Citation is my experience, and yes, YMMV, but back when I lived up north my options for internet was Comcast and Charter. Both offered similar service, and when I found Comcast throttling my speeds down to.5 kbps, I switched to Charter. Using both Comcast and Charter, I downloaded quite a bit, wouldn't shock me if it was over 1tb a month on each. I was never charged any overages for a datacap.
I later moved to the south. When looking at internet options, the choice was Charter and AT&T, and T's speeds sucked. So I'd figure I'd give them a try again. After a month or so I found I was getting billed overages for a datacap. I checked AT&T and found they had a lower cap... Now I know cell phone companies charge for a datacap and it's staggered with your bill. The reason is a lack of spectrum so they throttle people by use of a datacap... But a land-line? I started searching around and I found that they had the datacap in place for years, and the reason why I wasn't getting charged was because Charter doesn't have a datacap... AT&T does. So both companies have a cap, and the only reason why they charge is because the other guy is. Once the competitor drops the datacap, the other will as well.
And why is there a datacap? Well as I mentioned, With cell companies, they have an issue that if they let everybody loose, service will suffer, but that is not the case with Comcast... Their cap resets on the 1st of the month. For everybody. So everybody can download with out issue for the first few days of the month. If there was an issue with bandwidth, they would stagger everybody's date so that some people's reset time would be the middle of the month, and others at the end. The reason they have the cap is.... Netflix. Netflix at it's best quality chews up data like crazy and Comcast (who makes money with video), is losing customer share... Their Pay-Per-View income has dropped like a rock. Right now we are getting Google Fiber soon, and already both competitors are trying to sell gigabit service, and from what I can tell from others in Fiber markets, Comcast/ATT won't enforce the datacap...
As for having 5 different cables running to my house... Why? I have one cable to the pole. Now 5 cable companies can have lines down the pole. 5 Telcoms can have phone line going down the pole. When I get my connection hooked up, they can swap the line on the pole to the right feed.
Do you have more than 1 or 2 options when it comes to your internet service?
Here in the US, we have normally 1 or 2 options for high-speed internet. One cable company offering cable internet, and one phone company offering DSL. Most in the cities will have both options, but some will only have one (outside of service area). Often these companies work together in agreeing to a data cap and price.
These Cable\Tel-Coms worked out a deal with the local government to be the sole supplier of their services... making them a legal monopoly. The lack of competition is my theory on why the prices and speeds are not up to par with the rest of the world. Back when I worked at a Dial-up ISP, we offered DSL as well but we had to rent the hardware (lines) from the Tel-Com, and our rental price as $5/mo cheaper than the Tel-Com's DSL price (We made $5/mo gross profit on DSL). Dial-up made use more money. The Tel-Com's lines sucked to boot. When it rained, the service would drop... and why fix it? If they leave use, they go straight to the Tel-Com and they make more money.
So I'd be real interested to know what options non US folks have for internet? Do you have 5 companies competing for your service?
Where did Person A get food? With a 100% automated farm, likely from a robot. Does the robot want food? No.
With automation, the cost of a product drops... and if everything is automated, even making automation, then the cost drops to the point of being free. If Person A wants something and Person (er, object) B doesn't value that item at all, then that object is free. Only when Person/Object B values something is when they demand something of equal value for exchange.
What if somebody could try to horde all the food, but when nobody pays for it... what has been gained? 1 person has a million loafs of bread, and 99 doesn't have any food, or anything the bread-man wants... All the bread-man will have is moldy bread. Does he want moldy bread?
Years back there was a show (long forgot the name), but a kid was granted a wish, and he wished he had all the money in the world. He soon was sitting on a pile of cash, but when he tried to spend it, as soon as it was out of his hands, it would fly out of seller's hand, and back into his. He couldn't spend it. He quickly found out that money that can't be spent has no value. Same is true with any commodity.
Having a fully automated world, would be a step towards a "Star Trek" world, where we don't seek money, and world hunger, and world want is no longer an issue. Now that may have a some people very happy, but for me, that is the terrifying side of this. If I can get anything I want for free because there is zero human labor involved... Why would I do anything really productive? Why not sit on the couch/computer/holodeck everyday and just get fat? Why should kids go to school to learn and grow? Computers will give them everything they want. A few will want to learn, but the depth of education will drop even further. The future would be more like Wall-E's fat-chair society, than Star Trek...
People complain about greed. People talk about how greed is bad, and we need to put "people before profits". But really, Greed is good. It's very good. It is one of the primary forces that pushed our society out of a basic hunter tribes to the modern society it is today. Wanting to have more has driven us to learn, to expand, to grow in whole. It's what makes us human. Our greed makes us want to things easier and faster so we have more time, so we can earn more. We want to earn enough so we have "free time" (ironic name, because it's the time we value the most).
It would be nice if there was a free market. If there was, there would be no need for net neutrality.
But instead of a free market, we have a heavily regulated, crony-capitalism controlled market, where cable companies work deals with metro areas to be the only providers in town, then they use their government-approved monopoly to screw over the average person.... and to promote the re-election of those whose efforts promoted their control.
Hmm What was the FCC Chair's previous job....
If we had a free market, we would have a dozen options for broadband internet, and not one would dare try to throttle speed and ask for more just to give you what you paid for.
Housing prices are skewed due to an hyper-inflating housing bubble. it isn't a good measure.
Income levels has spiked up, for a good chuck of time, it was averaging around 35K/yr, it is now 51K.. income has been climbing (heck in the 40's and 50's, we made 25Kish).
As for retirement.... Raising minimum wage will drive inflation. As companies have to pay more to their employees, they will raise the prices of their goods to compensate. Know what isn't compensated? Your 401K. Any money you have sitting aside in a savings account. Of the cost of living goes up, the money you saved for retirement doesn't. The comfortable lifestyle you plan to have tomorrow is really a poor lifestyle due to inflation.
And what do you mean most people working today don't seem to expect the same standard of living as their parents??? are they mad? My parents didn't have computers and cell phones in their day... They were out, but cost thousands. A cell phone was 5K or so? We went out to eat twice a year at most. We went to see 1-2 movies a year... Home movie collection? yeah right! A VHS tape of Star Wars cost hundreds... The only place that could afford them was rental places that made their money back over time. They had one TV with antenna, and on a good day there was 4 channels. And their parents... Well my Dad tells me stories when they got electricity, and his 'rich uncle' had a new fangled 'TV'... for his parent's anniversary, he and his brothers gave them... Indoor plumbing!
And it's not just the cost of things going down, but how we earn more over time (see my note above on average income over time). Income Mobility has been ignored. Check this out: Is there Income Mobility in America?
I'm talking more about the hyper-inflation of the bubble than the bursting and recovering.
The change in the banking and loan laws caused under-qualified people to buy a home. That added a huge surge in demand for homes. If there is a huge surge in demand...
1990's through 2008, you can see the rapid growth in prices. The housing prices are skewed due to the bubble... not due to the bubble bursting.
Check out the average wage (adjusted for inflation) for various years. 2013, the average income was 51K a year. (From http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/1... ) 2003: 40K 1993: 35K 1983: 33K 1973: 37K 1963: 31K 1953: 26K 1943: 22K
The housing prices is skewed due to the housing bubble.
Back in the 90's, we passed a lot of laws that permitted people who couldn't afford homes to get loans. As more and more people were approved of loans they couldn't afford, they bought more houses. As the supply of houses dropped, the price went up. until 2008 when the bubble burst as people who couldn't afford the homes went bust.
Well the majority of people making minimum wage is 16-24. About 51% of people in that demographic are in the 16-18 year old range, and around 49% are in the 19-24.
Of course, those who want to promote the higher wage will compare ages 16 and 17 to ages 18-70+... guess which one has the most people?
Minimum wage is meant to be a starting point, the minimum. It's for the person who is hiring unskilled, untested labor. Hiring the kid that might be able to show up, and might be able to mop a floor after a being instructed on how to operate a mop bucket... It's not a livable wage on it's own, nor is it meant to be one. Teens and young adults either live at home, or share an apartment/house with friends as they get on their feet. As they work the Min-wage job, the don't only get a wage, but experience... skills. Proof to an employer that they can show up on time and do tasks assigned to them. As they get more experience, they either get raises, or find better paying jobs. A few jobs down the road, they end up at a livable wage.
The average income in the US is 48-53K a year. That's about 24/hr. Almost all people working at the middle, or even the top, started at the bottom.
Does the average no-skill, just entering the work force 18-21 year old have that? No.
Back when I was starting out, I lived in a rented house with 4 friends. I worked minimum wage, and I couldn't buy a house, or afford rent on my own, but I had more than enough to cover 1/5th rent and food, with enough left over to have a very nice lifestyle. My friends bought cars (used), I bough a new computer. We had every game console out at the time. We hit the bars every Friday too boot. Later on I moved to a new apt with my girlfriend and we still had enough.
Minimum wage is not "Liveable" wage by the measure of a 30-something with 3 kids and a mortgage. If you are over 21 and still making minimum wage, something is wrong. Either you aren't looking for better jobs, have a handicap holding you back, or the unemployment level is too high.
(Wow, this got long...) When minimum wage became the big issue, with all the protests, I thought back when I made minimum wage. I flipped burgers and live in a house with 4 friends. Sure I couldn't afford rent and food at minimum wage, but I could afford 1/5th rent and food and have plenty left over. My friends (who also worked the same McJob) saved money, a couple bough used cars. We had every game system, a great stereo, I had a top of the line computer. We had enough and some luxury items. I thought back then and how much I made. I adjusted my wage with inflation and it came to...... $6.52/hr. WHAT? wait a sec, all those protesters with signs said if I adjusted for minimum wage, it would be 10.75/hr! What gives???
Now you see, the 10.75 is the highest value, in 1968. Claiming that should be the standard is as intellectually dishonest as claiming the lowest value ($5.98/hr) should be the standard. The median would be $7.78, and the average would be $7.94. A fair minimum wage increase would be in that rage. Last time we raised minimum wage in 2009, there was no issue... because it was with in that median-average rage. It was fair.
Minimum wage jobs are not meant to careers. They are entry level jobs for teens and young adults. Majority of minimum wage workers are just starting out. As you gain experience you become worth more to an employer and you should make more. If you aren't, look for a new job. Early in my adult life, I switched jobs every 1-2 years. Each job paid better than the previous.
There will always be somebody at the bottom. The young person who just starts out doesn't have anything. Some have debts, like college loans, so they have a negative self-worth. As we gain skills and earn more, our worth goes up. People love to tout the "Wealth inequality" but the better picture is "Income Mobility". What happens to those in the bottom 20%... From 1996 to 2005, over 50% of the people in the bottom 20% moved up to a higher bracket. In just 10 years, most moved up. Now why has the bracket increased in size if everybody is moving up? The bottom is always filled with new people entering the work force. The 9 year old in 1996 is now in the work force in 2005.
If we have to bend over backwards for every single rare instance of some ultra-hard-luck case... we will never have anything nice.
Does that poor person with no car, no legs, living in an area with -74 degree winters and no way to get to a public internet location (such as a library) get to the store to get food? Could that resource also stop a community center, library, city hall, etc to use a computer?
People do vote for what they feel is best, but not FOR a person, but against. They pick the lesser of two evils. Heck last presidential election Obama himself said a vote is the best revenge. Voting for revenge? Really?
Tax cuts are tax relief. When you get a refund it is not a hand out from the government, it is YOUR money being returned because you paid too much. The government runs on your money. It takes from you for the 'common good'... and some of that common good is waste (pork).
Social programs don't help the poor. I know, I was poor. I was unemployed and the 'case workers' at the unemployment office actually told me NOT to look for work and they would 'take care of me'... The people who were there were reading the paper (not the classifieds), playing games on the computers, checking out web pages (not work related sites). I went home and found a job on my own. When I went back in to tell them I didn't need aid anymore because I found a job, they looked disappointed and in disbelief. The person I talked to said "But... but, we would have taken care of you". I told them I can take care of myself. But being around and having poor friends I can't tell you the number of times I've heard "I can't get a job, I'll lose my [insurance, ebt card, etc]." We 'declared war' on poverty back in the 60's and we only promoted it's growth. The people on the programs are so scared they might lose those programs they will vote to ensure they keep getting their crumbs. See "Obama-phone lady". Back in my poor days, (about 10 years ago) I was making around 11-12K a year (yes, that's poverty line). I'll be making at least 80K by the end of the year. I worked my way out... and I had to fight those who were trying to 'help' me. Crabs in a bucket is also true.
When a teenager gets pregnant, how is it NOT her and her boyfriend's fault (excluding rape/incest of course)? When you choose to have sex, you chose to take the risk. Years back, teen pregnancy was very rare. A handful in a state... but now it's way too common. High-schools are having daycare centers built inside. But we have pushed how socially acceptable a teen-pregnancy is... heck we even glorify it.
As for career women... fine. Women can pursue any career they want. But again, take responsibility of your actions. If you have a risk of getting pregnant, that is a risk you either can accept mitigate with birth control.
As for Pro-Life is not about the life of the baby... are you kidding? Abortion ends a human life. That can't be disputed. Is it a life? Yes. Even if it is a single cell, it has the properties of life. It grows, it feeds, it is alive. Is it human? Yes. It may not have 2 arms and 2 legs at the time, but I know people who don't have 2 arms, or 2 legs, either by an accident, or birth defect... they are still human. It boils down to DNA, and even as a single cell, it has human DNA and it is alive.
And when you drive by a sign, like when I visit my folks, from a young couple renting billboard space with the text: "Unexpected pregnancy? We will adopt your baby! Call [phone number]. Please." You see how people are begging to adopt. The waiting list to adopt a baby is in years. It's so long we are importing babies from China because that process (still years) is easier, and less expensive. My sister-in-law was adopted. All she knows about her birth-mother is: She was young, and not ready to take care of a child, and she did consider abortion. My sister-in-law is a wonderful, sweet person. We are all thankful her birth-mother allowed her parents to adopt her.
It's not "American Capitalism" its a Goverment-Corporation complex.
AKA: Crony-Capitalism.
Government allows Comcast to be the only choice for the vast majority of their customer. They now have a monopoly, a government approved one. If we had 10+ choices for high-speed internet, then this would not be an issue... All it would take is one to offer high-speed, unfiltered internet at a fair price and all the others would have to match to compete. Capitalism works best in a competitive market.
Libertarians shouldn't be angry. People who risk their money in Bitcoins are making a choice. They are assuming a risk and acknowledge that it is a risk. Why do they take the risk, because there is a chance of a reward. That is how things should work. You take a risk, you don't get bailed out if it goes south.
If the lawsuit is successful, and the tower is blocked, it can be, and likely will, be constructed elsewhere. The lawsuit will not stop the fracking, at best it might delay it a little.
Now, it a competitor is trying tap into a big resource... would it be in his best interest to be as much of a headache as possible... Delay the development so his competitor has to spent much more to get things done. Hmmm... just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation is my experience, and yes, YMMV, but back when I lived up north my options for internet was Comcast and Charter. Both offered similar service, and when I found Comcast throttling my speeds down to .5 kbps, I switched to Charter. Using both Comcast and Charter, I downloaded quite a bit, wouldn't shock me if it was over 1tb a month on each. I was never charged any overages for a datacap.
I later moved to the south. When looking at internet options, the choice was Charter and AT&T, and T's speeds sucked. So I'd figure I'd give them a try again. After a month or so I found I was getting billed overages for a datacap. I checked AT&T and found they had a lower cap... Now I know cell phone companies charge for a datacap and it's staggered with your bill. The reason is a lack of spectrum so they throttle people by use of a datacap... But a land-line? I started searching around and I found that they had the datacap in place for years, and the reason why I wasn't getting charged was because Charter doesn't have a datacap... AT&T does. So both companies have a cap, and the only reason why they charge is because the other guy is. Once the competitor drops the datacap, the other will as well.
And why is there a datacap? Well as I mentioned, With cell companies, they have an issue that if they let everybody loose, service will suffer, but that is not the case with Comcast... Their cap resets on the 1st of the month. For everybody. So everybody can download with out issue for the first few days of the month. If there was an issue with bandwidth, they would stagger everybody's date so that some people's reset time would be the middle of the month, and others at the end. The reason they have the cap is.... Netflix. Netflix at it's best quality chews up data like crazy and Comcast (who makes money with video), is losing customer share... Their Pay-Per-View income has dropped like a rock. Right now we are getting Google Fiber soon, and already both competitors are trying to sell gigabit service, and from what I can tell from others in Fiber markets, Comcast/ATT won't enforce the datacap...
As for having 5 different cables running to my house... Why? I have one cable to the pole. Now 5 cable companies can have lines down the pole. 5 Telcoms can have phone line going down the pole. When I get my connection hooked up, they can swap the line on the pole to the right feed.
Do you have more than 1 or 2 options when it comes to your internet service?
Here in the US, we have normally 1 or 2 options for high-speed internet. One cable company offering cable internet, and one phone company offering DSL. Most in the cities will have both options, but some will only have one (outside of service area). Often these companies work together in agreeing to a data cap and price.
These Cable\Tel-Coms worked out a deal with the local government to be the sole supplier of their services... making them a legal monopoly. The lack of competition is my theory on why the prices and speeds are not up to par with the rest of the world. Back when I worked at a Dial-up ISP, we offered DSL as well but we had to rent the hardware (lines) from the Tel-Com, and our rental price as $5/mo cheaper than the Tel-Com's DSL price (We made $5/mo gross profit on DSL). Dial-up made use more money. The Tel-Com's lines sucked to boot. When it rained, the service would drop... and why fix it? If they leave use, they go straight to the Tel-Com and they make more money.
So I'd be real interested to know what options non US folks have for internet? Do you have 5 companies competing for your service?
If you hold food for any reason... I'll have my robots make more food.
When food is so cheap it's free, you can't withhold it. Right now air is free... can some ideological megalomaniac withhold all the air?
Where did Person A get food? With a 100% automated farm, likely from a robot. Does the robot want food? No.
With automation, the cost of a product drops... and if everything is automated, even making automation, then the cost drops to the point of being free. If Person A wants something and Person (er, object) B doesn't value that item at all, then that object is free. Only when Person/Object B values something is when they demand something of equal value for exchange.
What if somebody could try to horde all the food, but when nobody pays for it... what has been gained? 1 person has a million loafs of bread, and 99 doesn't have any food, or anything the bread-man wants... All the bread-man will have is moldy bread. Does he want moldy bread?
Years back there was a show (long forgot the name), but a kid was granted a wish, and he wished he had all the money in the world. He soon was sitting on a pile of cash, but when he tried to spend it, as soon as it was out of his hands, it would fly out of seller's hand, and back into his. He couldn't spend it. He quickly found out that money that can't be spent has no value. Same is true with any commodity.
Having a fully automated world, would be a step towards a "Star Trek" world, where we don't seek money, and world hunger, and world want is no longer an issue. Now that may have a some people very happy, but for me, that is the terrifying side of this. If I can get anything I want for free because there is zero human labor involved... Why would I do anything really productive? Why not sit on the couch/computer/holodeck everyday and just get fat? Why should kids go to school to learn and grow? Computers will give them everything they want. A few will want to learn, but the depth of education will drop even further. The future would be more like Wall-E's fat-chair society, than Star Trek...
People complain about greed. People talk about how greed is bad, and we need to put "people before profits". But really, Greed is good. It's very good. It is one of the primary forces that pushed our society out of a basic hunter tribes to the modern society it is today. Wanting to have more has driven us to learn, to expand, to grow in whole. It's what makes us human. Our greed makes us want to things easier and faster so we have more time, so we can earn more. We want to earn enough so we have "free time" (ironic name, because it's the time we value the most).
Capitalism works when Person A wants something Person B has and wishes to trade something Person B wants for it.
It would be nice if there was a free market. If there was, there would be no need for net neutrality.
But instead of a free market, we have a heavily regulated, crony-capitalism controlled market, where cable companies work deals with metro areas to be the only providers in town, then they use their government-approved monopoly to screw over the average person.... and to promote the re-election of those whose efforts promoted their control.
Hmm What was the FCC Chair's previous job....
If we had a free market, we would have a dozen options for broadband internet, and not one would dare try to throttle speed and ask for more just to give you what you paid for.
But I know what I've been up to...
Housing prices are skewed due to an hyper-inflating housing bubble. it isn't a good measure.
Income levels has spiked up, for a good chuck of time, it was averaging around 35K/yr, it is now 51K.. income has been climbing (heck in the 40's and 50's, we made 25Kish).
As for retirement.... Raising minimum wage will drive inflation. As companies have to pay more to their employees, they will raise the prices of their goods to compensate. Know what isn't compensated? Your 401K. Any money you have sitting aside in a savings account. Of the cost of living goes up, the money you saved for retirement doesn't. The comfortable lifestyle you plan to have tomorrow is really a poor lifestyle due to inflation.
And what do you mean most people working today don't seem to expect the same standard of living as their parents??? are they mad? My parents didn't have computers and cell phones in their day... They were out, but cost thousands. A cell phone was 5K or so? We went out to eat twice a year at most. We went to see 1-2 movies a year... Home movie collection? yeah right! A VHS tape of Star Wars cost hundreds... The only place that could afford them was rental places that made their money back over time. They had one TV with antenna, and on a good day there was 4 channels. And their parents... Well my Dad tells me stories when they got electricity, and his 'rich uncle' had a new fangled 'TV'... for his parent's anniversary, he and his brothers gave them... Indoor plumbing!
And it's not just the cost of things going down, but how we earn more over time (see my note above on average income over time). Income Mobility has been ignored. Check this out: Is there Income Mobility in America?
I'm talking more about the hyper-inflation of the bubble than the bursting and recovering.
The change in the banking and loan laws caused under-qualified people to buy a home. That added a huge surge in demand for homes. If there is a huge surge in demand...
1990's through 2008, you can see the rapid growth in prices. The housing prices are skewed due to the bubble... not due to the bubble bursting.
Check out this site:
http://thecostofliving.com/ind...
Check out the average wage (adjusted for inflation) for various years.
2013, the average income was 51K a year. (From http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/1... )
2003: 40K
1993: 35K
1983: 33K
1973: 37K
1963: 31K
1953: 26K
1943: 22K
Here is a fun site:
http://thecostofliving.com/ind...
Average wage in 1968 (picked since that was the highest value of min-wage) was: $5,572
Today that would be $35,034.
Today's average wage is: $51,017
The housing prices is skewed due to the housing bubble.
Back in the 90's, we passed a lot of laws that permitted people who couldn't afford homes to get loans. As more and more people were approved of loans they couldn't afford, they bought more houses. As the supply of houses dropped, the price went up. until 2008 when the bubble burst as people who couldn't afford the homes went bust.
Well the majority of people making minimum wage is 16-24. About 51% of people in that demographic are in the 16-18 year old range, and around 49% are in the 19-24.
Of course, those who want to promote the higher wage will compare ages 16 and 17 to ages 18-70+... guess which one has the most people?
Minimum wage is meant to be a starting point, the minimum. It's for the person who is hiring unskilled, untested labor. Hiring the kid that might be able to show up, and might be able to mop a floor after a being instructed on how to operate a mop bucket... It's not a livable wage on it's own, nor is it meant to be one. Teens and young adults either live at home, or share an apartment/house with friends as they get on their feet. As they work the Min-wage job, the don't only get a wage, but experience... skills. Proof to an employer that they can show up on time and do tasks assigned to them. As they get more experience, they either get raises, or find better paying jobs. A few jobs down the road, they end up at a livable wage.
The average income in the US is 48-53K a year. That's about 24/hr. Almost all people working at the middle, or even the top, started at the bottom.
Does it work both ways?
Do we judge Capitalism by it's abuse?
Isn't what Minimum wage is about? People telling others what fair is? So tell me, what is fair.
Cherry picking the highest value of a list and say that's fair?
Cherry picking the lowest value?
Or finding something in the middle... Compromise?
You are taking about MINIMUM wage.
Does the average no-skill, just entering the work force 18-21 year old have that? No.
Back when I was starting out, I lived in a rented house with 4 friends. I worked minimum wage, and I couldn't buy a house, or afford rent on my own, but I had more than enough to cover 1/5th rent and food, with enough left over to have a very nice lifestyle. My friends bought cars (used), I bough a new computer. We had every game console out at the time. We hit the bars every Friday too boot. Later on I moved to a new apt with my girlfriend and we still had enough.
Minimum wage is not "Liveable" wage by the measure of a 30-something with 3 kids and a mortgage. If you are over 21 and still making minimum wage, something is wrong. Either you aren't looking for better jobs, have a handicap holding you back, or the unemployment level is too high.
Ok, a couple of lines were messed up.
1967: $1.40 -> $9.80
1968: $1.60 -> $10.75 --- Highest value
1969: $1.60 -> $10.20
2005: $5.15 -> $6.17
2006: $5.15 -> $5.98 --- Lowest value
2007: $5.85 -> $6.60
I guess quasi HTML comments (.-.-) comments out lines.
Sorry, some data was misinformed.
1955: $0.75 >> $6.55
1956: $1.00 >> $8.60
1957: $1.00 >> $8.32
1958: $1.00 >> $8.09
1959: $1.00 >> $8.04
1960: $1.00 >> $7.90
1961: $1.15 >> $9.00
1962: $1.15 >> $8.91
1963: $1.25 >> $9.56
1964: $1.25 >> $9.43
1965: $1.25 >> $9.28
1966: $1.25 >> $9.02
1967: $1.40 >> $9.80
1968: $1.60 >> $10.75 --- Highest value
1969: $1.60 >> $10.20
1970: $1.60 >> $9.65
1971: $1.60 >> $9.24
1972: $1.60 >> $8.95
1973: $1.60 >> $8.43
1974: $2.00 >> $9.49
1975: $2.10 >> $9.13
1976: $2.30 >> $9.46
1977: $2.30 >> $8.88
1978: $2.65 >> $9.51
1979: $2.90 >> $9.34
1980: $3.10 >> $8.80
1981: $3.35 >> $8.62
1982: $3.35 >> $8.12
1983: $3.35 >> $7.87
1984: $3.35 >> $7.54
1985: $3.35 >> $7.28
1986: $3.35 >> $7.15
1987: $3.35 >> $6.90
1988: $3.35 >> $6.62
1989: $3.35 >> $6.32
1990: $3.80 >> $6.80
1991: $4.25 >> $7.30
1992: $4.25 >> $7.09
1993: $4.25 >> $6.88
1994: $4.25 >> $6.71
1995: $4.25 >> $6.52
1996: $4.75 >> $7.08
1997: $5.15 >> $7.51
1998: $5.15 >> $7.39
1999: $5.15 >> $7.23
2000: $5.15 >> $7.00
2001: $5.15 >> $6.80
2002: $5.15 >> $6.70
2003: $5.15 >> $6.55
2004: $5.15 >> $6.38
2005: $5.15 >> $6.17
2006: $5.15 >> $5.98 --- Lowest value
2007: $5.85 >> $6.60
2008: $6.55 >> $7.12
2009: $7.25 >> $7.90
2010: $7.25 >> $7.78
2011: $7.25 >> $7.54
2012: $7.25 >> $7.39
2013: $7.25 >> $7.28
2014: $7.25 >> $7.25
(Wow, this got long...)
When minimum wage became the big issue, with all the protests, I thought back when I made minimum wage. I flipped burgers and live in a house with 4 friends. Sure I couldn't afford rent and food at minimum wage, but I could afford 1/5th rent and food and have plenty left over. My friends (who also worked the same McJob) saved money, a couple bough used cars. We had every game system, a great stereo, I had a top of the line computer. We had enough and some luxury items. I thought back then and how much I made. I adjusted my wage with inflation and it came to...... $6.52/hr. WHAT? wait a sec, all those protesters with signs said if I adjusted for minimum wage, it would be 10.75/hr! What gives???
So I grabbed every minimum wage since it's start and adjusted each one for minimum wage. Here it is (Note: I did this 3-4 months ago, there could be more inflation now):
Year: Wage then -> Adjusted to 'today' (3-4 months ago)
1955: $0.75 -> $6.55
1956: $1.00 -> $8.60
1957: $1.00 -> $8.32
1958: $1.00 -> $8.09
1959: $1.00 -> $8.04
1960: $1.00 -> $7.90
1961: $1.15 -> $9.00
1962: $1.15 -> $8.91
1963: $1.25 -> $9.56
1964: $1.25 -> $9.43
1965: $1.25 -> $9.28
1966: $1.25 -> $9.02
1967: $1.40 -> $9.80
1968: $1.60 -> $10.75 $10.20
1970: $1.60 -> $9.65
1971: $1.60 -> $9.24
1972: $1.60 -> $8.95
1973: $1.60 -> $8.43
1974: $2.00 -> $9.49
1975: $2.10 -> $9.13
1976: $2.30 -> $9.46
1977: $2.30 -> $8.88
1978: $2.65 -> $9.51
1979: $2.90 -> $9.34
1980: $3.10 -> $8.80
1981: $3.35 -> $8.62
1982: $3.35 -> $8.12
1983: $3.35 -> $7.87
1984: $3.35 -> $7.54
1985: $3.35 -> $7.28
1986: $3.35 -> $7.15
1987: $3.35 -> $6.90
1988: $3.35 -> $6.62
1989: $3.35 -> $6.32
1990: $3.80 -> $6.80
1991: $4.25 -> $7.30
1992: $4.25 -> $7.09
1993: $4.25 -> $6.88
1994: $4.25 -> $6.71
1995: $4.25 -> $6.52
1996: $4.75 -> $7.08
1997: $5.15 -> $7.51
1998: $5.15 -> $7.39
1999: $5.15 -> $7.23
2000: $5.15 -> $7.00
2001: $5.15 -> $6.80
2002: $5.15 -> $6.70
2003: $5.15 -> $6.55
2004: $5.15 -> $6.38
2005: $5.15 -> $6.17
2006: $5.15 -> $5.98 $6.60
2008: $6.55 -> $7.12
2009: $7.25 -> $7.90
2010: $7.25 -> $7.78
2011: $7.25 -> $7.54
2012: $7.25 -> $7.39
2013: $7.25 -> $7.28
2014: $7.25 -> $7.25
Now you see, the 10.75 is the highest value, in 1968. Claiming that should be the standard is as intellectually dishonest as claiming the lowest value ($5.98/hr) should be the standard. The median would be $7.78, and the average would be $7.94. A fair minimum wage increase would be in that rage. Last time we raised minimum wage in 2009, there was no issue... because it was with in that median-average rage. It was fair.
Minimum wage jobs are not meant to careers. They are entry level jobs for teens and young adults. Majority of minimum wage workers are just starting out. As you gain experience you become worth more to an employer and you should make more. If you aren't, look for a new job. Early in my adult life, I switched jobs every 1-2 years. Each job paid better than the previous.
There will always be somebody at the bottom. The young person who just starts out doesn't have anything. Some have debts, like college loans, so they have a negative self-worth. As we gain skills and earn more, our worth goes up. People love to tout the "Wealth inequality" but the better picture is "Income Mobility". What happens to those in the bottom 20%... From 1996 to 2005, over 50% of the people in the bottom 20% moved up to a higher bracket. In just 10 years, most moved up. Now why has the bracket increased in size if everybody is moving up? The bottom is always filled with new people entering the work force. The 9 year old in 1996 is now in the work force in 2005.
Also, when peop
If we have to bend over backwards for every single rare instance of some ultra-hard-luck case... we will never have anything nice.
Does that poor person with no car, no legs, living in an area with -74 degree winters and no way to get to a public internet location (such as a library) get to the store to get food? Could that resource also stop a community center, library, city hall, etc to use a computer?
There will always be a hard luck case.
Wow... where to start.
People do vote for what they feel is best, but not FOR a person, but against. They pick the lesser of two evils. Heck last presidential election Obama himself said a vote is the best revenge. Voting for revenge? Really?
Tax cuts are tax relief. When you get a refund it is not a hand out from the government, it is YOUR money being returned because you paid too much. The government runs on your money. It takes from you for the 'common good'... and some of that common good is waste (pork).
Social programs don't help the poor. I know, I was poor. I was unemployed and the 'case workers' at the unemployment office actually told me NOT to look for work and they would 'take care of me'... The people who were there were reading the paper (not the classifieds), playing games on the computers, checking out web pages (not work related sites). I went home and found a job on my own. When I went back in to tell them I didn't need aid anymore because I found a job, they looked disappointed and in disbelief. The person I talked to said "But... but, we would have taken care of you". I told them I can take care of myself. But being around and having poor friends I can't tell you the number of times I've heard "I can't get a job, I'll lose my [insurance, ebt card, etc]." We 'declared war' on poverty back in the 60's and we only promoted it's growth. The people on the programs are so scared they might lose those programs they will vote to ensure they keep getting their crumbs. See "Obama-phone lady". Back in my poor days, (about 10 years ago) I was making around 11-12K a year (yes, that's poverty line). I'll be making at least 80K by the end of the year. I worked my way out... and I had to fight those who were trying to 'help' me. Crabs in a bucket is also true.
When a teenager gets pregnant, how is it NOT her and her boyfriend's fault (excluding rape/incest of course)? When you choose to have sex, you chose to take the risk. Years back, teen pregnancy was very rare. A handful in a state... but now it's way too common. High-schools are having daycare centers built inside. But we have pushed how socially acceptable a teen-pregnancy is... heck we even glorify it.
As for career women... fine. Women can pursue any career they want. But again, take responsibility of your actions. If you have a risk of getting pregnant, that is a risk you either can accept mitigate with birth control.
As for Pro-Life is not about the life of the baby... are you kidding? Abortion ends a human life. That can't be disputed. Is it a life? Yes. Even if it is a single cell, it has the properties of life. It grows, it feeds, it is alive. Is it human? Yes. It may not have 2 arms and 2 legs at the time, but I know people who don't have 2 arms, or 2 legs, either by an accident, or birth defect... they are still human. It boils down to DNA, and even as a single cell, it has human DNA and it is alive.
And when you drive by a sign, like when I visit my folks, from a young couple renting billboard space with the text: "Unexpected pregnancy? We will adopt your baby! Call [phone number]. Please." You see how people are begging to adopt. The waiting list to adopt a baby is in years. It's so long we are importing babies from China because that process (still years) is easier, and less expensive. My sister-in-law was adopted. All she knows about her birth-mother is: She was young, and not ready to take care of a child, and she did consider abortion. My sister-in-law is a wonderful, sweet person. We are all thankful her birth-mother allowed her parents to adopt her.
I propose we put Tax day right before Election day. That would make for some interesting changes.
Second!
It's not "American Capitalism" its a Goverment-Corporation complex.
AKA: Crony-Capitalism.
Government allows Comcast to be the only choice for the vast majority of their customer. They now have a monopoly, a government approved one. If we had 10+ choices for high-speed internet, then this would not be an issue... All it would take is one to offer high-speed, unfiltered internet at a fair price and all the others would have to match to compete. Capitalism works best in a competitive market.
This is the gist of the book "Propaganda" (1928, Edward Bernays). A good book to check out.
Libertarians shouldn't be angry. People who risk their money in Bitcoins are making a choice. They are assuming a risk and acknowledge that it is a risk. Why do they take the risk, because there is a chance of a reward. That is how things should work. You take a risk, you don't get bailed out if it goes south.
If the lawsuit is successful, and the tower is blocked, it can be, and likely will, be constructed elsewhere. The lawsuit will not stop the fracking, at best it might delay it a little.
Now, it a competitor is trying tap into a big resource... would it be in his best interest to be as much of a headache as possible... Delay the development so his competitor has to spent much more to get things done. Hmmm... just a thought.