was $.75 that means 75 cents, then it went to .90 then to a dollar an hour.

If you are going to spout "facts" they should at least be credible. It amazes me how someone can just say anything the want, regardless of any vague resemblance to the truth and nobody complains. Hummmmmm, sounds like the very administration everyone "hopes" will "change" all those inequities.

Art

Ed has begged forgiveness for saying that. But it definatly does show the predisposition of a belief to be able to arrive at a conclusion. Yes, I do know people on both sides of the fence do this, but this statement was so far away from any posibility of reality it is scary.

[esantoro]

I was wrong about the straight dollar amount, but not the amount adjusted for inflation. One dollar in 1960 does not mean the same thing as a dollar today. One was able to buy a house in 1960 for less than $25,000.

Humble apologies for my oversight, but I was more right than wrong. Between 1960 and 2001, the minimum wage value, adjusted for inflation, declined.

"For Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist, and William Julius Wilson, a sociologist at Harvard, ghetto neighborhoods reinforce poverty and contribute to it. But dismantling ghettos and integrating neighborhoods, a hugely complicated endeavor, has not been high on the agenda of any administration in 20 years. Nor has the minimum wage. Adjusted for inflation, it has declined from more than $6 an hour in the 1960's to $5.25 today [2001]."

Next month, the adjusted minimum wage will be on par with the economy in 1997.

ed

Ed has begged forgiveness for saying that. But it definatly does show the predisposition of a belief to be able to arrive at a conclusion. Yes, I do know people on both sides of the fence do this, but this statement was so far away from any posibility of reality it is scary.

[bustedlifter]

"For Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist, and William Julius Wilson, a sociologist at Harvard,

I see the problem right here!

[hiloboy]

Oh Ya!! it took some time to get here after reading for days.. but thats the problem for sure..a economist, and a sociologist from Harvard. that is just what we need right now to save the day..or do we.. i think we have some of those in office already..and what has its doing for us.. not much of anything is being done.. for our country or its people..for me i'm not going to follow the king of"Os" ANY MORE..just my 2 cents

Edited June 3, 2009 by hiloboy

[esantoro]

I see the problem right here!

I'm not crazy about the students at Harvard, but the university does have some good minds. Elizabeth Warren comes to mind. The research by Warren and the two academics in this article can be supported by other academics.

I found another source that states that for the minimum wage to be at a level similar to what it was in 1960, it would have to be around $8.25 today in 2009.

Question: If the minimum wage was pegged to a certain level in 1960, should it have maintained that level till today or even improved? We know that corporations have made enormous increases in profits -- something in the range of 250 percent -- but 80 percent of Americans are making maybe $300 to $600 more in INFLATION ADJUSTED dollars annually than they were in 1970. Corporations depend on workers to do the work, shouldn't those workers at all levels have improved their financial situation, if the corporation has been increasing profits?

My main concern is not that people who are not making much money should be given a hand out. My main concern is that the economic game of the last thirty years has been skewered and that 80 percent of Americans are being taken for a ride. If home prices have been artificially boosted 300 percent (see the you tube lecture with Elizabeth Warren), nearly anyone who bought a home in the last 10 years has been taken to some extent, especially if the housing market for the next 20 years ends up being more realistically valued.

Furthermore, I see that one of the economic strategies of the financial ruling class is to make middle class Americans feel that they have nothing in common with those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder -- divide and conquer.

I certainly could be wrong, but please show me another breakdown of reality that explains what has been going on in America for the past 30 years. If you argue that the government has been redistributing wealth for the past thirty years and not encouraging innovation, I don't think you can point to any credible research that supports this.

We have to move beyond opinions and point to the research. My claim about the straight dollar amount of the minimum wage not increasing was motivated by opinion, but, semantics aside, the research does bear out that the actual value of that minimum wage in inflation-adjusted dollars has declined.

It seems that the consensus is in disagreement with my earlier claim that 80 percent of Americans are less well off than they were in 1970.

Question: If Americans today are paying 50 percent more of their income for housing alone, would you agree that this alone accounts for a declining standard of living, as it translates into less financial security? I believe that Elizabeth Warren's lecture contains very sound research (linked to in a previous post).

Usually people point to multiple computers, televisions, big screen televisions, ipods, etc., in the home as evidence of increased standard of living. Prices for these and similar consumer electronics have dropped drastically in comparison to their 1970 counterparts, but the flip side is that housing costs have jumped enormously in comparison. I'm leaning toward the perspective that there has been a bit of "bait-and-switch" going on in the American economy since 1970.

ed

[esantoro]

Here's some interesting research that argues persuasively against what I've been arguing:

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-...ow-are-we-doing

It should be noted that the above article is from a journal of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank started in 1943.

So in the blue trunks standing 5'10" and weighing 182 lbs we have the liberal agenda. In the opposing corner, wearing red trunks standing 5'8" and weighing 275 lbs we have the conservative agenda.

Gentlemen, let's have a fair fight. No hitting below the belt, and no calling each other's mothers any pejorative names.

Ding. Ding.

ed

Edited June 3, 2009 by esantoro

[esantoro]

Oh Ya!! it took some time to get here after reading for days.. but thats the problem for sure..a economist, and a sociologist from Harvard. that is just what we need right now to save the day..or do we.. i think we have some of those in office already..and what has its doing for us.. not much of anything is being done.. for our country or its people..for me i'm not going to follow the king of"Os" ANY MORE..just my 2 cents

The new administration, which is decidedly the most liberal we've seen since FDR, has been in office for four months. Conservative rule, including Clinton democrats (more centrist than left), had been in office for the nearly 30 previous years.

Too soon to call. To soon to call.

But I am loving my flex shaft rotary tool. Thank you for the suggestion.

ed

[electrathon]

I found another source that states that for the minimum wage to be at a level similar to what it was in 1960, it would have to be around $8.25 today in 2009.

Question: If the minimum wage was pegged to a certain level in 1960, should it have maintained that level till today or even improved? We know that corporations have made enormous increases in profits -- something in the range of 250 percent -- but 80 percent of Americans are making maybe $300 to $600 more in INFLATION ADJUSTED dollars annually than they were in 1970. Corporations depend on workers to do the work, shouldn't those workers at all levels have improved their financial situation, if the corporation has been increasing profits?

I just looked, the minimum wage where I live is $8.40 per hour. It is not the same in all states. I am sure that you are aware that minimum wage is not what most Americans make. It is where, generally youth, start into the job market. The mean averare salery is really what matters. People only want to bicker about minimum because it is an easy target. I have worked since I was 14 and I have never in my life been paid minimum wage.

One of the reasons there has been so much prophit in the stock market is that so many Americans are heavily invested through retirement investments. The prophits that the evil job providers make is what is funding all of our retirements. The more they make, the more the stockholders (all of us to one extent or another) make. You have not mentioned the huge numbers of corperations that have lost money. Using your reasoning that prophits should be shared, should not all of the people that work for the loosing companies pay to work there? That is likely as absurd to you ( I hope it is) as I see it being absurd to beat up the companies that are providing work for the rest of us. Unfortionatly, that is exactly what your current administration is doing.

My main concern is not that people who are not making much money should be given a hand out. My main concern is that the economic game of the last thirty years has been skewered and that 80 percent of Americans are being taken for a ride. If home prices have been artificially boosted 300 percent (see the you tube lecture with Elizabeth Warren), nearly anyone who bought a home in the last 10 years has been taken to some extent, especially if the housing market for the next 20 years ends up being more realistically valued.

Remember, the construction workers and other middle calss people are paid what they earn relitive to what housing sells for. If new housing was priced 30% lower, respectively, we would be paid about 30% less to build those houses. There is a little room for wiggling, but not all that much. One of the huge increases in housing costs (at least around here) is the exorberant fees that government charges. All of those fees are added into the price of the house (about $30-$50,000 around here).

It seems that the consensus is in disagreement with my earlier claim that 80 percent of Americans are less well off than they were in 1970.

Question: If Americans today are paying 50 percent more of their income for housing alone, would you agree that this alone accounts for a declining standard of living, as it translates into less financial security? I believe that Elizabeth Warren's lecture contains very sound research (linked to in a previous post).

Usually people point to multiple computers, televisions, big screen televisions, ipods, etc., in the home as evidence of increased standard of living. Prices for these and similar consumer electronics have dropped drastically in comparison to their 1970 counterparts, but the flip side is that housing costs have jumped enormously in comparison. I'm leaning toward the perspective that there has been a bit of "bait-and-switch" going on in the American economy since 1970.

I do not agree that paying more for one thing and less for another (coming out to a nearly equil end outcome) makes for a lower standard of living. To me, it makes a leval standard. I know of very few people that would accept the lifestyle today that our parents lived 30 years ago. I personally have struggled. Looking back to when I was a child, my family has so much more than we did as kids it is not even vaguely an equil comparison. I have never, and may father never recieved and assistance from the government either, we earned our way.

Funny (pathetic actually) story. My moms husband was a highley educated economic professor at a university. He declared bankruptcy twice in his life and woudl haev a third time if he had lived a little longer for his third financial colapse. He taught that this was OK, even good as it helped keep the economy moving. It made sure that risk takers took risk. You loose, you do not have to pay. You win, you make lots of money.

[electrathon]

The new administration, which is decidedly the most liberal we've seen since FDR, has been in office for four months. Conservative rule, including Clinton democrats (more centrist than left), had been in office for the nearly 30 previous years.

Too soon to call. To soon to call.

But I am loving my flex shaft rotary tool. Thank you for the suggestion.

ed

It is hard to believe that anyone would feel that conservatives have ruled for 30 years. Congress has been liberal for about that long. My memory says that the only time it was differant was when Clinton was in office and there was a republican congress and senate. A lot did get fixed then, some did not. Once liberal thinking got back in control, liberal spending followed. Now we have three branches of govenrment (senate, house and executive) and within a few months the deficate has gone up at levals that were unimaginable in the past.