3 ms·
If you were going to adjust a 1960's salary to today and take into account housing costs etc. they would probably be making in the 20 or 30 dollars per hour ran
by DoingIsLearning 5y ago
If you were going to adjust a 1960's salary to today and take into account housing costs etc. they would probably be making in the 20 or 30 dollars per hour range. I read discussions of 7 dollars for some of these positions.
The issue is not that employers are struggling to fill vacancies it is that the salaries have not kept up with cost of living for so long that people are now reaching a tipping point. As others have put it, it is not a shortage of people but a shortage of suckers.
Irrespective of UBI the cost of goods and services should probably have a much smaller profit margin or much higher price tag, but no one able to influence or correct this stands to benefit.
- Folcon 5y agoI was curious about your comment so I looked it up[0] and yep, around $20 seems about right. - [0]: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-federal-minimum-wage-has-been-eroded-by-decades-of-inaction/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-federal-minimum-wage-has...
- DoingIsLearning 5y agoAlso a house was probably one to five years worth of salary for a lot of people in most developed nations. Many people in minimum wage jobs today would not be able to save enough for a house within their whole work life. Owning a house and not having housing costs associated is a huge disposable income multiplier.
- mym1990 5y agoMaybe we are talking about different things, but I’m particularly talking about the 600$ a week that some are getting due to the government benefits(which equates to something like 20$/hour). Also, the issue IS that employers are having trouble filling positions. You’re conflating cause with effect. It doesn’t matter if the effect is due to lack of housing or terrible wages, the result is that people don’t go to work in those places.