Will fast-food protests spur higher m...

Will fast-food protests spur higher minimum wage?

There are 711 comments on the Northern Michigan News story from Aug 5, 2013, titled Will fast-food protests spur higher minimum wage?. In it, Northern Michigan News reports that:

Terrance Wise has two jobs in Kansas City - one at a burger joint, a second at a pizza restaurant - but he says his paychecks aren't enough to buy shoes for his three daughters and insure his 15-year-old car.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Northern Michigan News.

Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#721 Oct 9, 2013
In 1957, the average income of America’s 44 million families (according to the United States Commerce Department) was $5,000. There were actually 4 million families whose income was over $10,000. There were also 6.5 million families whose annual income was under $2,000. The vast majority of American families, 33 ˝ million of them, had annual income between $2,000 and $10,000. In 2006, the average income for an American family was $48,000. In fifty years the average income had increased tenfold. The main difference between 1957 and 2006 is that most families need two incomes to reach the $48,000 figure whereas fifty years ago only the father usually worked. Logic dictates that if annual income has risen tenfold in fifty years, then the cost of most items has probably risen about the same. This logic is correct in many categories, but horribly flawed in one huge area.

In 1957 the average price for a gallon of milk was $1.00. Today, that gallon of milk averages around $3.00. It really is quite amazing that something as vital as milk has only tripled in price in 50 years. The price of most other things has definitely gone up much more rapidly and dramatically.

Just another example of how wrong Huh's thinking is.
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#722 Oct 9, 2013
Spending on Food Reaches A New Historical Low

based on data from the USDA showing "Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income," from 1929 to 2008 (total spending for both "food at home" and "food away from home").

In the entire history of the U.S., it's only been in the last eight years that the percent of income spent on food for Americans was in single digits - since 2000 it's been below 10%. In all previous years, spending on food was in double-digits, and in most years from 1929 to 1952 it was above 20%. Consider that in 1932, spending on food at home took almost 22% of disposable income, compared to the record low of only 5.6% in 2008. Food has never been more affordable than today, as a share of income.

In 2008, despite the "Great Recession," total spending on food as a share of disposable personal income fell to 9.6%, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in U.S. history. And since spending on food as a share of income is lower in the U.S. than in any other country, the 9.6% share of income spent on food in the U.S. for 2008 is probably the lowest ever in the history of the world.

This amazing trend in lower food prices as a percent of income reflects first of all the relentless and significant improvements in the production and distribution of food over time, and doesn't even take into account the significant improvements in the quantity and quality of most food products available for today's Americans compared to previous generations (whole, 2% 1%, 1/2%, and skim milk are available for today's consumers vs. whole milk only in the past as just one example).

And second of all, Americans are more than 7.7 times wealthier today compared to 1933 based on per-capita real GDP in constant 2004 dollars ($5,653 in 1933 vs.$43,716 in 2008), see chart below. With higher real incomes and lower food prices, it's not surprising that spending on food as a share of income is at an all-time low. And it also makes the comparisons of today's economic conditions and our current standard of living to the conditions during the Great Depression pretty silly, doesn't it?

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/07/spending-...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#723 Oct 9, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
Spending on Food Reaches A New Historical Low
based on data from the USDA showing "Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal income," from 1929 to 2008 (total spending for both "food at home" and "food away from home").
In the entire history of the U.S., it's only been in the last eight years that the percent of income spent on food for Americans was in single digits - since 2000 it's been below 10%. In all previous years, spending on food was in double-digits, and in most years from 1929 to 1952 it was above 20%. Consider that in 1932, spending on food at home took almost 22% of disposable income, compared to the record low of only 5.6% in 2008. Food has never been more affordable than today, as a share of income.
In 2008, despite the "Great Recession," total spending on food as a share of disposable personal income fell to 9.6%, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in U.S. history. And since spending on food as a share of income is lower in the U.S. than in any other country, the 9.6% share of income spent on food in the U.S. for 2008 is probably the lowest ever in the history of the world.
This amazing trend in lower food prices as a percent of income reflects first of all the relentless and significant improvements in the production and distribution of food over time, and doesn't even take into account the significant improvements in the quantity and quality of most food products available for today's Americans compared to previous generations (whole, 2% 1%, 1/2%, and skim milk are available for today's consumers vs. whole milk only in the past as just one example).
And second of all, Americans are more than 7.7 times wealthier today compared to 1933 based on per-capita real GDP in constant 2004 dollars ($5,653 in 1933 vs.$43,716 in 2008), see chart below. With higher real incomes and lower food prices, it's not surprising that spending on food as a share of income is at an all-time low. And it also makes the comparisons of today's economic conditions and our current standard of living to the conditions during the Great Depression pretty silly, doesn't it?
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/07/spending-...
yeah, that was the first site to pop up in my two second google search.(well, maybe it took four seconds, i had to check if the US gov't statistic sites were really down because of the shutdown...yes, they are...)

you'd think idiot HuH would have thought of doing that search before letting his mouth write checks his brain can't cash....
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#724 Oct 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yeah, that was the first site to pop up in my two second google search.(well, maybe it took four seconds, i had to check if the US gov't statistic sites were really down because of the shutdown...yes, they are...)
you'd think idiot HuH would have thought of doing that search before letting his mouth write checks his brain can't cash....
That guy, regardless of his claims, is most likely sitting in mommies basement on her computer, picking his nose and complaining about the fact that his minimum wage mentality is not making him rich like the people that he sees on TV.

And then they wonder why they struggle.
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#725 Oct 9, 2013
Huh wrote:
I know this. I own 4 apartment buildings.
One is a bit upscale and is executive style lofts. That one so far is full and have been able to have very slight increases in rent every two years.
But my other 3 buildings are working class or lower income style. And on two I have had to lower rent just to keep them full.
As wages stagnate I have noticed for me my profit have gone down,also my friends who own small businesses have seen there profit go down do to lagging sales.
Business owners need customers who have money to spend. WHICH MEANS WORKING CLASS PEOPLE WITH MONEY TO SPEND.
Now I understand you.

You are pulling for the under-dog burger flipper to make MORE money so you can raise your tennents' rents so YOU can make more money doing VERY LITTLE.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#726 Oct 9, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
Now I understand you.
You are pulling for the under-dog burger flipper to make MORE money so you can raise your tennents' rents so YOU can make more money doing VERY LITTLE.
read the links i gave to the rental housing climate in Mn, and his particular area. occupancy rates are at all time highs along with rent prices...

he owns no rental properties, he is just caught out in another bullshit statement he invented to try and back up what he wishes were true...
Joe

Allentown, PA

#727 Oct 9, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>Now I understand you.

You are pulling for the under-dog burger flipper to make MORE money so you can raise your tennents' rents so YOU can make more money doing VERY LITTLE.
What Huh is say makes sense. For a business to grow it needs people to spend money. But if the nation is struggling with stagnant and terrible wages there is no money to spend.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#728 Oct 9, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
What Huh is say makes sense. For a business to grow it needs people to spend money. But if the nation is struggling with stagnant and terrible wages there is no money to spend.
you must agree with the first post on this thread, huh?
Joe

Allentown, PA

#729 Oct 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you must agree with the first post on this thread, huh?
Living wages allow for economic stability and create demand. When national income is concentrated at the top, middle-income and lower-income workers have no real buying power. That buying power creates demand and also jobs. But the American economy has gone offtrack and needs a correction to get back on track.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#730 Oct 9, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Living wages allow for economic stability and create demand. When national income is concentrated at the top, middle-income and lower-income workers have no real buying power. That buying power creates demand and also jobs. But the American economy has gone offtrack and needs a correction to get back on track.
so you do agree with Rusty's facetious (yes, look it up, i'll wait...)post.

so just raising everyone's wage will solve our economic problems? and the cost of the things you need to buy won't go up at all because of this?

I am certainly beginning to get an idea of your skill set, Joe, and see why you are paid the wages you are...(hopefully you have a good manager that gives you only one task at a time, as 1+1= x seems beyond your skill level...)
Joe

Brooklyn, NY

#731 Oct 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so you do agree with Rusty's facetious (yes, look it up, i'll wait...)post.

so just raising everyone's wage will solve our economic problems? and the cost of the things you need to buy won't go up at all because of this?

I am certainly beginning to get an idea of your skill set, Joe, and see why you are paid the wages you are...(hopefully you have a good manager that gives you only one task at a time, as 1+1= x seems beyond your skill level...)
Most economists reject the right-wing assertion that living wages would lead to inflation.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#732 Oct 9, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Most economists reject the right-wing assertion that living wages would lead to inflation.
and every business course on the planet and everyone who has ever run a business 9which you obviously have not..)gives us the absolute certainty that labor costs are almost always the # cost for a business, but you say raising them will not raise the cost fo the products that labor produces?

seriously, joe, back to the 1+1=x first, then try to tackle the real world problems...baby steps, joe. Baby steps...
Joe

Allentown, PA

#733 Oct 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>and every business course on the planet and everyone who has ever run a business 9which you obviously have not..)gives us the absolute certainty that labor costs are almost always the # cost for a business, but you say raising them will not raise the cost fo the products that labor produces?

seriously, joe, back to the 1+1=x first, then try to tackle the real world problems...baby steps, joe. Baby steps...
Shareholders have to accept less profit. Out focus should be on stakeholders -- which means the company, workers and shareholders.

And for the record, I would be one hell of a executive.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#734 Oct 9, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Shareholders have to accept less profit. Out focus should be on stakeholders -- which means the company, workers and shareholders.
And for the record, I would be one hell of a executive.
and then why wouldn't they just invest elsewhere where they get a better return?

what about the small companies that have no shareholders? seems your executive skills missed a few points...

do you support any of these companies that you feel do not paya living wage by buying their products?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#735 Oct 9, 2013
wonder where HUH wandered off to?
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#736 Oct 9, 2013
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Shareholders have to accept less profit. Out focus should be on stakeholders -- which means the company, workers and shareholders.
And for the record, I would be one hell of a executive.
Dimwit! What makes you believe that you would be any better at being and executive, than you as a teacher, fast food worker or any of the other positions that you have failed at. Your claim rings hollow in light of your many failures.
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#737 Oct 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
wonder where HUH wandered off to?
Out making his next million. HAHAHAHA
Aphelion

Melbourne, FL

#738 Oct 9, 2013
Good article explaining why the Joe's of our society are struggling and why they wont survive.

US adults are dumber than the average human

Americans score poorly compared to many international competitors, the findings reinforced just how large the gap is between the nation’s high- and low-skilled workers and how hard it is to move ahead when your parents haven’t.
In both reading and math, for example, those with college-educated parents did better than those whose parents did not complete high school.
The study, called the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, found that it was easier on average to overcome this and other barriers to literacy overseas than in the United States.

Researchers tested about 166,000 people ages 16 to 65 in more than 20 countries and subnational regions. The test was developed and released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is made up of mostly industrialized member countries. The Education Department’s Center for Education Statistics participated.

As the American economy sputters along and many people live paycheck-to-paycheck, economists say a highly-skilled workforce is key to economic recovery. The median hourly wage of workers scoring on the highest level in literacy on the test is more than 60 percent higher than for workers scoring at the lowest level, and those with low literacy skills were more than twice as likely to be unemployed.

“It’s not just the kids who require more and more preparation to get access to the economy, it’s more and more the adults don’t have the skills to stay in it,” said Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

Among the other findings:

-Americans scored toward the bottom in the category of problem solving in a technology rich environment.

“There is a race between man and machine here. The question here is always: Are you a worker for whom technology makes it possible to do a better job or are you a worker that the technology can replace?” he said. For those without the most basic skills, he said, the answer will be merciless and has the potential to extend into future generations. Learning is highly correlated with parents’ education level.

“If you want to avoid having an underclass – a large group of people who are basically unemployable – this educational system is absolutely key,” Kirkegaard said.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/08/us-adults-are-du...
INFIDEL

Grants, NM

#739 Oct 9, 2013
When dealing with conservatives I never ask if they support raising the minimum wage because they never do. Instead I ask, "should anyone who works a full job time earn so little that they are beneath the poverty level". They always answer no.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#740 Oct 9, 2013
INFIDEL wrote:
When dealing with conservatives I never ask if they support raising the minimum wage because they never do. Instead I ask, "should anyone who works a full job time earn so little that they are beneath the poverty level". They always answer no.
yet i am a conservative and i do support maintaining the minimum wage with increases in the cost of living and inflation, but this does not mean minimum wages should be living wage, that is why it is called minimum wage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Food Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Police: Pennsylvania man ran fake DUI checkpoin... 14 hr one for the road 1
News Pick Your Own Berries in Toronto & the GTA 15 hr region H20 storag... 1
News Sanctions Spark Russian Cheese Industry Boom 18 hr FAKE RUSSIAN CHEESE 2
News Halton African West Indian Superstore 22 hr lots of new immig... 1
News Why do I often crave eating clay? (Jan '09) Mon red clay lover 8,981
News Grading The President's Strategy To Promote Bee... Mon J Smith 2
News Asked at the Linda Mar Shopping Center. Mon exposingfibs 1
More from around the web