Yes, if you chart stock prices in "things" like gold, oil etc you see a similar picture. Here DOW measured in Gold:

http://www.tradingstocks.net/html/gold_dow_vs_nominal_dow.html

We are below 1968 in the stock market too.

And it would be even worse if the Democrats hadn't passed a minimum wage increase when they took over Congress in 2006. Remember how hard the GOP fought against that?

Without that bill, the minimum wage would still be $5.15, which would be worth $0.72 in 1963 dollars!!!

Perhaps we are looking at the wrong issue.

We would not be having this discussion if the Federal Reserve had focused on maintaining the value of the dollar. Without inflation, the purchasing power of the minimum wage would not have fallen over the years.

Consider, the dollar has lost 94% of its value since 1968. You can run the calculation here on the Bureau of Labor Statistics own inflation calculator...

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Nate Burr's posts below are well worth reading for those who want a deeper understanding of the nature of wages.

The GOBP, Party of No, is incapable of reading graphs.

Anyone for increasing the minimum wage is foolish and incapable of recognizing relativity. I will explain and hopefully educate some of you.

Minimum wage be it $3.00, or $10.00 is still minimum wage. It is the bottom, the least. It is an economic unit plain and simple. So Minimum wage is $3.00 and it goes up to $4.00 per hour, you gained a dollar right? Wrong!

Most costs in most industries are driven by minimum wage. Our whole country is bound in some level to what the minimum wage is. Don't think for a second that when minimum wage goes up employers take the hit. They pass the cost along to every consumer, especially those making minimum wage. It doesn't effect those making minimum wage they are now making the same they were before but it brings those making more then minimum wage closer to the bottom, as when the minimum goes up NOT EVERYONE DOES.

So for relativity assume whatever minimum wage is we will call it X:

If you make 3 dollars more then minimum wage, you make X+3. If the minimum wage goes up 1 dollar costs go up inline with it (proven fact), you now make X+2, which is less. Understand?

People talk of the ever shrinking middle class, well this is why. Think about it 10 years ago if you made $7.50 an hour as were 21 years old and in college, you were doing okay. You could afford things, you were doing better then most your age. Now you aren't. Hell the 16 year old at Domino's is making as much as you are. Why is this, our entire economy is comparitive in nature. The TOP is always going to be the top, and the more we grow the bottom we just shrink the middle.

Now for the final part here. The government, particularly the Democrats, is for minimum wage going up. Why do you think that is? I'll tell you.

As the minimum wage goes up so do income taxes, but more so the taxes employers have to pay on minimum wage employees. And taxes are a percentile rate. Being that they are a percentage, the more your minimum wage is the more you lose percentile wise, so you make EVEN LESS then you did before making a smaller minimum wage. So when it goes up your costs go up, your buying power (which is what really matters) actually shrinks when accounting for taxes, the employer has to pay even more (on average for every dollar paid to a worker the emplyer actually pays $1.18 after taxes).

So when minimum wage goes up WE ALL lose. Except our government which taxes us, and dont think for a second that they aren't in business themselves.

Wages are down, but I don't think the price of real estate and automobiles took the same path.

Hey Andrew...

Problem with your theory... The Cost of Living goes up amd so does the Poverty Line...so anyone making Minimum Wage...even if it goes up... They wont pay TAXES...

And That's why you dont have 47% of Americans PAYING TAXES NOW!!!

Think Harder!!!

Have you seen a check for a minimum wage employee? I just had payroll at my restaurant today, so I did. Guess what they take taxes out of those checks. about 12.65% to be specific.

It is a quesiton of whether or not I am thinking harder. Sure they will get a refund of most of that at the end of the year...if they file, but that is income lost immediately to them. Simple fact if you earn a check you pay some form of taxes plain and simple. And that 12.65% doesn't include social security, which is another percentile tax(if you think it isn't you need to think harder).

@AndrewinWI

Although there does exist a rather delicate balance that perhaps must be maintained, there exists the fact as well that in many areas of this country one simply can't survive upon a minimum wage income, or quite often that resulting from two such full time jobs. In the present economy there seems to be a understandable trend toward hiring only those that fall into that catagory for whatever reason. Problem is... that without a healthy consumer base able to exercise at least a small amount of descretionary spending sales of whatever products will continue to falter, thereby creating a downward spiral from which there appears to be little chance of recovery. If this pattern continues the economy of this country will in all likelyhood collapse and the dollar will possibly lose any and all real value whatsoever. Remember hearing stories concerning the wheelbarrow loads of cash taken into the marketplace to purchase a loaf of bread? Sad fact is that those stories possess at least some basis in fact. In other words... if steps are not taken to avert this collapse you will be poor. Have a pleasant evening.

I agree completely with you believe me I do. The problem with the minimum wage being mandated across the country is the increase in costs throughout. The original design of minimum was that was the barest income one could subside upon. And you are right today who can live on minimum wage? Few if any.

Increasing it isnt the solution. Upping the minimum wage just increases costs across the board for everyone and relatively decreases the buying power of those making more then minimum wage.

When it goes up the people at the bottom are no better off. The only ones who gain from an increase in minimum wage is our government...that is it, truly.

Unfortuneately for all of us; we are too bsuy arguing over who to blame. 48% of the country wants to stand up and shout you darn dirty pinko socialist commies, and 48% wants to stand up and shout this is all your fault you gun toting, bible thumping redneck neo nazis.

96% of the country identifies as conservative/republican or liberal/democrat. And we as people seek to fault the others in this.

Ultimately minimum wage aside we have lost our manufacturing and give our American dolalr away and WE ARE ALL TO BLAME.

When it became okay to go and buy a hammer made in China from Wal-Mart and not a Made in America hammer from John's local Hardware store we started this push.

Our entire economy is based upon the simple barter system, a good/service for a good/service. All of the stuff in between is made up mumbo jumbo, that we have to make up more stuff to figure out.

Two things that put us where we are now, going off of the gold standard and we stopped buying American. We go back to those and we start are step back, until then raising the minimum wage is just a way to placate the sheeple.

AndrewinWI

Thanks for coming back on that... and you are right. The big giveaway of U.S. industries to other countries seems to be posing quite a little problem now, doesn't it? So... what to do? Adapting to the living conditions current in some of those other countries in order to survive holds little allure for me, I'm afraid. Clearly, both the NAFTA treaty and the World Trade Organisation agreements need to be reexamined and, if deemed neccessary to the well being of our own country, renegotiated or even abandoned over time. A very distasteful and perhaps even embarassing situation, but if... and I do say IF... it is found that doing such would indeed improve our presently disabled consumer base, I feel that we as a nation would have little choice but to proceed in that manner. There are indeed other potential answers as well, but I've probably taken up quite enough space for now as it is. Have a pleasant evening and all best.

I was naturally inclined to agree with your arguments until this catastrophe, "Our entire economy is based upon the simple barter system." All credibility lost, sorry. Your comprehension is getting there, but evidently has room for growth.

Nate he is right we are based on a simple barter system. You work for dollars and trade those dollars for goods. Many Americans still swap service for service or goods for goods as well.

Andrew's arguments are well thought out and spot on. Minimum wage only increases government revenue and does nothing really to help the bottom and middle wage earners. If you really wanted it fair everyone would have to take a bump up, but then it wouldn't benefit anyone because prices which are fixed to costs would only rise as well deflating the dollar even more.

And Republicans want to do away with the minimum wages to help cut the deficit, cut back SS and medicare if they can't eliminate it, and don't forget about eliminating the Health Care Reform to help big businesses raise the costs even more. Now voters, do you get the real picture????????

Cite would not allow editing allowed within the proper time:

Republicans want to eliminate the Finance Reforms that could allow for more corruption for us to bail out, and of course they definitely want the permanent tax increase for the wealthy. Do you get the picture voters?

Do you get the the picture voters?

Yep liberal 's hate the rich and never intend on getting off the butts and actually working.

A far larger problem is that the government inflation numbers are rigged and don’t reflect true inflation.

The Federal government has been cooking the books for over 50 years to make things look better than they are.

JFK didn’t like high unemployment numbers so he changed the system to only reflect recent applications and ignore those already unemployed. Today the real number is around 20% or more.

Johnson pulled Social Security funds into the General Fund without reporting it as income, replacing the SS funds with IOUs. This made the GDP look better but it is based on a lie.

Nixon took food and fuel out of the calculation of inflation. So it was inflation without the 2 biggest expenses.

Later the calculation of food costs was changed again so that the shopping basket comparison for food costs, from year to year, no longer represented like for like. IE; a pound of salmon was replaced with a pound of cheaper fish, olive oil was replaced with vegetable oil etc.

This has been done by every administration republican or democrat since WWII.

Today’s real inflation rate is far, far higher than anything the government has reported in all this time.

For a better picture check out this YouTube video;

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-16-fuzzy-numbers

The cost of living index calculation was changed during the presidency of GW Bush when they removed food and fuel, because, they said, those prices fluctuated to rapidly and made the index likewise go down, or more often up, too much. By removing them from the calculation the Index looked a lot more favorable.

While it is true that those items fluctuate rapidly, completely removing them is also dishonest since they are very significant factors in the monthly budget of most people. A better approach would be to average the cost of those items over several months to smooth out the swings, but still give a more realistic measure of the true cost of living.

kamudi,

How right you are with the comments on the cost of living calculations. But don't forget, too, the very high utilities, the property taxes, city taxes, school taxes, etc.

I've heard in various media including PBS, that Banks and Big Businesses are sitting on several trillions available in cash. So why aren't they using some of the money to hire a few more people rather than over loading the burden on their limited number of employees without overtime pay? Don't they have some moral obligation to our society to support the economy and people with jobs? Are they taking advantage of this Recession by hiring part time, with lower salaries, and doubling of the workload? What is the real objective for keeping the economy down when it is well within their power to do something?? Just look at the millions of dollars they spent for the recent campaigns; but yet they don't have the money to spend hiring people. Don't we support them with our purchasing.

Your statement that a raise in minimum wage is passed on to the cost of goods/services the employer offers is a complete and total assumption. Price points are set based on supply & demand. A set minimum wage is created for the purpose of increasing income, which in turn naturally increases general demand, which more often than not allows companies to increase the price of their goods as required to temper that demand. Secondly, low wage earners benefit greatly by small raises in terms of percentage of their income compared to most employers, in which the additional payroll is relatively minor peanuts. A set baseline for livable minimum wage is basically almost a requirement for capitalism to function properly. Without it, you create an increasing welfare state and set yourself up for deflationary spirals.

Raising minimum wage = Inflation.

AndrewinWI is correct on his teaching about the effect of min wage. Prices will never go down as long as minimum wage goes up. Businesses simply can't make a profit that way. Solution? Get rid of minimum wage. Prices need to be determined by private industry. The fear of doing that is an increase of poverty but what we'd really be doing is getting rid of the mask of inflation. We need a new system of welfare where people must WORK to earn a welfare check.

David....

Don't Bet your LIFE on that One!!!

The average income f members of congress is over $600k per year, they have no clue what it is like for the rest of us.

"The median U.S. family has a net worth of about $120,000. For the average member of the U.S. House of Representatives, it's $666,000. So that goes to show that in terms of the representativeness of the U.S. Congress, there's a lot of rich people there and very few average folks"

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/07/am-how-many-millionaires-are-in-congress/

my brother in law who is a republican seems to think if they get rid of the minimum wage it will lead to more jobs. he gave the example of the good will store that had a "hiring" sign up offering minimum wage. he said they were having trouble filling the position, but if they could offer the job for $5 an hour they would have no trouble filling the position. he was not able to explain how that would work- can somebody else explain how that could work?

Your brother in law is an idiot. If nobody wants the job for min wage then they for sure won't want it for less than that. That's the problem with most of the republicans is the fact that they are not capable of rational thought.

Your Brother-in-law is absolutely correct, if the current minimum wage (7.25) is above the would-be labor market equilibrium minimum wage. Minimum wage is an example of wage control, or fixed wages. Suppose minimum wage seized to exist, and that the supply and demand of labor dictated a equilibrium hourly wage of $6.00. In this case, everybody looking for an hourly job could find one, but would have to accept the lower 'market wage'. With a minimum wage requirement, or a minimum wage increase for that matter, some people will lose their jobs, and others will be happy as they are now earning a higher wage. Regardless, unemployment will increase. In your example of the Good Will store, if the business is having trouble filling the open position at an offered hourly-wage of $7.25, then that would suggest market equilibrium wage -- in that particular region -- is above $7.25, and would necessitate a higher hourly wage offer from the store. Hope this helped clear things up.

Nate

The only people taking the $5.00 per hour job are the ones the republicans want to deport as they are illegal aliens...

Kevin,

The fact that they're illegal makes an employer hiring them also illegal. Nevertheless, they take that risk anyway to avoid paying the fixed minimum wage. I would say a preponderance of 'illegals' most likely have a tax-ID number. However, to elaborate on your argument, without minimum wage the onslaught of illegal-immigrants in our country would, in fact, drive 'labor market equilibrium hourly wage' substantially lower -- as there would be a sudden increase in the supply of labor, and this "supply shock" happens to be composed of folks who would gladly bid down wages.

Your not taking into account that executive wages have increased 1000 times faster than anyone else while their income and capital gains taxes have been consistently cut. The dollar is less because the greediest among us have increasingly funneled money to the top while corrupting tax and trade policy as well as federal regulation choking off economic activity and lending for new startups.

Finally some reality, the reason why most of us can't afford to live a comfortable life is because of greed plain and simple. The CEO of our company made 13 million last year not including his 10 million in bonus's and don't forget his 16 million in stock options. Oh and by the way the company isn't doing well so we can't give all you people who make all our money for us a raise. That's how simple it gets. The rich get richer, the goverment officials get kicked back to let it happen and the rest of us, well too bad. Unfortunatley most people have become very civilized so they just suffer and take it. There is only one way to stop it, but right now people are not angry enough for a revolution. The good news is they will be, it's just a matter of how much people will put up with and for how long!

Bruce, congradulations, you just posted some of the most truest word's I've read yet! If anyone doesn't believe that what you posted isn't the truth, I have a bridge in NY, some damp land in FL, and some handymans fixer-uper vacation property in Bagdad to sell to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hows this for a rational thought. people in 1968 actually lived on minimum wage. today people move beyond minimum wage fairly quickly if they are competent in their jobs. if you are living on minimum wage and you have had the same job for more than a year you need a new job.

Bruce congratulations! You just posted a prime example of why unemployment benefits should not be extended. When people would rather sit on their ass and live off those who work than take at a perfectly acceptable job then we obviously have a problem and it isn't minimum wage.

@LOL

Congratulations. You've made it more than obvious that you didn't read what Bruce wrote (either that or you are unable to comprehend his message) yet you have used this as a platform to express your ill thought out ideals that have little or nothing to do with our country's current problems concerning rampant and all pervading unemployment. Read Bruce's message again... slowly, and sound out the words if you need to. Here is an example to help you get started. Rev-o-lu-tion. This big word means to rebel against the powers that be. Through the process of rev-o-lu-tion this country took its independence from the British Empire at the time of its formation. Good luck and have a pleasant evening.

Saxon....in my state if that "someone" was making minimum wage and was working 40 hours a week...they would not qualify for food stamps. Maybe utilities grants, but that is about it....

It is sad that they may do better "overall" working less hours in order to qualify for assistance!

Average wages are also worth less than they were decades ago... and yet housing costs remain at mid-bubble levels thanks to government intervention in the form of taxpayer funded credits and foreclosure moratoriums.

Not only is the current minimum wage worth less than in 1968, housing costs have got to be at least 3x as much making today's wages practically worthless.

Inflation adjusted home values in 2000 were nearly 2x the values in 1970...before the bubble took off. Home values from 1968 to 2010 have got to be worse.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html

Until housing returns to being in line with wages there will be no recovery, and with the upcoming tax burdens from all of the government borrowing housing will need to drop below historical wage comparisons to be sustainable.

Saxon, minimum wage is just that- the minimum an employer can pay you. Its not supposed to be a "living wage".

breeze - why shouldn't the minimum wage be a living wage? Otherwise, a lot of workers are simply slaves.

Minimum wage is not suppost to be a living wage. It is a starting salary .

My dad worked for a dollar a day in the coalmines back in the depression days it was good money to he said.

I started working at around 2.10 a hr i believe back in the 70's washing dishes.

I could,nt live on it i knew that and so i search for my own coalmine i found it in Uncle Sugars Confused Group..everyone needs to find there own mine.

stop begging and stealing.

It shouldn't be a living wage because thats not what its for, its the lowest hourly, daily or monthly wage that employers may legally pay to employees or workers. Equivalently, it is the lowest wage at which workers may sell their labor (according to Wiki). A lot of small businesses would be hurt by raising it to a "living wage". My parents run a restaurant in a small Iowa town that employs mostly high school kids, and thats what they are paid to start with no experience. Everyone has to start somewhere. I remember when it was $3.15 and that's what I made working at the local grocery. You can't start out making huge bucks with no experience.

Hey Retired...

Your father said a DOLLAR was Good Wages because the Value of the Dollar was way HIGHER than it is TODAY...

In 1960 a dollar was worth 1.45 ....

In 2008 a dollar was worth .3 cents...

Thats why a Loaf of Bread cost 25 cents in 1960 ans why it Costs 3.75 NOW!!!

Think Harder!!!

@Ron

retiredcoastguard has had the government to see to his needs for most of his adult life from the sounds of it. Don't be too hard on him,in all likehood he has little experience in dealing with his own responsabilities and probably has a vision of the world that may indeed be quite different from yours or mine. In other words, he can't help it. Although he probably feels completely entitled to his retirement (probably at a relatively young age) he lacks the basis and insight to form a valid opinion concerning the unjust plight facing a good portion of the population today. He apparently simply can't grasp the fact that most of those collecting unemployment benefits today have worked hard and very likely longer than him to simply maintain a decent lifestyle only to have the rug jerked out from beneath them largely through no fault of their own. All he knows is that he is fully taken care of by the government and therefore is not subject to the same concerns as the population at large.

The problem with minimum wage is even if you have experience you still end up with minimum wage. I worked for 4 years starting out at 6.00 an hour, pay raise goes 1.00, 0.10, 0.15 first raise was from being promoted at least thats what I was told. But what am I back at 7.25 an hour minimum wage. I quit shortly after because the job wasn't worth the time. Companies are bull and promotions are illusions to make you do more work for less money. At least thats how its been with me. Every place I tried to get a job with after just wanted me to work as a slave. So now I'm going to school so I can be the one making people be my slaves. I still don't have a job but then who does these days. Four years in retail is hell on earth. If it wasn't for living with people I wouldn't have been able to live with that pay. I don't recieve any help except for school and from my now wife. My point is minimum wage is here just so you can be held down and forced to obey. Perfect reason to go to school don't you think. Always good to break free. If you got rid of minimum wage people wouldn't work at all and instead ask the Government for help. Thats just my ramblings for the day.

http://usmilnet.com/smf/index.php/topic,16733.0.html

I told you what i did to better my situation my father bettered his finances by joining a coal camp . The trouble with liberals is they wish to do nothing.

Not trying to be mean but your typing on a computor same as me .Are times really that tough for you?

I could live without the web ,dish network and a cellphone and even going out to eat a lot but i choose not to.

I have earned that right go earn yours and quit crying if you put forth half the effort you do into begging into actual work you might have something.

Employers take risk there into it to make a profit not to feed your materialistic wants if you want to retire some day either make more or want less.

Also remember the unaimed arrow saddly never misses. ;-(

7.25ph x 160hrs = 1160$ per month before taxes. Where I live the average rent runs froom 800$ - 1200$ per month. It is no mystery who has taken advantage of the minimum wage system. Landlords still charge the same for rent today as they did before the recession hit. Although property values have lowered, they haven't for the ones taking the greatest advantage of minimum wage laws. The landlords.

The biggest problem is the whole premise of the arguments for higher minimum wages.

“How can anyone raise a family on minimum wage?”

Of course the real answer is that you can’t expect to. No responsible person would even try. You are supposed to start a family when you are financially capable of taking care of your family. Society doesn’t “owe” you a family or the means to care for one.

“How can anyone afford to pay rent, food, etc on minimum wage?

Again the answer is that you aren’t supposed to. You either have to find a very cheap apartment or share one. Society doesn’t “owe” you a place to live, a car to drive or food on the table.

Minimum wage is supposed to be a starting point not a purpose. If you get a job sweeping floors in a factory for $4 an hour that is your in to that factory. If you are still sweeping floors, at that same pay, a year later you should be looking for another job.

But chances are that you won’t be. You will have been moved up to something else. Maybe you will be maintaining machinery cleaning and oiling them and getting $6 per hour then moved from being the grunt in that position to being the lead at $9. Eventually you will be trained to run machines for $12 and so on up the ladder.

Why does this happen? Because you have become more valuable; you are a better commodity. If factory A doesn’t advance you as you gain experience and knowledge factory B will steal you.

But here is the reality of the world. There aren’t any factories left in America, largely because labor costs made it necessary to move the factory off shore.

Now the only jobs at that location are in shipping and receiving. There aren’t a lot of levels in S&R and most companies require multitasking so when there aren’t boxes to be moved those employees are sweeping the floors. There are no longer 20 levels of employees there are 5 and those are filled. Most of the jobs that remain don’t really require any expertise and therefore only pay minimum wage.

Hey DudeWhat...

Your thinking is good on get a Education.... but you have NOT learned about Slavery Yet....

If you think you can educate yourself to use other People as slaves then you will learn that Slavery will come back to you once again...

Slavery actually cause you to in slave yourself... You will learn this fact One Day!!

retiredcoastguard,

Nobody is going to give a hoot about what some biased partisan has to say. For your information, there are more conservatives on welfare than liberals. The top 15 states in this nation with the highest poverty rates are ALL red-voting states. Every single one of them. It's amazing actually. It's even more amazing how you vote party lines and against your own interests simply because you think you're a part of some non-existent club.

because you think you're a part of some non-existent club.

Riiiiiiiiight like i said anything like that. God gave you 2 ears and mouth so you could hear twice as much as you spoke you know.

I suppose there could be liberals in both partys but most small business people actually make over 250,000 a year before working expenses (of course you knew that) which is why you almost have to be a republican if you own a businese.

Keep voting for hand outs though if it makes you feel better your not alone that is why that One Big Azz Mistake America got elected.

I mean you like handouts right your parents did and there parent too.

Hell why should anyone work?socialism rules right? what exactly does it take to make liberal happy just wondering?

Like you said though no one is listening these days. the time of waltons has gone and now its all about being cool aka smoking dope and staying at home with mommy.

Btw the Army is hiring i believe.

Btw ..the club i belong to as you speak is a very small elite club no i am not talking about the CG i am talking about the folks who have worked study before they could legally and have kept working rather than take handouts.

I see no shame in a hand up or working any job but those who choose not to work because there to dang sorry are parasites to the rest of us.

He doesn't own the houses; his wife does.

Did Sen. McCain sign a pre-nup?

Fed up

So McCain is taking spousal support. He still doesn't have a clue.

The houses are most likely in her name for political and tax reasons!

No, they are likely in her name because she ws the one with the money when they got married. He cheated with her when married to his first wife, and divorced that wife when she had become disabled. He "married up", as the blue bloods say.

Yep why do you think obesity has risen so much over the last 30 years,

it is not because people are eating all that much more than they used to, it is because the quality of food most people get now is awful. Corn syrup is literally in everything out there. 3 boxes of twinkies usually cost less than a can of beans. A head of lettuce costs as much as a box of cereal, and a good quality gallon of milk usually costs $5 or more.

Obesity will continue to skyrocket our health care costs until we realize that society is a interconnected system and you can't drop wages and jack up food costs without greatly increasing a lot of public costs down the road.

I've noticed the cheapest food per calorie is usually the most unhealthy. About the only foods that I see that are really cheap that are reasonably good for you are potatoes, bananas, and rice.

Its tough for small business owners to survive anymore- really sad that all our mom and pop small businesses here have folded over the past few years and been taken over by big corporate owned companies or just sit vacant collecting tumbleweeds. Our town looks like a ghost town lately. I have a friend in the same position, he's losing more money than he's making right now and thinking of bailing and just finding a regular job, but good luck there, since there either aren't any, or the competition is horrible.

I bet the local Wal-Mart parking lot is full....

Employers have cut pay for years, meaning a lot less disposable income for most people to go out and buy anything. Even if they had the income a lot of people would opt for chinamart instead, continuing the destructive spiral.

It just occurs to me, reading Stu's post, that, in 2001-2009, American wages decreased overall by 5%. However, the middle class got quite a few tax breaks (child tax credits, increases in those, daycare and other credits or deductions). These tax breaks probably only offset the wage losses.

If that is the case, then it turns out that the government has been subsidizing middle class salaries (and, by extension, the corporation bottom line) with those "tax breaks", while corporations raked in the profits and the stock market did so well (until late 2008, that is). How? The middle class got the tax breaks and were told that these would increase their disposable income/purchasing power, while the companies they worked for were begging out of raises, decent raises, bonuses, or decent starting wages when filling jobs those companies vacated through lay-offs. And in 2009, Bank of America, GE, and CitiCorp paid ZERO in corporate taxes.

BUT the middle class, believing all this, wasn't quite aware of why that money wasn't going far enough - i.e., increases in housing costs were nuts during that period, given the housing boom - and trying to keep afloat led many in the middle class to use their credit cards to offset those "raises" they didn't get.

Yesterday, the Republicans stopped the newest rounds of UI extension, using that old 'pay for it' mantra. However, no one on the Democratic side has sat down and presented the American people with the costs of some of the Republican legislation that was passed 2001-2008. And I'd really like to know what some of those Republican programs cost, or some of their program cuts ended up costing in other areas.

We do know that those two tax breaks for the wealthy passed in 2001 and 2003, did NOT create more jobs. Under Clinton, depending on the source you use, job creation resulted in 22-23 million new jobs. Under Bush, it was a net of 1.1 - 3 million jobs. In other words, job growth did much better at the tax rates existent during the Clinton years. Also, that 2nd tax cut in 2003, added $1.3 TRILLION to the budget deficit alone, forget the wars, earmarks, corporate subsidies (while social program budgets were cut), etc. And somebody's going to get on here and say that those corporate subsidies led to jobs. Well, they didn't. They increased the deficit.

Now the final part of that reasoning line I began above is, those earning the most, that would be the top 1% earning 25% of all earnings, are circulating their money, not in creating JOBS, but in investments of various kinds, which only serves to increase their portfolios. Doesn't do much for the economy, given the tax breaks, because corporations are hoarding at least $1 TRILLION right now, according to Moody's, as reported Oct. 26, by Reuters. So the tax breaks for the wealthy stimulate them to invest, but that has not translated into jobs - no matter whether they pay well or not. It hasn't increased revenues, because the tax breaks prevent that. So it appears that is how the money is being circulated and funneled into the hands of a few while the rest are facing some form of reduction of life style standard all the way down to homelessness increasing.

By the way, the Republicans have made it clear they expect the tax cuts for the wealthiest to be extended past their ORIGINAL expiration date of 12/31/2010 as they cut those UI benefits to at least 2 million people yesterday and have made it also clear that they will stop tax breaks for the middle class if those for the wealthiest aren't extended.

In all those discussions, glaringly absent is any mention of job creation by Republicans. If they are going to b1tch about deficits, budgets, and how to 'pay for it', they'd better pull their inflated heads out of their behinds and encourage their rich corporate friends to hire some of those 2 million people they just essentially dumped on the streets.

As for minimum wage jobs, they pay so little that, in most cases, the workers do not end up owning any income tax. Reducing minimum wage will only make that revenue problem worse, increase needs in social programs, and continue the current pattern.

It used to be that working in America would generally lead to a stable, if not comfortable, lifestyle. Since the 2001 recession, working in America means unstable wage structures, instability in benefits, workers never knowing when the 'other shoe is going to drop' - as in, lay-offs - and increasing discouragement. People are piece-mealing their salaries and earnings by working several part time jobs, consultant gigs, or temp assignments. There's no stability in those wage structures. There's just barely hanging on til things get better. We can't raise our kids in this kind of uncertainty and have them come out of this whole, productive, or stable.

The top 1% of workers gets 25% of this nation's total earnings. Something's wrong with that. It's gotta change.

What if we forced American corporations to pay our minimum wage wherever they go. Would some jobes come back?

The entire government is just one big corrupt show anymore. All parties have screwed up this country, not just one.

How does one fairly distribute wealth?? If I bust my butt to earn a million dollars, why should you reap the benefits of my work??? What we need are fairly distributed TAXES....

PAP

Can you give me an instance of working your butt of to earn a million bucks that doesn't require that you use the ingenuity and resources of lots of other people?

Answer me this: what do you actually have that wasn't "given" to you? I am using the term loosely.

Do we have any responsibility to the greater society? Because we sure as hell reap the benefits derived FROM it.

They would make all the government employees pay their back taxes.

Yeah PA ProGun in one way or another your profit comes on the backs of a lot of people under you making a hell of a lot less for just as much work. So don't give us that "I worked for my money" stuff. We all work hard around here, and not all of us do it in a nice corner office with a window.

And even taxes?? Are you crazy? You read an article showing that the bottom rung of American workers make absolutely nothing and you're suggesting you tax that bottom rung at like 20-30%?? Why not just tax the top at 40% and get the same amount of money without ruining the rest of America. You make a million, lose 40% to taxes and still have more money than you know what to do with. We make like 20k, take away 40% of that and then what? Still got rent/mortgage, food, family bills, etc, never mind actually saving something so our kids aren't in this same bad place.

If we remove all of the Government people that are screwing the middle class and lower class people, then there will be no one left , that might be a good thing or might not because there will always be someone there to bend you over a car hood! Not a pretty picture , but that how it is.

@Ryan-1770497

I totally agree. I've heard this claim that working harder always translates to riches, and it's simply not true. Obviously "working" in the most basic form will translate to more money than not, but there are so many workers who make so little while those at the top of the same company make so much.

If 1% of this country's workers make 25% of the money, something is wrong with that -- and contrary to claims by conservatives it doesn't take a "socialist" to see it. That 1% is making tons of money off the backs of the rest of the people who are also working on a daily basis. No one is saying everyone should make the same amount of money for every job, but rather does the CEO of a big company really deserve $10M+ a year while some lower employees are being laid off and the remaining employees are told to work harder and without prospect of a wage increase?

That CEO certainly deserves higher pay than those below, because there's no denying that not everyone is cut out for every job. Executive positions often come and go more frequently than lower positions as well, with things like scandals or poor yearly income results tending to cause "resignations" more often than for the little guys. For these reasons they most certainly deserve higher pay, however the disparity between what the regular workers are making and what the top people are making is so stark as to be ridiculous.

@PAProGun

Even out the taxes? Are you insane? Those on the lower end of the wage spectrum pay vastly more as a percentage of income for goods and services than do those at the top. It seems only fair that those at the top pay a bit more toward our nation's support, because they can afford it more readily in light of other things costing relatively little.

There is a bottom threshold for the cost of living. Even if you cut out all the non-essentials expenses, the costs of housing, food, transportation, utilities and the other required items still isn't scaling with a person's income. That gallon of milk costs the person making $30k/yr the same fixed dollar amount as it costs the person making $100k/yr, but the percentage of income is vastly disproportionate. Once taxes are paid, that person making $100k/yr is still a hell of a lot better off than the person making $30k/yr no matter how loud they gripe about their tax bracket.

Jobs that used to pay very good wages here in NJ, say maybe a paralegal or medical secretary where you could make about 38,000 a year about 4 years ago, are currently paying 49 cents over NJ minimum wage here. So, do I take the stressful job that requires me to dedicate my entire life to the position? or do I just get a job as a cashier where I can hang up my vest at the end of the day and not have to take extra work home to complete?

Its horrendous, and we're all taking 5 steps behind.

arifelife - its not really about money SFB, its about quality of life for those less fortunate - something that would never concern you. Everything is not about you and your selfishness

The rich.

Republicans.

People that have no grasp on how the economy literally depends utterly on a large swath of consumers with disposable income to keep things going.

Stu-4803409: agreed.

The majority of Congress

Actually, CEO pay has gone up 48,900% since 1980 (from 42 times the average worker's salary to 531 times the average).

From the NY Times:

Our Banana Republic

The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

C.E.O.'s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.

Still think they can only pay a minimum wage of $7.25?

A business owner is different than a CEO. They are hired to run the company someone else got to that point. I am all for people getting paid what they are worth, but a business owner taking home peanuts compared to the candy factory the CEO gets to take home is way out of synch with the rest of the country.

Small business gets all kind of tax credits and deserve more. But Stu has it right, in a country where 80% of the economic activity in America comes from consumer spending, having a minimum wage that's worth something really is a tide that raises all boats.

true, they even tell you that at the unemployment office, take the temp job if its offered to you, and when you get fired or laid off, just go reopen your claim. What a joke.

I went off Unemployment in February and went to work for the US Census. When that was done, I went back on unemployment and told them about working for the Census. I got right back on.

One of the big problems is that people believe the "trickle-down" theory works, despite the evidence of the last decade (and then some). "Trickle-down" as a theory only works when the rich understand and fulfill what used to be called "noblesse oblige." And as someone said, the idea that "I worked for what I have" is not the same thing as "I am the only one who worked for what I have." No one gets rich alone, you can't be on top of a pile if there is no pile.

I have never had a problem with paying my taxes, paying into the Social Security system, and giving to charities. My logic is that I have an obligation in a cooperative society to help those in need. I understood from the first that my investment in Social Security was not going to pay my benefits later, but was paying my grandparents' way right then.

For people who really cannot make ends meet despite their best efforts, I did not have and still do not have a problem helping them out whenever I can, and I do not begrudge help the government gives them from my taxes.

I do have a problem with people who do not make their best effort to support themselves and expect someone else to tow their weight, whether that someone else is the government, their parents, their spouse, their ex, or anyone else.

But I also have a problem with people who get rich and then turn their backs on the very consumers whose money made them rich. Whatever moral obligations one may or may not believe in aside, if the rest of the people go down in flames, who are the rich going to be richer than? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet understand this - part of their attitude is a moral one, part of it is just plain common sense and understanding group economics. (Truly, there is no other kind of economics.)

The root of the problem is money and greed and until we as a species ellimate the need for money this will continue. People need to sit down and look at what the need for money has caused. The question is what do we do as a species to go beyond the need for money. How do we handle the needs of the many over the needs or should I says wants of the rich, powerful and greedy few. I agreed people need to work and contribute, but not as slaves to the governments or the corporations. Prices of goods and services keep rising yet the pay rates dont. People can say go to college get a degree but in the end just because you have a degree it dosent guarentee you a job in that field. You end up in debt for student loans with the possibility that you may or may not have a job in your field of study. So again what do we do as a species to fix this problem?

If minimum wage is raised, what is to happen to someone whose labor is only worth $6.00/hr. What do we do with all the graduates of our failed high schools (Dropout Factories) who have no marketable skills and have not yet learned a useful work ethic?

Those who push for higher minimum wages inflict a lot of hurt upon the lowest rung of the labor force; the very people they claim they want to help. If living on $6.00/hr is tough, how about living on nothing because you are priced out of the market?

Forgive me for saying it, but the minimum wage shouldn't support a family as a sole wage earner.

Agreed, but thanks to republicans especially starting with Ronald Reagan, companies were told that is all they need to pay and as such the vast majority of any new jobs made in the last 30 years only offer minimum wage.

If there were ANY jobs out there paying more, people would go for those first. Do you not agree that more than anything this is an alarm bell sounding at full blast that we are in full failure mode if we don't turn the ship around and put it back on a sustainable course?

If minimum wage is raised, what is to happen to someone whose labor is only worth $6.00/hr. What do we do with all the graduates of our failed high schools (Dropout Factories) who have no marketable skills and have not yet learned a useful work ethic?

That argument has been proven completely false. There are several states with higher than federal minimum wage and they have no appreciable difference in the quantity or quality being negatively affected by at most a thousand bucks a year difference. Honestly a company has to be pretty close to going bust anyway if that is going to break them, and often the same jackwagons making this argument are complacent to pay the CEO or top management 50x as much without a second thought.

What you said at the beginning of this quote is very ignorant. People dont choose to work at minimum age because they want too. Businesses are too cheap to pay anything more than minimum wage and they dont get into trouble because they are paying minimum wage. And minimum wage isnt designed for those who dont have an education, many people who has a very good education including a high school dipolma and a college degree are making minimum because there are no jobs available and they have to take what they get in order to support themselves.

Dan, you have your head in the clouds if you don't think there are people with bachelor's degrees making close to minimum wage. And it's their fault, don't you think, that there are too many skills competing for too few jobs.

You also have your @!$%#ing head in the clouds if you think people who make minimum wage will live like ascetic monks until their McJob miraculously pays them $10 for an hour instead of $7. Miraculously as in, not going to happen. They want to live comfortable, decent lives, because, you see, they are people.

If you have a bachelors degree and you're making close to minimum wage, then you're a freakin idiot. I have an associates degree from a local community college and am making great money doing HVAC. Of course I chose a profession that always has work during the ups and downs. If I had a bachelors degree I would be making even MORE money, need to go back to school!

Dan, I also agree with you when mentioned a restaurant with a slim profit margin, my folks own one, and they have mostly high school kids working there. Are you going to pay a high school kid with NO experience more than the minimum wage? Everyone has to start somewhere, I remember when I got my first job $3.15 an hour back in mid-80's. Minimum wage is just that, a minimum wage, its not supposed to be a "living wage".

HVAC. way to go ..son in laws doing the same thing ..trade schools is where its at.

Trade schools are great, and a community college is much cheaper, close instruction, and more for your money. Wind turbines, Green building, HVAC, Electrical etc all good trades. I would like to get a mechanical engineering degree, there is a shortage of engineers here in the states.

Hey guess what, we don't all dream of being freakin HVAC specialists. Believe it or not, but society is supposed to support artists, thinkers, healers etc, not just freakin engineers of all stripes. Otherwise this is more like Soviet Russia than Soviet Russia ever pulled off.

I would like to get a mechanical engineering degree, there is a shortage of engineers here in the states.

My coworker graduated 8 months ago with a degree in engineering, great GPA, solid work history still hasn't found an engineering job.

Also how many HVAC openings do you have around there, enough for 30 million underemployed americans?

So I wonder what your answer would be to a woman who got back into school in her 40s to get licensed as an EMT (a job I hope you would consider worthy of good pay), who lived in a broken-down trailer on her mom's land and spent her "extra" money at the hardware store to fix it into a place worth living in (you know, with luxuries like a working sink), who worked overtime while going to school, made straight As as well as helped her son study for the courses too, who did this without getting a single dollar in student loans, who got her EMT-IV license only to discover that she cannot get a job that will guarantee ANY hours at all, and the hours she might get would only pay ONE THIN DIME above minimum wage?

Quite a shock for her to find out that EMT jobs in this county and in all surrounding counties require the employee to commit to being available 24/7, literally, to their job - they are not allowed to be in school to further their education or to work another job, full or part time - and yet are expected to be on-call without pay 24/7 and are guaranteed not one single hour per week, and are paid $7.35 an hour for the hours they do get to work. So much for living asthetically while furthering your education to get jobs that are secure in the job market and will always be needed.

She COULD move to a large metro area and get a job in her field with more job security, as soon as she comes up with the cash in hand to pay for the move, security deposit and first and last month's rent, utilities deposit, transportation, etc... oh, if she just trims her budget and saves a few grand, she could make that work. While maintaining her continuing education required to keep the EMT license she cannot use.

Said EMT is now working full time at a gas station, who do literally work her like a slave, including breaking several labor laws, but at least will issue a paycheck each week at minimum wage, and who will guarantee a minimum of 32 hours a week. She also lives with a friend, paying as much as her income will allow to help with the bills, does not own a car but either catches rides from friends or rides a bike or walks, who does not have a cell phone, cable, or internet bill, and who tried her damndest to maintain health insurance through her employer until it interfered with her $30 a week grocery budget.

Any recommendations there? THAT is the real world.

Oops, sorry, almost forgot: the govenment also considers this woman too far above the poverty line to receive any government help whatsoever.

Believe it or not, but society is supposed to support artists, thinkers, healers etc, not just freakin engineers of all stripes.

I agree, but when the market for those jobs have dried up- good luck! While I wouldn't discourage anyone from seeking those fields, I would remind them that when times are tough, what are the alternatives? Is society supposed to find you a job in your chosen field? Make yourself more marketable.

My coworker graduated 8 months ago with a degree in engineering, great GPA, solid work history still hasn't found an engineering job.

Has your friend looked outside his area? Sometimes travel or relocation is necessary to find a job. All I know is, if I had that degree, I'd be in high demand right now. I see positions open all the time, where are you people looking for work?

Also how many HVAC openings do you have around there, enough for 30 million underemployed americans?

Sounds like everyone wants jobs handed to them. You make your own world you know. I work internationally as well as stateside, I have been to Africa and China and have seen the most extreme poverty that would bring tears to your eyes. Those people would kill for the opportunities you have here in America. All I can say is use them, don't let them go to waste and don't lose hope.

Dan G 1345180 and others such as you:

You obviously don't get the whole picture about problems with jobs, greed, narrow-mindedness, and self-serving or self-centered attitudes in our society.
Let's take for example males and females "OVER 50" that can check all off the following:

1. Out of work for 2 years ;

2. Zero balance on credit card or cards;

3. Didn't inherit great wealth or raised with a silver spoon in their mouth;

4. Have not collected even a penny of unemployment compensation or food stamps;

5. Have a Masters Degree plus with valuable experience in highly skilled areas;

6. * A Vet with over 20 years and served in wars to protect the U.S.;

7. Good health and not over weight (often not hard to always maintain the slim waistline after 50);

8. Asked their age on applications (even though that is illegal) and can't get hired if suspected over 50 and too much experience;

9. Hear excuses that your skills may be too rusty after being out of work for 1 and a half more years;

10. Told the Co. wants someone younger with less experience (so they can pay lower wages and have around for 30 years, which seldom happens now);

11. Businesses want to hire someone away from another company and not the currently unemployed;

12. Over qualified for minimum wages jobs and thus ignored for those positions as well;

13. Have spent 7 days a week looking for and filling out applications for many jobs from a.m. to p.m.;

14. Have been told with a different choice of wording, "Well you didn't work in the yellow building yesterday and we're really looking for someone, who worked in the yellow building." Anyone for example: who has worked in IT and has excellent understanding with current knowledge and skills, a "Can Do Attitude", and valuable experience that comes with time is certainly able to do or manage IT work regardless if it is an Attorney's office, Banking, Doctors, hospital, retail, etc., etc. To use the excuse that they are concerned that you haven't worked in "our field" is a poor excuse at best and a slap in the face suggesting that you know nothing about IT (etc.) in the "Yellow Building" and therefore, cannot do the job. This is their way of getting around your age as well as having to pay a little more in salary than they would have to for the recent college graduate; and

15. Not a member of a minority group (this includes the Govt. offices, too) to whom jobs are far too often given to those less qualified in the field.

If you are related to, have a political buddy connection, wealthy influence connections, then chances are better for the persons over 50. But those jobs are given to who you know or are related to, and not necessarily because of what you can do with your experience. Why is it necessary to have multiple layer outsourcing recruiter companies (not competing against each other) to hire one person for the same position with a big business? Then if the job should get down to your layer, the salary is not so great. Why is it the big businesses are given contracts without bids for a job at a very high rate, rather than to a smaller business with insurance coverage and offer a far more realistic rate (not the high rip off rates given to big businesses)?

One final comment: Not everyone wants to take away the wealth belonging to others, and live off the social programs, which many of you so righteously complain and accuse them of doing. All they want is a job that pays fairly for their education and accumulated skills or experiences. Also, your Vets risked their lives in Wars to protect your Country. Why can't businesses and the Govt., too, take the opportunity to hire those over 50 with good resumes with experience, not belonging to a minority race, and not politically or buddy related to someone in big business or the Govt.? Maybe now it's your turn to serve them in some small way after what they have already done for you. And don't use the excuse that Vets get extra points for service, because we all know that means nothing and often ignored, since the jobs go to their buddies, relatives, wealthy, or minority races. Just remember that you, too, will one day be over 50 and still have the desire to work in your field without washing cars for a minimum wage. Be thankful that you, Dan G and others like you still have jobs in this deep Recession. Don't be quite so "arrogant" and "all so knowing" about those not working, need to get more education, their lack of experiences, too lazy too work while living it high off the lucrative social welfare systems, and the low waged salaries earned in a costly economy. You have a long learning road ahead with your naivety!!!!

@An Independent Thinker

Excellent post! You have succeeded in outlining the very complex situation facing those in the over fifty age group and have done it rather well. Another thing these naive ones haven't figured out yet: Those who have some age on them have more experience than you do in the field, more knowledge than you do in the field, and more extensive contacts than you do in the field. In time the companies they form as a result of your casting them to the dogs will be in direct competition with your own and they will not only be driven to succeed at any cost, but by a desire for revenge upon you as well. Have a pleasant evening.

James also says we have not because we ask not and when we do ask, we ask amiss.

Jesus said the two greatest commandments are to love the Lord, your God with your heart, mind, soul and strength and your neighbor as yourself.

How many Christians follow that, or know the meaning of repentance?

Yep, Eds49, the chickens have come home to roost, we made the bed and picked our strange bedfellows. We can all move in together, share the rent, and dumpster dive, great life we left our kids.

Do you love red herring for dinner? Because that's exactly what the whole "illegal immigrant got your job" propaganda machine is - a way for corporations to divert attention from the fact that they're paying legal Americans at a level that won't even let them feed themselves.

Even if every illegal alien in this country were kicked out tomorrow, there would still be hundreds of unemployed for every available job. Which means that corporations can go right on paying slave wages. They're just trying to keep your attention diverted to "those people" so you don't recognize the real villains in this story.

Try reading a few Agatha Christie mysteries - the "obvious culprit" is often a diversion. Just like illegal aliens.

Yeah seriously, no one wants the jobs illegal immigrants work. There's a shortage of farm labor in the US at the moment because Immigration moved through and scared away the cheap labor. All the illegals left their jobs and GUESS WHAT?! NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO WORK THEM

I mean minimum wage doing work in a field? Minimum wage in the back of some kitchen for 12 hours/day? And then you take your pathetic pay home and unless you live in a trailer and eat the most unhealthy food possible, while buying pretty much nothing, not having health insurance, etc etc etc...

Yeah, everyone is just RUSHING for those jobs, just CLAMBERING for an interview.

No I want the jobs the legal immigrants have from unnecessary H1B visas. You know, teacher, nurse, engineer. Or the construction jobs the illegals have . Those used o pay decent.

You mean the H1B visa that the holder must have a bachelor's degree or equivalent to obtain, and therefore are qualified to take that teaching or nursing job that an American passed on because of the pay/abuse?

You mean the construction jobs that pay less than minimum wage (who will an illegal immigrant complain to about pay?), and that no American would do because it's too low paid?

Wake up; the only jobs immigrants are taking are the ones Americans wont do.

It's a shame you've heard that rhetoric often enough that you actually believe it! When the meat packing companies were raided by ICE and hundreds of illegals were deported, those plants had plenty of applicants from citizens. So, yes, that rhetoric is old and worn. It's just not true!

lol - you are hilarious.

Actually it doesn't but don't let that stop you from trotting out the right wing's rotting corpses of misinformation long thought dead.

"price controls cause shortages and surpluses"??

What?!?

Tea Party membership causes senility.

JEM - Your theories simply don't hold water, although FAUX News and the right-wing noise machine love to repeat them.

Many economists have demonstrated that income inequality has grown more rapidly under Republican administrations than under Democratic administrations. How would that happen if progressive policies to help the poor actually hurt their income? The truth shall set you free.

In a 2008 editorial for the New York Times, Larry Bartles, A Princeton political scientist, pointed out, "The real incomes of middle-class families grew more than twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they did under Republican presidents. Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families (at the 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike."

Teenage unemployment is high because its bad work and the pay isn't worth the trouble. Teenagers priced out of the market?? How the hell does that work? If the minimum wage is what it is, then no one can get paid lower than you. You can't price someone making minimum wage out of the market.

At the same time, most of the minimum wage jobs here in the country are here because they have to be here. No one is going to ship your burger-flipping job at Mickey D's overseas. If minimum wage were higher, you would see unemployment amongst the young go down, because working would be a viable option, instead of just going right into school, hoping you can get a decent paying job someday.

You are correct!

Well that's nice in theory except for the fact that most American businesses are so frigging CHEAP and their goods are made like CRAP and their services are shoddy because god forbid anyone make anything of QUALITY that would mean using materials/ingredients of quality or time to TRAIN an employee in a real skill and that would cut into the 10000% profits and multi-million dollar CEO salaries. Corporations want a bunch of mindless, skill-less employees that they can pay subpar wages to yet reap maximum profits and benefits from.

What happened to apprentices and quality craftsmen and learning the business ? What happened to paying employees FAIR wages which enabled an employee to reap the rewards of THEIR hard work? That's all gone the way of the Dodo bird. There is no pride in workmanship/craftsmanship and quality just doesn't exist because no one teaches anyone anything anymore. People don't take pride in a job when they feel they're being EXPLOITED. People don't need a set of skills anymore, they've been reduced to one cog in a machine and are only taught to do one thing which is incentive for employers to pay them the lowest possible wage.

If you want to "Buy American" buy from local SMALL business people, farmers, co-ops, craft artisans, artists, etc... screw the big corporations who want to reap the profits of YOUR labor yet give you nothing in return but inferior crap and wages no one can live on. Stop buying from businesses that pay and treat their employees like serfs. That's why I NEVER set foot in stores like WalMart and shop big stores like Home Depot/Lowes that let their employees share in the profits. THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

HearMyTruth, you might try a course in Global Economics someday.

A. People buy foreign because its of similar quality and lower price. That's just how global economics work. We do the same thing, except worse, to most of the developing world. Hence, in many countries, it's actually cheaper to ship food from overseas than to grow it in country for local consumption.

B. What you're calling for is called protectionism. It's what touched off the Great Depression. If we bought only our own stuff all day long 2 really fun things would happen in quick succession:

1. Without American money flowing through everything, the global economy would completely collapse, a la 1941, 'cept worse. Do you think it was chance or economic collapse that caused the rise of Nazi Germany and WWII?

2. Global financial collapse would, in turn, cause a collapse of our financial markets as the large amount of wealth tied up in overseas investments simply disappeared. This would lead to the collapse of banks, a complete and real freeze of lending, the inability of any business to get a loan (and the collapse of export industries, like our tech industry, defense, cars, oil, agriculture, clothing, and on and on) would lead to the collapse of business in general, which would lead to massive unemployment.

And bang! The Great Depression all over again, making this Recession look like a freaking walk in the park.

If a person's labor is only worth $6.00/hr, than there can be no job for them if minimum wage is $7.25/hr. Such individuals are the people you see panhandling in parking lots and exits.

If a teenager is only worth $6.00/hr and minimum wage is $7.25/hr, than that teenager has no possibility of entering the labor force and earning job skills. That is why we now have so many 20+ kids who have never held jobs.

Having a minimum wage in a depressed market dooms the lowest level of the labor pool to PERMANENT exclusion. I have a 22 year old nephew who, due to the economy in St. Louis, has never held a job. In spite of earning a certificate as an electrician and soon to earn a certificate in air conditioning, I fear he may never hold a real job. Who would want to hire a 23 or 24 year old with no job experience in this market?

Minimum wage may very well have destroyed my nephew's life.

SMC;

The average mark-up for manufactured goods is around 50%, usually lower. From that the business still has to pay overhead of around 30% leaving 20% profit. From that profit it then has to reinvest in research for new products.

The reason you can only find cheap crap products is that the American market (people) will always buy the cheapest product. Over time this weeds out the better, higher quality, products because they sit on the shelf while the crap products sell.

Today there are very few US made products because the American people have fueled the evolution of cheap foreign made products over domestically made products. This is more of a consumer thing than a manufacturing thing. It is always easiest to make something at home (complexity = distance + language, squared).

This isn’t a universal thing it is more of an American thing. If a German is shopping they will almost choose quality over price, domestic over foreign. The same is true in most of Western Europe but it is changing. They are now falling prey to their more socialist government policies of super extended benefits vs fewer workers and shrunken GDPs. Right now only Germany and a few others have strong economies.

Today there is no longer the infrastructure to manufacture in the US. We no longer make the raw materials, like steel. We no longer have the expertise of workers who know how to do these things. There aren’t any college degrees in manufacturing processes going out today.

Having a degree in Philosophy only means that you can contemplate whether they really want fries with that. And having a degree in English only means that you can spell Big Mack.

America is falling far behind the rest of the world in science and math.

Welcome to the 3^rd world

Borsia,

Welcome to the 1st world. A quick internet search would reveal to you that America manufactures more than ever.