"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
But its perfectly okay to pay some union bum a ton of wages for doing a
repetitive task, (a skill that same 14 y.o. that passed a ham test
could
do) therefore jacking the cost of a product, lets say a car for this
example, to a ridiculous price??? (actually both the fast food worker
and
the person on the line at the factory ARE BOTH doing repetitive
tasks....)

Hold on a sec....

"union bum"?

Yep... there are a ton of them in this state..... collect a "phat" wage ($20
per hour or more) for a job a kid could do, brag about only working 2 of the
8 hours in a shift, and admit to stealing and other fraudulant
practices..... .yeah, those are bums... Not all union workers are bums, but
there are alot that are.


The basic concept that Dwight is talking about is a "living wage" -
meaning jobs that pay enough in wages and benefits to permit people to
live above the poverty line *without* government help. Yes, paying a
living wage makes products and services cost more, but it also removes
people from the govt. support system.

So.... basically, one way or another people have to pay for it, be it in
higher service/product costs or paying in taxes for a government program.



Some say "the marketplace" should set wages. But "the marketplace" is
tilted by a bunch of factors, such as the exportation of jobs and the
importation of workers.

Yes, that is what is called an idealism, but in reality it doesn't work that
way. Let's look at my county for example..... Republican owners of
businesses and places to rent charge considerably higher for products,
services and housing. These are also in most of the cases the employers in
the area. For example, on average, a single bedroom apartment cannot be
found for less than $350-400. That does not even include utilities. The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour. Now, do the math on that. The first
of the normal 2 paychecks (paid every 2 weeks) each month barely even
covers the rent, let alone the utilities. Factor in transportation of any
means, and basic food needs, and that exceeds the second check. This does
not include for any savings, clothing or medicine purchases and of course
nothing in the "entertainment" category on the spreadsheet.
That is why alot of people around here are forced to work two jobs. Problem
there is, there is no time left over for family or even better, trying to
take classes to get a degree to get out of the ruts. Typically in my area
as well, certain market indicators such as milk, bread, gasoline etc, is at
least 10-20 percent higher than surrounding counties. Basically they want
you to work for as little as possible, but charge ya up the ying-yang for
everything. Guess that is the American way eh?





The "living wage" concept and reality are largely a result of
organized labor unions leveling the playing field a bit by unifying
the many workers in negotiating with the relatively few employees. The
really smart employers learned to treat their workers well enough that
they wouldn't unionize.

Look at what working conditions were like in various industries
100-150 years ago, before organized labor had any real power.

Just like they are for non-unionized labor now! hihi



Believe it or not, there are alot more people out there trying to
survive on
the poverty level wages. Based strictly on my local region, that would
be
any job under 9-10 dollars per hour before taxes and if any, benefits.
And
unfortunately some of these people are NOT counted, in the unemployment
or
other job related statistics, if they are not participating in the
various
government programs like the employment security commision that Michigan
has... (think its called MichiganWorks)

Yep. $20,000/yr isn't much at all anymore in many parts of the
country. Not to raise a family, anyway.

Or for a single person either...... that 20,000 grand is PRE-TAX and
PRE-BENEFIT (if any) and can quickly become as low as 13,000-15,000 dollars
depending on the circumstances.



As for the $15 burrito and coke at Taco Bell, think about this:

At least here in EPA, we have a decent selection of independent diners
as an alternative to the fast food chains. The food in them is not
much more expensive than the chains, and usually better for you. The
workers in those places make at least as much as the fast food chains.
One reason for their survival is that they don't spend bazillions on
advertising. Another is local loyalty of customers.

So what's the answer, Dwight - Ryan - Kim?
\

I don't assume to have all of the answers, but I am sure that you can go
through just about any company or organization and thin out the dead-wood.
People who just are not returning equivalent value for the service they are
supposed to provide as an employee. There is a case of 3 people who are
"riding the clock out" in my full time employment place of work. And
compared to the remainder of the department they are making more than twice
our wages for similar/same work but just have been here a while. With those
three people to finally retire or move on, that would allow for at least 4-5
more people to replace them, that will ACTUALLY WORK, and still allow for
the rest of the department to get a $1.00 per hour raise, and STILL SAVE
SOME MONEY on overall department wages. The math has been figured out here
on this and it is true....

The other answer is for employers to finally see the value in helping the
employee with training/education. If an employer is credible enough, the
employee will stay with that employer with the new training they have
recieved.

Even though people want to believe otherwise, there are more and more people
having to, and trying to survive on what were supposed to be considered
"high school kid" jobs.



--
Ryan KC8PMX

Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or
minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living" wage.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or
minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living" wage.

It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that.

I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage.

Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely sum of
about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back then
the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so much
lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or
minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living"
wage.

It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that.

I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage.

Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely
sum of
about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back
then
the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so
much
lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway.

73 de Jim, N2EY


And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour. It wasn't a living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family. Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives, a
group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child.
No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something. The majority of items but not all take fewer hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976. The cost of electronics is down
in terms of hours to buy. The cost of houses is about the same in terms of
hours.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or
minimum
wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living"
wage.

It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that.

I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage.

Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely
sum of
about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back
then
the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so
much
lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway.

73 de Jim, N2EY


And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour.

Actually a bit more, as I recall. But in any event we're talking $3000/yr to
$4000/yr, max..

It wasn't a living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family.

Agreed - nor were they meant to. But it *was* possible for a person to live on
them - probably more so than today.

Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives, a
group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child.

Pretty much the same here.

No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.

'adult male'....ahem.....

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something.

Exactly! And you also have to take into account things like creeping taxation
(even if the laws don't change, inflation causes people to pay more of their
income in taxes) and increases in the number of 'necessities'.

Taxes are a big part of the game, too. At one time the income tax rules were
such that people on the bottom end who knew the rules could pay very little in
taxes. I remember when:

- *all* interest paid (not just home mortgage interest) was deductible.
- *all* documented sales tax and *most* documented medical costs were
deductible
- the various personal and dependent deductions were larger *in infaltion
adjusted dollars*

The majority of items but not all take fewer hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976.

In some cases, yes, in others, no.

The cost of electronics is down
in terms of hours to buy.

True to a point - but on the other end of the scale, those electronics are
often non-repairable, and have limited useful lives, so that they must be
replaced more often.

It it actually easier to restore ham gear that is 30-40-50 years old than much
of the newer stuff, because parts for much of the newer stuff are simply
unobtainable except from junker units. The displays in the popular TS-440S is
one example - they are no longer made, and yet they are often one of the first
major parts to fail, so your chances of lifting one from a junker are slim.

The cost of houses is about the same in terms of
hours.

A lot of that depends on the interest rate and taxes. Interest rates in the
'70s were double-digit, approaching 17% in some markets at times - for home
mortgages! But since all that interest was deductible, the *effective* interest
rate was less, depending on your tax bracket.

Escalating home prices makes it harder to get started, though, because the size
of the down payment keeps growing. And since many of the fees involved with
buying and selling are a percentage of the price, the amount of cash a
first-timer needs gets really high.

Compare this to 40-50 years ago, when interest rates, taxes and down payments
were low.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , "Dee D.

Flint"

writes:


"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

The
average wage around here, what is considered the alleged "living" or

minimum

wage is between $5.25-6.00 per hour.

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a "living"

wage.

It wasn't? I'd be interested in a reference on that.

I think what we're really seeing is inflation outpacing the minimum wage.

Fun fact: In 1976 I started a job as a degreed engineer at the princely

sum of

about $12,000/yr - about $6 an hour. About minimum wage today, but back

then

the prices of most things (particularly housing and transportation) was so

much

lower that it was a lot of money - to me, anyway.

73 de Jim, N2EY


And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour.


Actually a bit more, as I recall. But in any event we're talking $3000/yr to
$4000/yr, max..

In the summer of 1972, I got my first job after high school. It paid
$2.40 per hour. Minimum at that time was $2.20.

It wasn't a living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family.


Agreed - nor were they meant to. But it *was* possible for a person to live on
them - probably more so than today.

I lived on that $2.40 per hour. Not well, but okay.


Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives, a
group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child.


Pretty much the same here.

Folks, conservative ot liberal, there is a whole other world out there!
I know of a number of families that had both parents working at minimum
or close to it.

No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.


'adult male'....ahem.....

The age of the "adult male" as the breadwinner is long gone. Both
husband and wife now pretty much *need* to work. If a family is in the
situation where only one needs to work, then that's great. But let's
hope they don't gloat about it.

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something.


Exactly! And you also have to take into account things like creeping taxation
(even if the laws don't change, inflation causes people to pay more of their
income in taxes) and increases in the number of 'necessities'.

Taxes are a big part of the game, too. At one time the income tax rules were
such that people on the bottom end who knew the rules could pay very little in
taxes. I remember when:

- *all* interest paid (not just home mortgage interest) was deductible.
- *all* documented sales tax and *most* documented medical costs were
deductible
- the various personal and dependent deductions were larger *in infaltion
adjusted dollars*


The majority of items but not all take fewer hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976.


In some cases, yes, in others, no.

As I recall reading a while back, in 1950, it took 14 percent of an
average workers income to put a roof over "his head". That may have
changed a little bit! 8^)

And did you know they are doing seven year loans on cars? If all was
equal, wages and prices, we would still be doing 2 and 3 year loans on them.

There are two of the major outlays for the typical family. Add to that
education costs, which have outpaced inflation by in some cases 400
percent (in my area, we had an around 12 percent increase one year
recently) and you have a bit different picture!


The cost of electronics is down
in terms of hours to buy.


True to a point - but on the other end of the scale, those electronics are
often non-repairable, and have limited useful lives, so that they must be
replaced more often.

It breaks, and you buy a new one. Break even at best.

It it actually easier to restore ham gear that is 30-40-50 years old than much
of the newer stuff, because parts for much of the newer stuff are simply
unobtainable except from junker units. The displays in the popular TS-440S is
one example - they are no longer made, and yet they are often one of the first
major parts to fail, so your chances of lifting one from a junker are slim.


The cost of houses is about the same in terms of
hours.

disagree

A lot of that depends on the interest rate and taxes. Interest rates in the
'70s were double-digit, approaching 17% in some markets at times - for home
mortgages! But since all that interest was deductible, the *effective* interest
rate was less, depending on your tax bracket.

Escalating home prices makes it harder to get started, though, because the size
of the down payment keeps growing. And since many of the fees involved with
buying and selling are a percentage of the price, the amount of cash a
first-timer needs gets really high.

Compare this to 40-50 years ago, when interest rates, taxes and down payments
were low.

agree. I know some people who are paying over 50 percent of theie take
home pay in mortgage payment. Amazingly enough, their banks allowed them
to get into that situation.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

In the summer of 1972, I got my first job after high school. It paid
$2.40 per hour. Minimum at that time was $2.20.

You might want to check

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/chart.htm

It wasn't a living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family.

Agreed - nor were they meant to. But it *was* possible for a person to live
on them - probably more so than today.

I lived on that $2.40 per hour. Not well, but okay.

Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives,
a group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a
child.

Pretty much the same here.

Folks, conservative ot liberal, there is a whole other world out there!
I know of a number of families that had both parents working at minimum
or close to it.

No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.

'adult male'....ahem.....

The age of the "adult male" as the breadwinner is long gone. Both
husband and wife now pretty much *need* to work.

Yep. Think about why that is.

If a family is in the
situation where only one needs to work, then that's great. But let's
hope they don't gloat about it.

A lot has to do with choices made and their individual circumstances.

Besides the economic concerns, in a lot of professions today, a person cannot
simply stop working for several years and expect to be employable when they
return.

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something.

Exactly! And you also have to take into account things like creeping
taxation
(even if the laws don't change, inflation causes people to pay more of
their
income in taxes) and increases in the number of 'necessities'.

Taxes are a big part of the game, too. At one time the income tax rules
were
such that people on the bottom end who knew the rules could pay very little
in
taxes. I remember when:

- *all* interest paid (not just home mortgage interest) was deductible.
- *all* documented sales tax and *most* documented medical costs were
deductible
- the various personal and dependent deductions were larger *in infaltion
adjusted dollars*

The majority of items but not all take fewer hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976.

In some cases, yes, in others, no.

As I recall reading a while back, in 1950, it took 14 percent of an
average workers income to put a roof over "his head". That may have
changed a little bit! 8^)

It changed big time. Same for medical and education costs.

And did you know they are doing seven year loans on cars? If all was
equal, wages and prices, we would still be doing 2 and 3 year loans on them.

Part of that is people *choosing* to buy bigger and more luxurious cars.

There are two of the major outlays for the typical family. Add to that
education costs, which have outpaced inflation by in some cases 400
percent (in my area, we had an around 12 percent increase one year
recently) and you have a bit different picture!

Precisely. And a college degree is much more of a necessity today.

The cost of electronics is down
in terms of hours to buy.

True to a point - but on the other end of the scale, those electronics are
often non-repairable, and have limited useful lives, so that they must be
replaced more often.

It breaks, and you buy a new one. Break even at best.

Yep - and a losing game at worst.

It it actually easier to restore ham gear that is 30-40-50 years old than
much
of the newer stuff, because parts for much of the newer stuff are simply
unobtainable except from junker units. The displays in the popular TS-440S
is
one example - they are no longer made, and yet they are often one of the
first
major parts to fail, so your chances of lifting one from a junker are slim.

The cost of houses is about the same in terms of
hours.

disagree

A lot of that depends on the interest rate and taxes. Interest rates in the
'70s were double-digit, approaching 17% in some markets at times - for home
mortgages! But since all that interest was deductible, the *effective*
interest
rate was less, depending on your tax bracket.

Escalating home prices makes it harder to get started, though, because the
size
of the down payment keeps growing. And since many of the fees involved with
buying and selling are a percentage of the price, the amount of cash a
first-timer needs gets really high.

Compare this to 40-50 years ago, when interest rates, taxes and down
payments were low.

agree. I know some people who are paying over 50 percent of theie take
home pay in mortgage payment. Amazingly enough, their banks allowed them
to get into that situation.

Personal bankruptcies are going up, too.

And that's part of what Dwight would reform! (lack of caps on how much debt a
person can get into)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Dee,

You must be living in a "fairy tale" world if yo believe this to be still
true. It is a simple fact that there is not the same type of jobs available
that were around in the 1965-1980's range of time. The changes in the
employment economy and shifts in employment trends are why. Take GM for
instance....... At least up here in the Tri- Cities and Flint, GM is
constantly cutting back, and even closing plants, not the opposite. Hell,
locally speaking, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning also have cut more than half
their workforce in the past 15 years or so.

Construction jobs around here suck, unless you hold "paper" you are nothing
and still making the under 8 dollar an hour range wage, before taxes. I can
bring up more examples if you want referring to my area if ya want.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no
attention to criticism.



And at that time minimum wage was about $1.50 per hour. It wasn't a
living
wage then either. Entry level jobs have never provided the income to
support a family. Anyone that I have ever known in my lifetime (52 years)
that made minimum wage either lived with their parents or other relatives,
a
group of roommates, or had a working spouse even back when I was a child.
No adult male that I knew stayed in a minimum wage job any longer than it
took to find something else because they could not pay groc, rent, and
transportation on that. It has never been high enough to do so.

Wages versus costs is all relative. You have to look at how many hours it
takes to buy something. The majority of items but not all take fewer
hours
of work to purchase than they did in 1976. The cost of electronics is
down
in terms of hours to buy. The cost of houses is about the same in terms
of
hours.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Dee,

You must be living in a "fairy tale" world if yo believe this to be still
true. It is a simple fact that there is not the same type of jobs
available
that were around in the 1965-1980's range of time. The changes in the
employment economy and shifts in employment trends are why. Take GM for
instance....... At least up here in the Tri- Cities and Flint, GM is
constantly cutting back, and even closing plants, not the opposite. Hell,
locally speaking, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning also have cut more than
half
their workforce in the past 15 years or so.


Economies, markets and jobs are always changing. This is nothing new. A
lot of us have had to change with them, rebuild our skills and move to not
only different jobs but different locations in the country to stay employed.

I've faced and made some hard economic choices in my life and did not and do
not expect the government to fix it for me or the world to stay static.
Security is and always has been an illusion. I've faced that a long time
ago and dealt with it.

Construction jobs around here suck, unless you hold "paper" you are
nothing
and still making the under 8 dollar an hour range wage, before taxes. I
can
bring up more examples if you want referring to my area if ya want.



So if they suck, why don't the people go elsewhere. People have
traditionally followed the job markets to get ahead. You can't make the
market come to you. That is an unrealistic fairy tail and illusion.

By the way, check the tax tables. Someone making $8 per hour or under and
has a family probably won't be paying any significant income taxes unless
their spouse is also working but even then their tax burden is still
minimal.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER
intended to be a "living" wage.


I thought the minimum wage was exactly that - the minimum a single worker
needs to maintain even the most basic standard of living. If it isn't that,
what is it supposed to be?

The problem today, as more and more people become locked into lower wages,
is that the minimum wage doesn't address the extra needs of the worker's
family or future. Taxpayers pay a price for that down the road (welfare,
food stamps, medical costs, student aid, and so on). If companies paid
better wages, much of that would be sharply reduced.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/