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

"N2EY" wrote:
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


The difference really isn't that unusual, Jim. You're obviously forgetting
state minimum wage laws which can add to the federal minimum wage. Perhaps
Mike lived in a state with it's own minimum wage laws at the time. As you
probably know, state minimum wage laws were a growing trend in the 70's, but
that growth has pretty much died out over the years. In fact, I'm not even
sure any state still has an active minimum wage law today.


(snip) 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)


Hey, now wait a minute, Jim. I realize what you meant. But, before you
confuse people, watch how you word that. I'm not running for political
office, so I'm not likely to reform anything. Anyway, I do think this is one
of the areas that has to be addressed in any serious reform effort. It is
amazing how much debt is floating around out there. I see college students
who have not worked a day in their life graduating with debts exceeding
twenty, thirty, and even forty, thousand dollars (student and personal
loans). I see people buying homes and cars that are far beyond what they can
reasonably afford on their incomes. I've seen reports of average credit card
debts exceeding $8,000 today. Clearly, something has to be done to reel in
this madness. A cap on the percentage of a person's income that can be used
to establish monthly payments for all loans seems logical (and the least
intrusive) to me.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

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.

However as noted in later in this same post for cars (now snipped), people
now demand more features in that house and more room in that house that was
common in 1950. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


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.


However as noted in later in this same post for cars (now snipped), people
now demand more features in that house and more room in that house that was
common in 1950. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Well if we cant compare houses to houses because houses to houses is
apples to oranges..............

C'mon, Dee - there has to be *some* sort of comparison that can be
made! If my comments about people paying 50 percent or more of their
take home pay to put a roof over their head compared to 14 percent way
back when are irrelevant, and if people doing 30 year mortgages vs 10 or
15 year mortgages are irrelevant, than I guess you are saying that
buying a house in 1950 is the exact equivalent of buying one in 2003?


......but it isn't because it's an apples to oranges comparison?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ...


Dee D. Flint wrote:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


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.


However as noted in later in this same post for cars (now snipped),
people
now demand more features in that house and more room in that house that
was
common in 1950. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Well if we cant compare houses to houses because houses to houses is
apples to oranges..............

C'mon, Dee - there has to be *some* sort of comparison that can be
made! If my comments about people paying 50 percent or more of their
take home pay to put a roof over their head compared to 14 percent way
back when are irrelevant, and if people doing 30 year mortgages vs 10 or
15 year mortgages are irrelevant, than I guess you are saying that
buying a house in 1950 is the exact equivalent of buying one in 2003?


......but it isn't because it's an apples to oranges comparison?

- Mike KB3EIA -


What I am saying is that it takes a lot more detailed analysis before you
can make a legitimate comparison. It's not as different as a surface
analysis may lead people to believe. People are choosing the 30 year
mortgage. The mortgage companies went this route not to make it easier to
buy a house but to make more money off that loan. By the way, no mortgage
company that I've had contact with would ever allow the payment + insurance
+ taxes to be as high as 50%. They would not approve the loan. Today's
starter house has airconditioning. The 1950s starter house did not. But
today's consumer has chosen the more expensive version of the product and
very, very few will buy a house without it so now it's not comparable
without doing a whole lot deeper analysis. Somehow you've got to add an
allowance for air conditioning to the older house.

Another example, take the cost to drive drive. Cost of gasoline is not the
only element to consider. You must factor in the fact that cars now last
longer not just how far the price has risen. You must also factor in that
the average car today gets far better mileage than the average car then.
You need to somehow factor in the fact that you can't even buy a stripped
down car now although they were the norm in the 1950s. People became more
and more reluctant to buy them and the makers responded. The market (i.e.
consumer) has chosen to have an inherently more expensive vehicle.

Simplistic analyses won't do it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE