It is often argued that low wage jobs are "meant" for students or folks who are somehow disqualified from making a living wage simple because of age or social status.
Forgetting, for a moment, that today even high school students are forced to quit school in order to support their families, lets have a look at the facts.
Economists have shed light on the vexed question of whether economic development can buy happiness – and it seems that life satisfaction actually dips among people living in the wealthiest countries. Politicians are intensely interested in the link between national wealth and levels of happiness among the population, but it is a subject which is still wide open to debate among economists. A new analysis led by economists Eugenio Proto in the Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy at the University of Warwick and Aldo Rustichini, from University of MInnesota finds that as expected, for the poorest countries life satisfaction rises as a country's wealth increases as people are able to meet their basic needs. However, the new surprise finding is that once income reaches a certain level – around $36,000, adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) - life satisfaction levels peaks, after which it appears to dip slightly in the very rich countries. Read more at: PHYS.ORG
See the detailed findings of the study at: PLOSONE.ORG
We find this study particularly interesting since it coincides almost exactly with our own study that outlined what a person must earn in order to fully support themselves. In our quest to determine a practical minimum wage, we determined that a person must earn $17.47 an hour at a full-time job in order to meet the basic standard of living in the US, without the need for any sort of credit and/or public assistance. Our figure would amount to an annual salary of $36,337.60 if the person worked 40 hours a week for a full 52 weeks.
"If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." -Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 1933
Worried about the economy? Dollars not going as far as they used to? Well, you're certainly not alone in your sentiments. Yet everyone seems to have an explanation, or a reason why it is like this, often blaming their neighbors for the economic woes of the world, rather than the folks who operate a terminally flawed economic system. Don't expect things to get better anytime soon. Under our current economic structure, collapse is a mathematical certainty. When exactly it will happen, and how the collapse will be managed are anyone's guess. But who will benefit? The very few who implemented this system, and no one else. Even if you are still comfortable, and not really feeling the economic pinch yet, have no fear, the check is in the mail. You are not immune from the woes that others are feeling now through little fault of their own.
If you think you understand how the economy works, think again. Very few people actually do, so don't be ashamed, and don't be blinded by arrogance thinking that you are special and that you actually do know better than most people. We all think that. Sure, you may have taken a few economics classes in school, but you were never taught the bare-bones truth of how our economy works. So please, take the next 47 minutes to watch the following video. It affects each and every last one of us. You might very well agree that this is hands down the single most important and eye-opening educational video of our time.
(There are a few long seconds of black screen before it starts rolling, please be patient.)
If you were impressed by this video, and would like to purchase your own copy to own, or to send to a friend, please visit the Money as Debt website where the DVD can be purchased as a set including the sequel, Money as Debt II: Promises Unleashed.
Day after day I am disheartened by the rhetoric of my fellow countrymen slamming poor folks, and blaming the poor as the reason the rest of us have to work so hard. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The poor are simply the victims of flawed economic policy. The poor were once middle class too, just like the rest of us.
"Lemme tell ya somethin'. It's like that game we used to play as kids. Crack the whip. You run around like an idiot holding hands as tight as you can, and then the line snaps. Somebody let's go... and you're next." -Junior Soprano
McDonald's and Visa have come together in a new initiative which purports to show low-wage workers how to survive, and even thrive financially on their meager earnings.
At their new Practical Money Skills for Life™ website you can find a pdf file sample budget, ostensibly designed to be a framework for workers to use in order to successfully manage their income while working at McDonald's.
It is certainly a good idea to have a budget, to practice good financial techniques, to minimize spending and the like, but no budget will solve the problem of not having enough money to meet the most basic living expenses. This core truth is completely overlooked by McDonald's and their collaborator. This then sets the stage for victim-blaming, rather than making a factual presentation. The premise they present here, is that if a worker is having financial troubles it is the worker's own fault.
The introductory video is immediately condescending to the viewer/worker and assumes that you lack the elementary concepts of basic addition and subtraction arithmetic, or even common sense. While some workers may be woefully uneducated and lacking in life experience, it appears that the true ignorance here rests with the creators of the fast-food giant's presentation.
As an example, almost any worker knows full well that taking a pay-day loan is financially unsound, being both risky and costly. What the creators of the video ignore is that a worker does not need to be taught this point as a lesson, as if it were some great revelation bestowed by a benevolent corporation out of sheer good will. The worker who does take such a costly risk by taking out a pay-day loan does it out of necessity, not stupidity. The payday loan industry thrives on the desperation of the poor, not on people who ant some extra spending money.
The video also encourages the viewer to get direct-deposit for their paycheck, and to have a bank account, in order to save on check-cashing fees. But again we see that the creators have ignored the reality of the situation for many of their workers. Some financial institutions will not let a person with poor credit have an account. Low-wage workers are, of course, more likely than most to have a poor credit rating. In other instances, a bank or credit union may not be easily accessible in their neighborhood or along their travel routes. Banks often require a large minimum balance, leaving substantial funds inaccessible to the depositor. But most important of all perhaps, is that bank accounts are riddled with costly pitfalls. Visa check-cards exacerbate those dangers to workers who are subject to an array of hidden maintenance, access, and penalty fees.
For many people it is not only easier, but actually wiser to just spend a few dollars to cash their paycheck at a local supermarket, or check-cashing store. In this instance, a former McDonald's worker has been forced to sue for her right to be paid in legal tender, after her employer refused to pay her in any form other than a fee-laden debit card like those issued by Visa.
Even with the best financial practices, no human mistakes, and no unforeseen emergencies, a person still needs enough money to meet basic expenses. A sound budget will never work without enough money to put into that budget in the first place. So let's have a look at what McDonald's sees as a reasonable budget for a worker to, as they put it, "have almost anything you want as long as you plan ahead and save for it."
Right at the start, McDonald's is admitting that a full-time worker at one of their restaurants does not earn enough to support themselves. Their budget demands from you that you get a second job, if you are lucky enough to find one at all, much less one that is compatible with your full-time and often irregular hours at one of their establishments. If you can't get a second job, for whatever reason, the full-time low-wage worker will be forced to go on welfare, or get at least some sort of public assistance.
What this means is that taxpayers are subsidizing the labor expenses of major corporations like McDonald's. We the taxpayers are now forced to pay a contribution in order to make sure that McDonald's workers actually arrive at work, and that the worker is fed, clothed and healthy enough to perform their task. While these corporations reap billion dollar profits, and the CEO of McDonald's makes about $5,000 an hour, the taxpayers are forced to pay a share of their business expenses. In 2012, Wal-Mart workers were forced to rely on $2.6 billion in taxpayer relief. That directly translates into $2.6B in additional profits for the Walton family, who are more wealthy then the bottom 40% of all Americans combined. You didn't even have to set foot in a Wal-Mart store to help make them richer on your dime.
Now let's go ahead and take a look at the person who winds up actually being lucky enough to have two jobs, and is in turn forced to pay taxes to help support the worker standing next to them who works only one full-time job. This budget projects a net monthly income of $2,060. Based on the 2012 IRS tax liability tables, a minimum wage worker earning $7.25 an hour would have to work 76 hours per week in order to have a net monthly income of $2,060. So much for the notion that poor people are lazy. This is essentially two full-time jobs, especially since employers won't usually let a worker hit the 40 hour mark in a week, for fear of having to pay an overtime wage.
This obviously leaves no time for continuing education, and precious few hours to spend with family or trying to raise your children. Contrary to the popular notion, teens do not make up the majority of minimum-wage workers. Roughly 90% are over the age of 20, and about 30% of minimum wage workers are trying to raise a family on that budget.
But surely a person working two full time jobs, nearly 80 hours a week, must be living fairly well, right? Well, let's have a look at budgeted expenses.
The first line item in that section is savings. Anyone who can afford to save, must actually have an income that exceeds the rest of their expenses. Saving for the future is not only good advice, but absolutely necessary in order to build any sort of future It is even necessary to simply offset an array of inflationary factors which have undermined the American worker since our heydey in the 1950's.
Unfortunately, this budget is actually completely impractical and that $100 figure is completely unrealistic.
Looking at the next item we see how unrealistic it actually is. $600 for rent is unheard of in most parts of the country. The average rent last year in the US was $1,048 monthly. In New York, it is over $3,000 a month. One might suggest getting a roommate to split the rent, but then again we might also assume that this budget is actually written out for two people working at McDonald's full time, and who decided to move in together to share the bills because they couldn't find a second full-time job for themselves. So even with a roomate or spouse also working full time, this budget is still not practical, as we shall further see.
(It could also be noted here that forced cohabitation can set someone up for all sorts of costly and life-damaging problems. Roomates can be an annoyance when they interfere with necessary sleep, but you are also vulnerable to thievery, fraud, and even being named as a criminal conspirator if they use the residence as part of an illicit enterprise. This socioeconomic dynamic has also pushed unwed couples to cohabitate prematurely, leaving them trying to force a frustrating and volatile relationship work out of simple economic necessity. This of course, is at the root of so many instances of domestic violence. Problems like these can wind up costing a worker for court fees, time missed from work, and more.)
Their budget does account for a car payment, but that figure is unrealistically low for the actual cost of operating a car. Insurance alone would easily double that figure, not to mention gasoline, maintenance, and repairs. Our own research has shown that the expense for basic auto transportation is roughly $500 a month. Public transportation may not give a significant reduction in transportation costs, and is not often available in many areas.
The next item combines home and car insurance into one item. Renters insurance is an excellent idea, and protects against all sorts of mishaps, like losing everything you own in a fire, or to a break in, but it is not really something that most low-wage workers can actually afford. Insurance for a homeowner is far more expensive than their figure, but we can assume that most people who work at McDonald's do not, and probably never will own their own home. They should not have even included car insurance there, but even for liability only that figure is very low, especially for younger drivers, or someone who may have had an accident. If you are making payments though, you need full coverage, which would be many time more per month than what they have calculated for.
For health insurance they have posted an absolutely absurd figure of $20 per month. Over-the-counter medicine to treat the flu would cost you more than that. McDonald's own basic plan for a single person with no children is $61 a month, with a maximum annual payout of $2000. (See: pdf) The plan also requires you pay a deductible and a single co-pay is $20. That $20 is, as you see, all they have budget for here, but not the actual cost of the insurance. Hardly sound financial advice from these supposed experts who worked on this project with them.
They must also assume that you live in Hawaii where it is practically 75-degrees year-round, because this budget allot for $0 in heating (or air-conditioning) expenses.
Cable and phone at $100 a month. This is possible, but you would not be able to afford a cellphone which is a nice convenience that can actually save you money and is indispensable in an emergency. Someone who is working 76 hours a week would probably choose to have a cellphone and eliminate television entertainment for the few hours that they are actually at home. They can just sit and stare at a wall until they fall asleep.
Their calculation for electric is not entirely unreasonable, but will vary widely from region to region and in different rental units. If there is electric heating for example, that figure could easily be two or three times as much per month. That would obviously wipe out their "other" category instantly.
At the end of the McDonald's budget we see they have allotted for $27 a day in spending money. Perhaps they expect workers to take all of their meals where they work, as the budget has not accounted for any food or grocery expenses. The health consequences alone would be devastating for a worker who made fast-food the staple of their diet, but $27 a day is not really enough for that anyway. The average cost in the US for a Big Mac value meal is $6.64, though it is often several dollars more in metro areas like NY. This would leave you with about $7 for gas, and nothing to feed your family. You also wouldn't have money for garbage bags, light bulbs, toothpaste, aspirin, haircuts, deodorant. You also wouldn't have money to do laundry, but you don't have a budget to buy clothes anyway, so go ahead an just wear that stinky McDonald's uniform without any underwear on, every single day.
For a much more practical and realistic budget, please see:
With socioeconomic trends such as this, it is little wonder why the American obesity epidemic shows no signs of slowing no matter what deluded programs are put in place to curb ourexpanding waistlines. From incessant commercial brainwashing, to denial of access to healthy products, to making you sick for profit, to a global population control program, it is little wonder why Americans are in such poor health. Not just physically, but economically as well.
In the 1950's, the heydey of American capitalism, manufacturing was the backbone of our economic vitality. These blue-collar jobs paid well, and provided the benefits that raised our quality of life to be the most superior in human history. As you can see from this chart below, those jobs have all been replaced by a service industry specifically designed to profit from obesity and drunkenness. The jobs in bars and restaurants are low-wage and usually provide no worker-benefits of any kind.
When factoring for worker productivity overall, 90% of Americans now make less than the minimum wage standard in 1950. This is at a time when American poverty has reached unprecedented proportions, and more people than ever are relying on government subsidies for the very basic necessities of life. If today's SNAP benefit (foodstamps) was measured as a bread-line like we saw during the Great Depression, there would be a line 7 miles long at every single Wal-Mart in America. Then to add insult to injury, even these low-paying obesity-industry jobs are being eliminated through technology.
This chart plots the collision course explaining why we are so physically sick at the same time our economic vitality has gone stale.
The source of this chart's information is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, but was first seen at: Zero Hedge
The good ol' days. We always hear about them from our parents and grandparents. Some of us were there and still look back with fond nostalgia to the heyday of American capitalism. The 1950's defined the American ideal. We had emerged from World War II as the richest, most powerful nation on the planet, and we were ready to cash in on our victory.
There was a suburban home with a white picket fence, a new car built from American steel sitting in the driveway, a regular 9-to-5 job, good schools for your children, and a good wife who managed the homefront with aplomb and a fresh baked apple pie. The American dream was not just a television show in black-and-white television re-runs, that was how we actually lived. It was a way of life that was attainable for just about anyone willing to work hard, and work hard we did.
Our parents and grandparents were no slackers. They had paid their dues through the most destructive war mankind had ever known, they had struggled through the misery of the Great Depression before that. They were grateful to be rewarded now with an honest day's pay for an honest day of work, and spiteful of those godless Communists who could promise only drudgery. Our own social contract worked out just fine. Our obligations to our neighbors and to our country were tempered by the personal liberty prescribed in our nation's Constitution. The harder we worked, the better life would be, and there were no free rides for anyone. The promise of freedom was never more clear. Each man would be made or broken on the basis of his very own efforts. And for the time-being, it was upheld by a government we still believed was for the people and by the people, serving the interests of the people.
In 1950, the Federal minimum wage in the United States was set at 75-cents per hour. This meant that no matter what a person did for a living, according to national productivity standards for workers, their work was worth a minimum of 75 pennies for an hour worked, $30 for an average work week, or a little over $1560 a year. At that time, this was a bit more than the average cost of a brand new automobile.A worker could work all year, save every penny, and buy a brand new mid-grade car without taking out a loan.
In 2012, the average cost for an automobile was $30,748, slightly more than double what a minimum wage worker would be paid, before taxes, working full time.
So does this mean that the average American worker only works half as hard as his counterpart in 1950?
A lot of people would be quick to answer yes, absolutely. The average worker in 1950 probably did work twice as hard as today's worker, many might agree. Which might explain too, why even someone like a grocery clerk, a department store salesperson, a delivery driver, why so many jobs paid well enough for a person to actually support a family on back then, while today most people think of such jobs as "lowly" or "meant for high-school kids."
I remember when I first entered the labor market myself back in the late 1980's, that being a grocery store cashier or department clerk was still considered to be a viable career option. There were plenty of adults supporting households on what they earned in those postilions. No one was getting rich, but the bills got paid. For a young teenager like myself, there was the promise of a competitive wage, regular raises, benefits, and even retirement if I put in the time there. Hardly what a worker today can expect from a company like Wal-Mart.
But is this because people are actually working less, are they any less skilled? Quite the opposite actually.
A projectionist in a movie theater was once considered to be a prestigious technical grade career, that required an apprenticeship rather than a college degree. Today, it's a minimum-wage job. While much of the "old art" has gone the way of the Dodo bird due to changes in technology, and while more and more classic projectionists are finding themselves out of work entirely, movie projection itself is not completely automated. Even with the newest digital projectors, a knowledgeable technician is still required.
There are still some old techniques and skills that the worker still needs to understand, the fundamentals of projection with lighting and lenses and so forth. But rather than splicing together platters of film, the modern projectionist must understand complex computer programs. There is also the hardware to maintain, such as the computer terminal used to control the projectors, or even the speakers and sound system components of a theater. While the technology has indeed made a dramatic shift, the need for a skilled technician still remains. So why are the old projectionists out of work now, and why has this job become a minimum wage endeavor with little prestige? Quite simply, because worker productivity has been undermined by depressed wage standards. The projectionist unions have had their backs broken, and the high-school kid who is good with computers will come in and do the job for video game money. There ends the once prestigious career of movie theater projectionist. Either that high school kid will move on to college in a year or two to be replaced by another high school kid, or he will be stuck in a dead-end job with his pay raises tied to the Federal minimum wage increases. A minimum wage that is far less than what he would have earned in 1950.
From 1950 to 2000, the productivity of the American worker increased roughly 400%. This means that the standard of living for the average American worker should be 4 times higher, or that it should only take one-fourth the number of work hours to enjoy the same standard of living as someone working the same job in 1950. In the year 2000, we were working 4 times harder and/or smarter than our parents and grandparents were in 1950. One worker today, is doing the work of four or more employees in 1950.
This runs contrary to what they tell us of course, and what we even tell ourselves, about everyone being lazy good-for-nothings today. But clearly this self-hating mindset is brought on by psychosocial factors, rather than mathematical truth.
The hard data for that particular study only runs up to the year 2000, but we want to get a little bit closer to where we are at today. Using the data from that study, we can project that by 2010 worker productivity had increased by at least 425% since 1950, and even more by 2013. For the purposes of this essay though, with the the data that is readily available, we will adjust the entire data set to 2010 dollars.
If we take the inflation adjusted minimum wage for 1950 then multiply that by 4.25 to account for increased productivity, according to the working standards of previous generations, a minimum wage worker today should be paid $28.56 per hourin 2010 dollars. That is $2.48 cents more than 75% of American workers in 2010 who were paid less than $26.08 per hour according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The disparity in wages versus productivity has no doubt only increased in the last few years, for which the numbers have not yet been fully published. More alarmingly though, the picture is actually worse than that portrayed by the flawed methodology of the BLS statistics. For example, if they reported the unemployment rate the way it was measured back in the 1930's we would see that unemployment was actually higher in 2012 than at any point during the Great Depression.
But these aren't the only numbers they tinker around with ni order to trick the public. Another example is how they make it rather difficult to find what the median hourly wage is, or how they make a mean wage appear as a median wage. Mean average income and median income are not the same thing at all in most cases. Knowing about weighted averages and an understanding of the difference between mean and median are fundamental to understanding these figures. The mean average income is simply the average of all incomes combined. But because of widening income disparity, because the highest wage earners are paid proportionally much more than the majority of other workers, the "average" is now only what about the top 35% of workers actually earn, rather than half of Americans in the job-place. The median is the true dividing point where 50% of workers earn either less, or more than the given amount, and is much lower than the mean average of salaries paid out to American workers.
The BLS reports that in 2010 the mean hourly rate was $21.35 with a median figure of $16.27/hr. Annually this amounts to $44,410 and $33,840 respectively. Both figures fall well below our inflation-adjusted productivity-based 1950 minimum wage rate of $28.56/hr, yet these numbers both appear to be much higher than actual income when compared to figures provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to that agency, the mean annual income for Americans was $38,328 and the median was a mere $26,175. This means that in 2010, half of American workers earned less than $12.58/hr. That is 227% less than a minimum wage worker in 1950 when the increased 425% productivity is factored.
The discrepancy between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and those provided by the U.S. Census Bureau is roughly 130%. This means that actual wages are 1.3 times lower than what is reported by the BLS. According to them, the 90th percentile of workers earned less the $39.97/hr. But if we reduce that wage by 130% to be in line with the more accurate methodology of the Census Bureau, we can extrapolate that 90% American workers actually earned less than $27.98/hr. This is 58-cents per hour less than our adjusted 1950 minimum wage.
With that remainder change, and considering that we have not factored increased productivity and inflation between 2010 and today, it could easily be said that even more than 90% of American workers earn less then a minimum-wage worker in 1950.
So just to recap here. If we were paid for our output as an employee today as compared to the standard expected of a worker in 1950, the minimum wage in 2010 would have been $28.56. (The actual minimum wage was only $7.25/hr.) $28.56 was slightly more than 90% of Americans who earned less than $27.98 per hour. Hence, 90% of American workers earn less than a minimum wage worker earned in 1950.
This serious disconnect between how hard we work and how we are actually compensated for our labor is clearly reflected in the bulging income disparity between the majority of Americans, and the wealthy who are reaping the profits of our labor.
Not only are we working harder in every hour than ever before, we are also working more hours in a week. Back in 1950, most Americans enjoyed a 9-to-5 sort of job. The 40-hour workweek was absolutely typical, sick time and vacation time were expected in almost any field of work, and most household operated on a single income.
Today, roughly 75% of us work more than 40 hours a week. Although 134 countries have a law which caps the maximum number of hours for employment each week, the U.S. does not. We often think of the Japanese as fanatically dedicated workers, yet the average American worker spends 137 more hours per year on the job. The U.S. has no law requiring sick time, and is the only industrialized nation that does not require any annual paid leave time of any sort.
The United States is also the only industrialized nation in the world that does not offer any parental leave. The average in Europe is 20 weeks, and even in the rest of the world a worker can expect at least 12 weeks parental leave. In Lithuania they enjoy a year off fully paid, and a second year at 80% pay to split between two parents however they like. In Ethiopia, workers enjoy 90 days of full-pay parental leave.
Despite not having any time off to care for them, 70% of children are raised in a home where all adults work. In 1960, that figure was only 20%. The impact on our children has been severe, with depression, suicide, and juvenile crime at unprecedented levels. Pharmaceutical companies offer up chemical solutions to social problems, while public schools have been transformed from institutions of learning to indoctrination hubs for corporatist ideals.
Contrary to the popular belief which has been brought about through clever social conditioning and propaganda, pushing women into the workplace never actually had anything to do with empowerment of women. By 1950 there was nothing stopping a woman from holding a full time job or pursuing a career if she chose to. Indeed, many women had held jobs once thought of as "man's work" during the war years. Some women stayed on in those jobs, others went back home to raise families. If the so called "women's liberation" movement of the 50's and especially the 60's had actually been about freedom for women, ask yourself why so many women today are utterly depressed over the fact that they are unable to stay home to raise their children and be the glue which holds their family together.
Beginning in 1950, under the Truman Administration, the United States
became the first known industrialized nation to explicitly (albeit
secretly) and permanently forswear a reduction of working time. Given
the military-industrial requirements of the Cold War, the authors of the
then secret National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68)
proposed the US government undertake a massive permanent national
economic expansion that would let it “siphon off” a part of the economic
activity produced to support an ongoing military buildup to contain the
Soviet Union. In his 1951 Annual Message to the Congress, President Truman stated:
"In terms of manpower, our present defense targets will require an
increase of nearly one million men and women in the armed forces within a
few months, and probably not less than four million more in defense
production by the end of the year. This means that an additional 8
percent of our labor force, and possibly much more, will be required by
direct defense needs by the end of the year. These manpower needs will
call both for increasing our labor force by reducing unemployment and
drawing in women and older workers, and for lengthening hours of work in
essential industries."
From this we see that drawing in women (and old folks) to the workforce was a move to support the same military-industrial-complex the President Eisenhower would warn us about in his farewell address a decade later, not for anything as noble as freedom for the fairer sex.
Ignoring the greater social implications of political feminism and whether or not you want to buy into some of these larger agendas that have been spelled out, we are still left with certain simple economic facts. By enticing the vast majority of women into the workplace the demand for labor was seriously undermined, essentially cutting pay-rates in half. The net result was that every time a woman went to work, she wound up cutting her husband's pay rate in half. Which is why we see today that it takes both parents working full time to support a family, rather than the traditional roles of breadwinner and homemaker.
None of that should be interpreted as a gender bias either. It makes no real difference whether the father or the mother chooses to stay home with the children. The economic concern is simply that the labor pool was flooded, depressing wages and bargaining leverage across the board. By the end of the 1970's, the labor pool of America's women had been fully exploited, and the government-supported corporatists set their sights south of the border to Mexico and Latin America for another labor pool to exploit in order to further reduce wages in the United States.
The end result of all of this comes back again to the main topic of this essay. That today, more than 90% of American workers now earn less than a minimum wage worker in 1950. This is why we always feel like we can never get ahead no matter how much harder we work. This is why the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer. This is how our economy has been reduced to rubble. It was no accident. Welcome to Third World America.
What can we do about it?
We can stand up and demand, in one unified voice as American workers, an honest day's pay for an honest day of work. We can demand a minimum wage that reflects a basic standard of living without need of welfare assistance, social programs, and predatory loans from vampire bankers.
For more information on the minimum wage and how it effects you, please read:
The start-up robot firm Momentum Machines is one. Funded by San Francisco's Lemnos Labs, it has developed a robot designed to take the place of humans in burger restaurants. Its creators believe their patty-flipping Alpha robot could save the fast-food industry in the United States about US$9 billion (Dh33.05bn) a year. Designed to entirely replace two to three full-time kitchen staff, it can grill a beef patty, layer it with lettuce, tomatoes, pickles and onions, put it in a bun, and wrap it up to go - no less than 360 times an hour. Momentum believes kitchen robots are not only more cost-effective than human staff, they are also more hygienic.
Silicon Valley technology industry watchers believe businesses will be early adopters of 21st-Century robotics technology.
"Like PCs, we'll likely see the first wave in business because it can handle the costs more readily and then move to the high end of the consumer market," says the Rob Enderle, the principal analyst at the Enderle Group, based in Silicon Valley.
He adds the robotics industry is at about the same early stage in its evolution as the personal computing industry was in the 1980s but believes it will mature more quickly.
All too often, when I try to have a sensible discussion with my friends and debate opponents regarding poverty in this country, they try to punt the issue to a "work harder" sort of logic. As if the issues of poverty are caused by the victims of terminally flawed economic policy. The facts, however, do not stand up to blame-shift logic. Blaming the victims will not solve the problem, or hold the responsible accountable.
It's all too easy to put out a video of an ignorant black woman with 15 kids, and make her the poster child of public assistance. But that's like saying that some Ku Klux Klan skinhead is the spokesperson for all sensible gun-owners in America.
Usually when I get into a discussion about public assistance programs, the argument goes something like this.
Opponent: People on welfare just need to get a job. Six: There are no jobs for 3 out of 4 Americans who apply. (Nevermind the millions who are not counted as unemployed because their insurance has expired.) Opponent: So then they need to go back to school. Six: Why? So we can have better educated people on food-stamps?
“People
who dismiss the unemployed and dependent as ‘parasites’ fail to
understand economics and parasitism. A successful parasite is one that
is not recognized by its host, one that can make its host work for it
without appearing as a burden. Such is the ruling class in a capitalist
society.” -Professor Jason Read, University of Southern Maine
There was a suburban home with a white picket fence, a new car built from American steel sitting in the driveway, a regular 9-to-5 job, good schools for your children, and a good wife who managed the homefront with aplomb and a fresh baked apple pie. The American dream was not just a television show in black-and-white television re-runs, that was how we actually lived. It was a way of life that was attainable for just about anyone willing to work hard, and work hard we did.
In 1950, the Federal minimum wage in the United States was set at 75-cents per hour. This meant that no matter what a person did for a living, according to national productivity standards for workers, their work was worth a minimum of 75 pennies for an hour worked, $30 for an average work week, or a little over $1560 a year. At that time, this was a bit more than the average cost of a brand new automobile.A worker could work all year, save every penny, and buy a brand new mid-grade car without taking out a loan. 
