Restaurants are adding labor surcharges to help offset minimum wage increases

[ricechickie]

Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage is worth less than 50 years ago

 

[ricechickie]

Pick your article, but don't fucking tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm lazy, or that your beliefs "trump" my facts. That just makes you a willfully ignorant asshole who cannot properly argue a point.

Enjoy your day.

 

[Skull Pilot]

/---- I'm retired, a published author with ever increasing royalty payments, rental property owner, Continuing Education instructor, work part time for the Board of Elections and a short term option trader. I have no plans on working at a fast food restaurant unless I open one up. I won't because I'd have to hire bone head millenniums with useless college majors like Woman Studies and try to motivate them to show up and put in a days
work. No thank you.

Of course you are. Then you don't mind paying more for fast food, if you eat it.

/--- I live in the epicurean center of the world - New York. There are so many great restaurant choices I haven't eaten fast food since the 1970s when it was all I could afford while putting myself through college. BTW I earned minimum wage as a teenager with no job skills or experience. Once I built up my resume I moved on to better paying jobs. Why can't you Libtards do the same thing?

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

Define livable.

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

It was "livable" when I was 16. I didn't have any bills.

"Minimum wage" was never intended to be a wage with which one could support a family. That's just ludicrous...

/---- I'm retired, a published author with ever increasing royalty payments, rental property owner, Continuing Education instructor, work part time for the Board of Elections and a short term option trader. I have no plans on working at a fast food restaurant unless I open one up. I won't because I'd have to hire bone head millenniums with useless college majors like Woman Studies and try to motivate them to show up and put in a days
work. No thank you.

Of course you are. Then you don't mind paying more for fast food, if you eat it.

/--- I live in the epicurean center of the world - New York. There are so many great restaurant choices I haven't eaten fast food since the 1970s when it was all I could afford while putting myself through college. BTW I earned minimum wage as a teenager with no job skills or experience. Once I built up my resume I moved on to better paying jobs. Why can't you Libtards do the same thing?

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

/--- Unless you live in Pig Snot Nebraska on a trailer park, minimum wage was never livable. It wasn't intended to be. It was designed to help the poor earn something during the great depression because jobs were so scarce employers were taking advantage of people. By the 1950s the economy was good enough that minimum wage jobs were held mostly by teens living at home and looking for some work experience and pocket money. Businesses were willing to hire inexperienced workers and train them in exchange for a lower salary. DemocRATS expanded it to a LIVABLE wage because public schools are generating functional illiterates who can't compete as skilled labor. Flipping burgers, stocking shelves is all they can manage so they need a higher minimum wage to support a family.

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

 

[ricechickie]

Of course you are. Then you don't mind paying more for fast food, if you eat it.

/--- I live in the epicurean center of the world - New York. There are so many great restaurant choices I haven't eaten fast food since the 1970s when it was all I could afford while putting myself through college. BTW I earned minimum wage as a teenager with no job skills or experience. Once I built up my resume I moved on to better paying jobs. Why can't you Libtards do the same thing?

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

Define livable.

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

It was "livable" when I was 16. I didn't have any bills.

"Minimum wage" was never intended to be a wage with which one could support a family. That's just ludicrous...

Of course you are. Then you don't mind paying more for fast food, if you eat it.

/--- I live in the epicurean center of the world - New York. There are so many great restaurant choices I haven't eaten fast food since the 1970s when it was all I could afford while putting myself through college. BTW I earned minimum wage as a teenager with no job skills or experience. Once I built up my resume I moved on to better paying jobs. Why can't you Libtards do the same thing?

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

/--- Unless you live in Pig Snot Nebraska on a trailer park, minimum wage was never livable. It wasn't intended to be. It was designed to help the poor earn something during the great depression because jobs were so scarce employers were taking advantage of people. By the 1950s the economy was good enough that minimum wage jobs were held mostly by teens living at home and looking for some work experience and pocket money. Businesses were willing to hire inexperienced workers and train them in exchange for a lower salary. DemocRATS expanded it to a LIVABLE wage because public schools are generating functional illiterates who can't compete as skilled labor. Flipping burgers, stocking shelves is all they can manage so they need a higher minimum wage to support a family.

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Just in case clicking on a link to find informatiOn that I thought was common knowledge to any reasonably educated person, minimum wage used to be enough to keep a family of 3 over the poverty line. Now it barely keeps one person out of poverty.

It makes more sense to find the content to make your case instead of expecting others to read web pages to find out what you're talking about. Lazy people don't get ahead.

I posted the link AND the summary. You are lazy af for deciding not to click on the link. Enjoy your comforting ignorance.

The "poverty line" is adjustable, and anyone that is claiming minimum wage earners could raise a family on three is being political, not factual. Nor would it be a reason to offer starting wages for that reason. People in history waited. Poverty these days is having only two giant flat panel TVs, only one computer, one table, one iPhone, etc. etc. Enjoy your smugness.

 

[Iceweasel]

/--- I live in the epicurean center of the world - New York. There are so many great restaurant choices I haven't eaten fast food since the 1970s when it was all I could afford while putting myself through college. BTW I earned minimum wage as a teenager with no job skills or experience. Once I built up my resume I moved on to better paying jobs. Why can't you Libtards do the same thing?

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

Define livable.

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

It was "livable" when I was 16. I didn't have any bills.

"Minimum wage" was never intended to be a wage with which one could support a family. That's just ludicrous...

/--- I live in the epicurean center of the world - New York. There are so many great restaurant choices I haven't eaten fast food since the 1970s when it was all I could afford while putting myself through college. BTW I earned minimum wage as a teenager with no job skills or experience. Once I built up my resume I moved on to better paying jobs. Why can't you Libtards do the same thing?

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

/--- Unless you live in Pig Snot Nebraska on a trailer park, minimum wage was never livable. It wasn't intended to be. It was designed to help the poor earn something during the great depression because jobs were so scarce employers were taking advantage of people. By the 1950s the economy was good enough that minimum wage jobs were held mostly by teens living at home and looking for some work experience and pocket money. Businesses were willing to hire inexperienced workers and train them in exchange for a lower salary. DemocRATS expanded it to a LIVABLE wage because public schools are generating functional illiterates who can't compete as skilled labor. Flipping burgers, stocking shelves is all they can manage so they need a higher minimum wage to support a family.

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

Poverty was defined by food availability. Not now.


Poverty Redefined?
The federal government is looking at new measures to help define poverty. This is the first time in decades that a new definition is being considered. The current measure, which is mainly of food, is deemed out of date. Other expenses such as clothing, housing, and utilities are likely to be included in the new measure. Host Michel Martin speaks with Algernon Austin, director of the Race, Ethnicity and the Economy program at the Economics Policy Institute.

Mr. ALGERNON AUSTIN (Director of Race, Ethnicity and Economy Program, Economic Policy Institute): Its a pleasure to talk with you.

MARTIN: Whats wrong with the current definition of poverty as its defined by the government? Why do people want to change it?

Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family.

 

[ricechickie]

/--- I live in the epicurean center of the world - New York. There are so many great restaurant choices I haven't eaten fast food since the 1970s when it was all I could afford while putting myself through college. BTW I earned minimum wage as a teenager with no job skills or experience. Once I built up my resume I moved on to better paying jobs. Why can't you Libtards do the same thing?

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

Define livable.

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

It was "livable" when I was 16. I didn't have any bills.

"Minimum wage" was never intended to be a wage with which one could support a family. That's just ludicrous...

/--- I live in the epicurean center of the world - New York. There are so many great restaurant choices I haven't eaten fast food since the 1970s when it was all I could afford while putting myself through college. BTW I earned minimum wage as a teenager with no job skills or experience. Once I built up my resume I moved on to better paying jobs. Why can't you Libtards do the same thing?

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

/--- Unless you live in Pig Snot Nebraska on a trailer park, minimum wage was never livable. It wasn't intended to be. It was designed to help the poor earn something during the great depression because jobs were so scarce employers were taking advantage of people. By the 1950s the economy was good enough that minimum wage jobs were held mostly by teens living at home and looking for some work experience and pocket money. Businesses were willing to hire inexperienced workers and train them in exchange for a lower salary. DemocRATS expanded it to a LIVABLE wage because public schools are generating functional illiterates who can't compete as skilled labor. Flipping burgers, stocking shelves is all they can manage so they need a higher minimum wage to support a family.

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

From what I've seen, the poverty line is calculated by food prices.

How is poverty measured in the United States? | Institute for Research on Poverty | University of Wisconsin–Madison

 

[Skull Pilot]

/--- I live in the epicurean center of the world - New York. There are so many great restaurant choices I haven't eaten fast food since the 1970s when it was all I could afford while putting myself through college. BTW I earned minimum wage as a teenager with no job skills or experience. Once I built up my resume I moved on to better paying jobs. Why can't you Libtards do the same thing?

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

Define livable.

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

It was "livable" when I was 16. I didn't have any bills.

"Minimum wage" was never intended to be a wage with which one could support a family. That's just ludicrous...

/--- I live in the epicurean center of the world - New York. There are so many great restaurant choices I haven't eaten fast food since the 1970s when it was all I could afford while putting myself through college. BTW I earned minimum wage as a teenager with no job skills or experience. Once I built up my resume I moved on to better paying jobs. Why can't you Libtards do the same thing?

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

/--- Unless you live in Pig Snot Nebraska on a trailer park, minimum wage was never livable. It wasn't intended to be. It was designed to help the poor earn something during the great depression because jobs were so scarce employers were taking advantage of people. By the 1950s the economy was good enough that minimum wage jobs were held mostly by teens living at home and looking for some work experience and pocket money. Businesses were willing to hire inexperienced workers and train them in exchange for a lower salary. DemocRATS expanded it to a LIVABLE wage because public schools are generating functional illiterates who can't compete as skilled labor. Flipping burgers, stocking shelves is all they can manage so they need a higher minimum wage to support a family.

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

How about this

Astonishing Numbers: America's Poor Still Live Better Than Most Of The Rest Of Humanity

 

[ricechickie]

Just in case clicking on a link to find informatiOn that I thought was common knowledge to any reasonably educated person, minimum wage used to be enough to keep a family of 3 over the poverty line. Now it barely keeps one person out of poverty.

It makes more sense to find the content to make your case instead of expecting others to read web pages to find out what you're talking about. Lazy people don't get ahead.

I posted the link AND the summary. You are lazy af for deciding not to click on the link. Enjoy your comforting ignorance.

The "poverty line" is adjustable, and anyone that is claiming minimum wage earners could raise a family on three is being political, not factual. Nor would it be a reason to offer starting wages for that reason. People in history waited. Poverty these days is having only two giant flat panel TVs, only one computer, one table, one iPhone, etc. etc. Enjoy your smugness.

Wrong. People in the sixties could start a family and buy property on minimum wage. And with property, they actually had a chance at upward mobility.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just in case clicking on a link to find informatiOn that I thought was common knowledge to any reasonably educated person, minimum wage used to be enough to keep a family of 3 over the poverty line. Now it barely keeps one person out of poverty.

It makes more sense to find the content to make your case instead of expecting others to read web pages to find out what you're talking about. Lazy people don't get ahead.

I posted the link AND the summary. You are lazy af for deciding not to click on the link. Enjoy your comforting ignorance.

The "poverty line" is adjustable, and anyone that is claiming minimum wage earners could raise a family on three is being political, not factual. Nor would it be a reason to offer starting wages for that reason. People in history waited. Poverty these days is having only two giant flat panel TVs, only one computer, one table, one iPhone, etc. etc. Enjoy your smugness.

Wrong. People in the sixties could start a family and buy property on minimum wage. And with property, they actually had a chance at upward mobility.

you don't need to buy property to be upwardly mobile

 

[ricechickie]

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

Define livable.

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

It was "livable" when I was 16. I didn't have any bills.

"Minimum wage" was never intended to be a wage with which one could support a family. That's just ludicrous...

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

/--- Unless you live in Pig Snot Nebraska on a trailer park, minimum wage was never livable. It wasn't intended to be. It was designed to help the poor earn something during the great depression because jobs were so scarce employers were taking advantage of people. By the 1950s the economy was good enough that minimum wage jobs were held mostly by teens living at home and looking for some work experience and pocket money. Businesses were willing to hire inexperienced workers and train them in exchange for a lower salary. DemocRATS expanded it to a LIVABLE wage because public schools are generating functional illiterates who can't compete as skilled labor. Flipping burgers, stocking shelves is all they can manage so they need a higher minimum wage to support a family.

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

Poverty was defined by food availability. Not now.


Poverty Redefined?
The federal government is looking at new measures to help define poverty. This is the first time in decades that a new definition is being considered. The current measure, which is mainly of food, is deemed out of date. Other expenses such as clothing, housing, and utilities are likely to be included in the new measure. Host Michel Martin speaks with Algernon Austin, director of the Race, Ethnicity and the Economy program at the Economics Policy Institute.

Mr. ALGERNON AUSTIN (Director of Race, Ethnicity and Economy Program, Economic Policy Institute): Its a pleasure to talk with you.

MARTIN: Whats wrong with the current definition of poverty as its defined by the government? Why do people want to change it?

Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family.

FRom this link, it was an argument to redefine the poverty line, but not that it was changed.

 

[Iceweasel]

Just in case clicking on a link to find informatiOn that I thought was common knowledge to any reasonably educated person, minimum wage used to be enough to keep a family of 3 over the poverty line. Now it barely keeps one person out of poverty.

It makes more sense to find the content to make your case instead of expecting others to read web pages to find out what you're talking about. Lazy people don't get ahead.

I posted the link AND the summary. You are lazy af for deciding not to click on the link. Enjoy your comforting ignorance.

The "poverty line" is adjustable, and anyone that is claiming minimum wage earners could raise a family on three is being political, not factual. Nor would it be a reason to offer starting wages for that reason. People in history waited. Poverty these days is having only two giant flat panel TVs, only one computer, one table, one iPhone, etc. etc. Enjoy your smugness.

Wrong. People in the sixties could start a family and buy property on minimum wage. And with property, they actually had a chance at upward mobility.

I was there then and never heard of it. You are brainwashed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Define livable.

It was "livable" when I was 16. I didn't have any bills.

"Minimum wage" was never intended to be a wage with which one could support a family. That's just ludicrous...

/--- Unless you live in Pig Snot Nebraska on a trailer park, minimum wage was never livable. It wasn't intended to be. It was designed to help the poor earn something during the great depression because jobs were so scarce employers were taking advantage of people. By the 1950s the economy was good enough that minimum wage jobs were held mostly by teens living at home and looking for some work experience and pocket money. Businesses were willing to hire inexperienced workers and train them in exchange for a lower salary. DemocRATS expanded it to a LIVABLE wage because public schools are generating functional illiterates who can't compete as skilled labor. Flipping burgers, stocking shelves is all they can manage so they need a higher minimum wage to support a family.

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

Poverty was defined by food availability. Not now.


Poverty Redefined?
The federal government is looking at new measures to help define poverty. This is the first time in decades that a new definition is being considered. The current measure, which is mainly of food, is deemed out of date. Other expenses such as clothing, housing, and utilities are likely to be included in the new measure. Host Michel Martin speaks with Algernon Austin, director of the Race, Ethnicity and the Economy program at the Economics Policy Institute.

Mr. ALGERNON AUSTIN (Director of Race, Ethnicity and Economy Program, Economic Policy Institute): Its a pleasure to talk with you.

MARTIN: Whats wrong with the current definition of poverty as its defined by the government? Why do people want to change it?

Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family.

FRom this link, it was an argument to redefine the poverty line, but not that it was changed.

it was a comparison and showed that our so called poor people are no worse off than poor people anywhere and indeed are still richer than 70% of the entire world population

 

[ricechickie]

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

Define livable.

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

It was "livable" when I was 16. I didn't have any bills.

"Minimum wage" was never intended to be a wage with which one could support a family. That's just ludicrous...

Min wage used to buy more. It used to be livable, but it has not kept up with the cost of living.

/--- Unless you live in Pig Snot Nebraska on a trailer park, minimum wage was never livable. It wasn't intended to be. It was designed to help the poor earn something during the great depression because jobs were so scarce employers were taking advantage of people. By the 1950s the economy was good enough that minimum wage jobs were held mostly by teens living at home and looking for some work experience and pocket money. Businesses were willing to hire inexperienced workers and train them in exchange for a lower salary. DemocRATS expanded it to a LIVABLE wage because public schools are generating functional illiterates who can't compete as skilled labor. Flipping burgers, stocking shelves is all they can manage so they need a higher minimum wage to support a family.

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

How about this

Astonishing Numbers: America's Poor Still Live Better Than Most Of The Rest Of Humanity

I don't dispute that. I don't want to define down poverty to that of third-world countries. Do you?

 

[ricechickie]

Just in case clicking on a link to find informatiOn that I thought was common knowledge to any reasonably educated person, minimum wage used to be enough to keep a family of 3 over the poverty line. Now it barely keeps one person out of poverty.

It makes more sense to find the content to make your case instead of expecting others to read web pages to find out what you're talking about. Lazy people don't get ahead.

I posted the link AND the summary. You are lazy af for deciding not to click on the link. Enjoy your comforting ignorance.

The "poverty line" is adjustable, and anyone that is claiming minimum wage earners could raise a family on three is being political, not factual. Nor would it be a reason to offer starting wages for that reason. People in history waited. Poverty these days is having only two giant flat panel TVs, only one computer, one table, one iPhone, etc. etc. Enjoy your smugness.

Wrong. People in the sixties could start a family and buy property on minimum wage. And with property, they actually had a chance at upward mobility.

I was there then and never heard of it. You are brainwashed.

Says the guy who has yet to provide evidence of anything. We're done.

 

[Iceweasel]

Define livable.

It was "livable" when I was 16. I didn't have any bills.

"Minimum wage" was never intended to be a wage with which one could support a family. That's just ludicrous...

/--- Unless you live in Pig Snot Nebraska on a trailer park, minimum wage was never livable. It wasn't intended to be. It was designed to help the poor earn something during the great depression because jobs were so scarce employers were taking advantage of people. By the 1950s the economy was good enough that minimum wage jobs were held mostly by teens living at home and looking for some work experience and pocket money. Businesses were willing to hire inexperienced workers and train them in exchange for a lower salary. DemocRATS expanded it to a LIVABLE wage because public schools are generating functional illiterates who can't compete as skilled labor. Flipping burgers, stocking shelves is all they can manage so they need a higher minimum wage to support a family.

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

Poverty was defined by food availability. Not now.


Poverty Redefined?
The federal government is looking at new measures to help define poverty. This is the first time in decades that a new definition is being considered. The current measure, which is mainly of food, is deemed out of date. Other expenses such as clothing, housing, and utilities are likely to be included in the new measure. Host Michel Martin speaks with Algernon Austin, director of the Race, Ethnicity and the Economy program at the Economics Policy Institute.

Mr. ALGERNON AUSTIN (Director of Race, Ethnicity and Economy Program, Economic Policy Institute): Its a pleasure to talk with you.

MARTIN: Whats wrong with the current definition of poverty as its defined by the government? Why do people want to change it?

Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family.

FRom this link, it was an argument to redefine the poverty line, but not that it was changed.

More facts for you to ignore...

Official Poverty Measure Masks Gains Made Over Last 50 Years
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress.

Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty.

Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that.

But, among the bottom fifth of the population, it’s still notable. For this group, incomes grew 19 percent between 1973 and 2007 — years that are comparable because both were peaks of a business cycle.

 

[Iceweasel]

It makes more sense to find the content to make your case instead of expecting others to read web pages to find out what you're talking about. Lazy people don't get ahead.

I posted the link AND the summary. You are lazy af for deciding not to click on the link. Enjoy your comforting ignorance.

The "poverty line" is adjustable, and anyone that is claiming minimum wage earners could raise a family on three is being political, not factual. Nor would it be a reason to offer starting wages for that reason. People in history waited. Poverty these days is having only two giant flat panel TVs, only one computer, one table, one iPhone, etc. etc. Enjoy your smugness.

Wrong. People in the sixties could start a family and buy property on minimum wage. And with property, they actually had a chance at upward mobility.

I was there then and never heard of it. You are brainwashed.

Says the guy who has yet to provide evidence of anything. We're done.

I proved you're a smug no nothing highly opinionated asshole. Now you're done!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Define livable.

It was "livable" when I was 16. I didn't have any bills.

"Minimum wage" was never intended to be a wage with which one could support a family. That's just ludicrous...

/--- Unless you live in Pig Snot Nebraska on a trailer park, minimum wage was never livable. It wasn't intended to be. It was designed to help the poor earn something during the great depression because jobs were so scarce employers were taking advantage of people. By the 1950s the economy was good enough that minimum wage jobs were held mostly by teens living at home and looking for some work experience and pocket money. Businesses were willing to hire inexperienced workers and train them in exchange for a lower salary. DemocRATS expanded it to a LIVABLE wage because public schools are generating functional illiterates who can't compete as skilled labor. Flipping burgers, stocking shelves is all they can manage so they need a higher minimum wage to support a family.

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

How about this

Astonishing Numbers: America's Poor Still Live Better Than Most Of The Rest Of Humanity

I don't dispute that. I don't want to define down poverty to that of third-world countries. Do you?

If you bothered to read the article you would have learned that our so called poor are no worse off than those in France or most other first world nations and are indeed much much richer than the actual poor in third world nations

 

[ricechickie]

The Minimum Wage Used To Be Enough To Keep Workers Out Of Poverty—It’s Not Anymore: Raising It to $10.10 Would Lift a Family of Three Above the Poverty Line

I bet if people lived like they did in 1968, no cell phones, cable, satellite TV no computers no HBO Amazon or Netflix etc etc that they could get by on MW

That might be a point. If you can find a source that shows that the poverty line is adjusted to include those things, I'll read it.

Poverty was defined by food availability. Not now.


Poverty Redefined?
The federal government is looking at new measures to help define poverty. This is the first time in decades that a new definition is being considered. The current measure, which is mainly of food, is deemed out of date. Other expenses such as clothing, housing, and utilities are likely to be included in the new measure. Host Michel Martin speaks with Algernon Austin, director of the Race, Ethnicity and the Economy program at the Economics Policy Institute.

Mr. ALGERNON AUSTIN (Director of Race, Ethnicity and Economy Program, Economic Policy Institute): Its a pleasure to talk with you.

MARTIN: Whats wrong with the current definition of poverty as its defined by the government? Why do people want to change it?

Mr. AUSTIN: Well, the definition of poverty was basically based on, solely on the cost of food. And it was assumed that poverty would be three times the sort of minimum cost of food for a family.

FRom this link, it was an argument to redefine the poverty line, but not that it was changed.

More facts for you to ignore...

Official Poverty Measure Masks Gains Made Over Last 50 Years
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress.

Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty.

Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase. Income growth has been less dramatic among middle- and lower-income Americans since 1973 than in the years before that.

But, among the bottom fifth of the population, it’s still notable. For this group, incomes grew 19 percent between 1973 and 2007 — years that are comparable because both were peaks of a business cycle.

That's a great link because it shows that poverty has been alleviated, not by wages but by government intervention. SNAP, tax credits, housing subsidies.

"With the Census Bureau due to release updated figures about poverty in America on September 17, some policymakers and commentators surely will compare today’s poverty rate to those of 1960s and conclude that the last half-century of federal efforts to alleviate poverty have largely failed — that, as some critics put it glibly, “the government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.” But that’s simply not valid or accurate. Comparing today’s official poverty rate with those of the 1960s yields highly distorted results because the official poverty measure captures so little of the poverty relief that today’s safety net now provides.

A poverty measure that, as most analysts recommend, accounts for (rather than ignores) major non-cash benefits that the official poverty measure leaves out — namely, SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps), rent subsidies, and tax credits for working families — would find that poverty in the United States today is considerably lower than it was throughout the 1960s, despite today’s weaker economy.
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress. Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty. Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase."

Government alleviates poverty, is what your link is saying, so we don't have to raise wages. And here I thought you'd be in favor of doing away with the need for a social safety net.

 

[ricechickie]

I posted the link AND the summary. You are lazy af for deciding not to click on the link. Enjoy your comforting ignorance.

The "poverty line" is adjustable, and anyone that is claiming minimum wage earners could raise a family on three is being political, not factual. Nor would it be a reason to offer starting wages for that reason. People in history waited. Poverty these days is having only two giant flat panel TVs, only one computer, one table, one iPhone, etc. etc. Enjoy your smugness.

Wrong. People in the sixties could start a family and buy property on minimum wage. And with property, they actually had a chance at upward mobility.

I was there then and never heard of it. You are brainwashed.

Says the guy who has yet to provide evidence of anything. We're done.

I proved you're a smug no nothing highly opinionated asshole. Now you're done!

It's "know-nothing."

And yes, I am highly opinionated. Are you not? Or is it wrong for me to have an opinion for some other reason? Seems like you're trying to somehow shame me from arguing a point. A point that I have backed up with evidence.