There’s always more to discover with an AARP membership! Check out your member benefits.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
64
Views

Re: Which Future?

64 Views
Message 41 of 142

In 1970, the minimum wage was 60% of the median income, today it's 24%. In 1970, you could attend college with a summer job and 10hrs a week working part time for your school, most of which had scads of such jobs available if you bothered to look.While attending in the early 60's, I lived very well - ate steak regularily, had a nice car (for a kid) lived in a nice apartment and paid for it with a good summer job and some 10hrs a week working for the computer center. Someone with the same income and no tuition and books would've had a pretty sweet life.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In 1970 the minimum wage was $1.65 so your story doesn`t ring true unless you had other sources of income or help from your mommy and daddy. So until you better explain ,you get pinocchio_4.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
64
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
75
Views

Re: Which Future?

75 Views
Message 42 of 142

Olderscout wrote-Unemployment went down NOT because good jobs suddenly appeared, quite the opposite. The good jobs continued to be sent to commie slaves in Asia so more people simply gave up looking for employment, which makes it appear as if the economy improved.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is what is you get when poster is uniformed-January 2019-wages at all time high ( over $23.00/hour)   
United States Average Hourly Wages | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
75
Views
Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
74
Views

Re: Which Future?

74 Views
Message 43 of 142

@easyed598 wrote:

Olderscout wrote-Neither is denying the single person the ability to control her own reproductive functions.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Olderscout`s  post speaks volume when considering that he is stating  a  single person is unable to     control her reproductive functions(Or her irresponsible sexual behavior and her partner`s) and somehow he is wanting us to all share the burden.


Listen to the old school dogma reply. First of all, there are cases where a woman may get pregnant by forms of rape, incest, ineffective birth control along with other reasons.  It is HER body and SHE should have the right to choose what she does.  Women are not owned anymore.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
74
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
88
Views

Re: Which Future?

88 Views
Message 44 of 142

Olderscout wrote-Neither is denying the single person the ability to control her own reproductive functions.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Olderscout`s  post speaks volume when considering that he is stating  a  single person is unable to     control her reproductive functions(Or her irresponsible sexual behavior and her partner`s) and somehow he is wanting us to all share the burden.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
88
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
108
Views

Re: Which Future?

108 Views
Message 45 of 142

@Olderscout66 wrote:

In 1970, the minimum wage was 60% of the median income, today it's 24%. In 1970, you could attend college with a summer job and 10hrs a week working part time for your school, most of which had scads of such jobs available if you bothered to look.While attending in the early 60's, I lived very well - ate steak regularily, had a nice car (for a kid) lived in a nice apartment and paid for it with a good summer job and some 10hrs a week working for the computer center. Someone with the same income and no tuition and books would've had a pretty sweet life.

 

The main reason was in-State tuition was a couple hundred bucks, dorms were cheap, apts were cheaper and part time work plentiful BECAUSE OF REVENUE SHARING. When Reagan killed Revenue Sharing to try and cover the lost revenue from his tax scam, all those good things vanished and in their place our kids and grandkids got college debt the size of a home mortgage.

 

If you want YOUR grandkids to have a college experience like mine (financially speaking) GET RID OF THE REAGAN TAXSCAM BY GETTING RID OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO WON'T TAX THE RICH. Otherwise, they can always find work in the service industry (want fries with that?), and thanks to those GOPers you allowed to remain in office, they won't have to worry about paying Union Dues or ever getting a fair shake in their job - those two things are inextricably connected if you're not "connected".


I remind you that in the past you have made the claim that the feds paid 75% of college costs before the Reagan tax cuts. When pressed for substantiation, you faded from the scene.

 

And now, it's back - care to offer more specifics than "tax scam"??

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
108
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
105
Views

Re: Which Future?

105 Views
Message 46 of 142

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

Controlled wrote-And the single mother and the kid living with his parents (both in a minimum wage job) - how does your minimum wage theory deal with that?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------When my kids worked for minimum wage jobs in the 70`s they could barely afford their car payment,gasoline and auto insurance.- ,much less a living wage.


See, there you go.  Can you imagine trying to raise a family on a minimum wage which has not even kept up with inflation? 


Agreed - having a child when single and qualified for no more than minimum wage is not wise.


Neither is denying the single person the ability to control her own reproductive functions. In fact, that goes way beyond "unwise" and right into evil, especially when you've rigged the system to ensure she can never support an unwanted child by refusing to provide child care and a living wage. Seems we're the only industrialized democracy to do that as well as denying poor people adequate health care.


Of course, control your own reproductive functions - and act in responsible way. Should a woman's desire to have a child she cannot feed really be the issue? Actually yes, it is in this case.

 

Now, as to the rigged system - how did the system get rigged so she could not become a productive member of society?

 

And how is healthcare rigged against the non-productive? Not only is birth control free, so are abortions.

 

You seem to deny all possibility of people accepting responsibility for themselves and insist they are entitled to the property of those who do.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
105
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
107
Views

Re: Which Future?

107 Views
Message 47 of 142

In 1970, the minimum wage was 60% of the median income, today it's 24%. In 1970, you could attend college with a summer job and 10hrs a week working part time for your school, most of which had scads of such jobs available if you bothered to look.While attending in the early 60's, I lived very well - ate steak regularily, had a nice car (for a kid) lived in a nice apartment and paid for it with a good summer job and some 10hrs a week working for the computer center. Someone with the same income and no tuition and books would've had a pretty sweet life.

 

The main reason was in-State tuition was a couple hundred bucks, dorms were cheap, apts were cheaper and part time work plentiful BECAUSE OF REVENUE SHARING. When Reagan killed Revenue Sharing to try and cover the lost revenue from his tax scam, all those good things vanished and in their place our kids and grandkids got college debt the size of a home mortgage.

 

If you want YOUR grandkids to have a college experience like mine (financially speaking) GET RID OF THE REAGAN TAXSCAM BY GETTING RID OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO WON'T TAX THE RICH. Otherwise, they can always find work in the service industry (want fries with that?), and thanks to those GOPers you allowed to remain in office, they won't have to worry about paying Union Dues or ever getting a fair shake in their job - those two things are inextricably connected if you're not "connected".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
107
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
102
Views

Re: Which Future?

102 Views
Message 48 of 142

@easyed598 wrote:

Richva wrote-Agreed but how do you overcome the unequal relationship between the employer and the employee when bargaining for wages?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Job skills and experience. With unemployment being so low these days employers will pay whatever it takes to keep good employees and still make a profit for their business. Good employees are assets to any business.


Unemployment went down NOT because good jobs suddenly appeared, quite the opposite. The good jobs continued to be sent to commie slaves in Asia so more people simply gave up looking for employment, which makes it appear as if the economy improved.

 

The all-time high repo rate for cars is a much more telling statistic when judging our economic health. Those who destroyed millions of falimies economid futures by selling them subprime mortgages are now destroying more millions of families by selling them subprime car loans. And the only reason the median income has risen is all those people who gave up and left the minimum and lower paying jobs and the workforce.

 

Continuing to allow the infrastructure to deterioriate and good jobs to flow overseas because Republicans refuse regulate commerace or tax the rich is a recipe for a long-term economic disaster. 

 

The only upside in the Trump economy is it will get so bad so fast we'll remove the Republicans that have been redistributing income and wealth from the middle to the top for the past 38 years.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
102
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
101
Views

Re: Which Future?

101 Views
Message 49 of 142

@rk9152 wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

Controlled wrote-And the single mother and the kid living with his parents (both in a minimum wage job) - how does your minimum wage theory deal with that?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------When my kids worked for minimum wage jobs in the 70`s they could barely afford their car payment,gasoline and auto insurance.- ,much less a living wage.


See, there you go.  Can you imagine trying to raise a family on a minimum wage which has not even kept up with inflation? 


Agreed - having a child when single and qualified for no more than minimum wage is not wise.


Neither is denying the single person the ability to control her own reproductive functions. In fact, that goes way beyond "unwise" and right into evil, especially when you've rigged the system to ensure she can never support an unwanted child by refusing to provide child care and a living wage. Seems we're the only industrialized democracy to do that as well as denying poor people adequate health care.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
101
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
100
Views

Re: Which Future?

100 Views
Message 50 of 142

@Richva wrote:

@easyed598 wrote:

Controlled wrote-And the single mother and the kid living with his parents (both in a minimum wage job) - how does your minimum wage theory deal with that?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------When my kids worked for minimum wage jobs in the 70`s they could barely afford their car payment,gasoline and auto insurance.- ,much less a living wage.


See, there you go.  Can you imagine trying to raise a family on a minimum wage which has not even kept up with inflation? 


Agreed - having a child when single and qualified for no more than minimum wage is not wise.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
100
Views