John Varanese explains the minimum wage to us

Minimum wage, indexed for inflation, has been both higher and lower than the current level, at various times in the past. Raising to $10 would just about equal the all-time high it hit in the '60s.

[Robin Garr]

the all-time high it hit in the '60s.

Which helps explain why that is just when the oligarchy started working the system to keep the flow from diverting to ordinary people?

Yeah so my point still stands. If minimum wage increases on their own don't cure poverty. Something else must be causing us problems.

[Robin Garr]

Yeah so my point still stands. If minimum wage increases on their own don't cure poverty. Something else must be causing us problems.

I'm going to go with increasing income inequality caused by lobbyist-influenced public policy. Of course, poverty is a direct result, and minimum-wage battles are one slice of the pie.

Yeah so my point still stands. If minimum wage increases on their own don't cure poverty. Something else must be causing us problems.

I'm going to go with increasing income inequality caused by lobbyist-influenced public policy. Of course, poverty is a direct result, and minimum-wage battles are one slice of the pie.

Sure i would agree to that. I think education has a huge part to play in this as well. The diplomas, and degrees we create are not worth what they once were in the job market.

[Robin Garr]

I think education has a huge part to play in this as well. The diplomas, and degrees we create are not worth what they once were in the job market.

No question, Adriel, but consider this: The quality of public education has declined in recent decades. Why? I'm going with privatization, As the kids of the rich (and, increasingly, upper-middle-class) kids go to private schools - some of them pretty blatantly "segregation academies" - they can safely cut taxes to public schools and allow them to decay. When kids come out under-educated, no problem. Blame them and their "multigenerational welfare culture."

I think education has a huge part to play in this as well. The diplomas, and degrees we create are not worth what they once were in the job market.

No question, Adriel, but consider this: The quality of public education has declined in recent decades. Why? I'm going with privatization, As the kids of the rich (and, increasingly, upper-middle-class) kids go to private schools - some of them pretty blatantly "segregation academies" - they can safely cut taxes to public schools and allow them to decay. When kids come out under-educated, no problem. Blame them and their "multigenerational welfare culture."

Or, additionally/alternatively, how about teacher unions who care more about protecting the tenure of even worthless teachers than they care about ensuring our kids have competent, effective educators?

[Robin Garr]

Or, additionally/alternatively, how about teacher unions who care more about protecting the tenure of even worthless teachers than they care about ensuring our kids have competent, effective educators?

Sorry, Jeff. That's Koch brothers Kool-Aid. Workers banding together so their voice is as strong as management? EEEEVIL! MUST CRUSH IT!!!! Sorry. I'm not going there.

I think education has a huge part to play in this as well. The diplomas, and degrees we create are not worth what they once were in the job market.

No question, Adriel, but consider this: The quality of public education has declined in recent decades. Why? I'm going with privatization, As the kids of the rich (and, increasingly, upper-middle-class) kids go to private schools - some of them pretty blatantly "segregation academies" - they can safely cut taxes to public schools and allow them to decay. When kids come out under-educated, no problem. Blame them and their "multigenerational welfare culture."

Or, additionally/alternatively, how about teacher unions who care more about protecting the tenure of even worthless teachers than they care about ensuring our kids have competent, effective educators?

I think you hit the nail on the head Jeff! Combining that with the fact that the government keeps trying to reinvent education with new teaching techniques that are designed to teach to the lowest common denominator. Higher performing students are no longer challenged but instead they are dragged down to the lowest common denominator.

If you look at any of the new teaching techniques, especially for mathematics, they are totally absurd! They make learning so confusing nobody can learn.

Or, additionally/alternatively, how about teacher unions who care more about protecting the tenure of even worthless teachers than they care about ensuring our kids have competent, effective educators?

Jeff +1
Robin -1

Holy mother of God how many times must I post in the same forum that wages have not kept pace with inflation for 40 years now? Which is why poverty is actually GROWING in this country and the US has the highest wealth gap in the world.

Its not politics, its simple math. Had minimum wage kept pace with inflation it would be three times what it presently is.

The simple math I just did does not agree with your math. In 1974, 40 years ago, the minimum wage was $1.60. Plugging that number into not just one, but two inflation calculators, just to be safe, tells me that adjusted for inflation that would a buying power of $7.66 in 2014 dollars. In 1938 minimum wage was $.25, that's $4.19 in today's dollars. Just an interesting tid-bit, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 2.6% of the workforce currently makes minimum wage, half of which are under the age of 24. BTW, In 1979 that number was 7.9% so things are actually getting better for low earning workers.

I misspoke above. That should have read adjusted based on US productivity rate increases (ie revenue) not inflation.
In which case minimum wage would be $18.30 today and about $19.00 by 2016 (which under the current proposed plan would have us at $10.10 an hour).

If we pegged it to per capita real personal income, the personal income earned in the economy, excluding Social Security and other government programs, adjusted for inflation has grown by 100.6% since 1968. If our standard for minimum wages had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, it would now be $21.72 per hour.

If the minimum wage had continued to move with average productivity after 1968, it would have reached $21.72 per hour in 2012 – a rate well above the average production worker wage.

Source:
http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicati ... 012-03.pdf

I've held off putting my coppers in while everybody piles on John...

I don't think this is fair, though. I opened his restaurant and worked for him for 2.5 years. I think I know the guy.

He's terrific to his people. He pays his staff above industry standard, by habit. He is no joke- a raise happens when you deserve it and he is as happy about the affair as you.

He has gone above and beyond, truly. Some of the things I've seem him do for his staff, I shouldn't talk too much about (Who's gonna bail you out- John will!)

As anybody here knows, I don't tolerate mean people well- never have, never will. He's a good one, promise.

Read the piece again- he really felt his Management team needed some love right now. And they probably do- salary work is indentured servitude in an independent restaurant. So a man that has been with you for five years doesn't get a raise when the new dishwasher (who may not work out) will?

That's not fair.

Seriously- I knew the tone when I read the piece. It had me rolling my eyes. What? He's prepping a whole duck? With side-dishes? $170 is about 3.5x cost. Very appropriate. The dishwasher isn't doing that. Nor is the salad guy, with three-months experience. The Chef-Owner is doing that for the guest.
Also unfair- the way he was portrayed.

$9 sounds about fair for a minimum wage- he's already paying his people more than that in spades. But for some reason, he's become the poster child for the opposition, when he is not that person...

PS. The picture you saw of him is him- everyday. The first Chef in the house, he runs a restaurant off of expo station. Lives in the same house he lived in when I met him- he took his success from the store and reinvested in the place. This is no fat-cat. This is Chef, at its purist.

I misspoke above. That should have read adjusted based on US productivity rate increases (ie revenue) not inflation.
In which case minimum wage would be $18.30 today and about $19.00 by 2016 (which under the current proposed plan would have us at $10.10 an hour).

If we pegged it to per capita real personal income, the personal income earned in the economy, excluding Social Security and other government programs, adjusted for inflation has grown by 100.6% since 1968. If our standard for minimum wages had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, it would now be $21.72 per hour.

If we're tying it to unrelated metrics, how about using Moore's law? That would mean minimum wage would double approximately every two years. So, in unadjusted for inflation terms, and using the period 2004 to 2014, the current minimum wage would be $ 164.80 ($ 342,784 annually). That sounds good to me. Get the Mayor on the phone.

I love this topic. Everyone's reply is fascinating and relevant. Makes you think.

Regardless of what minimum wage is, everyone that works deserves a living wage, and that it is in the best interest of everyone in our country (including the Koch brothers although I admittedly do not know where they stand on the issue - I'm guessing Robin thinks or maybe knows they are agin' it). Wages and total effective income are not the same as there are two ways to have effective income - wages alone or wages and public assistance. If you really want to know about poverty rates historically add the two together and do your math including the inflation thing.

I would prefer it all come from a persons wages. From my perspective people gain self respect from wages while not so much from public assistance. It incentivizes work. Pretty important concept to me. We just passed a new state-wide minimum wage increase here West of the Mississippi. I'm glad we did. Way too long in coming. It's gonna hurt some businesses (read restaurants) until they can work through the effects and I empathize with them.

Education and teachers. IMO teachers aren't the problem, it's the system that prevents them from teaching, i.e. lack of discipline, degradation of standards, false progress through grading, etc. Take a look at the textbooks used in the early 1900's and compare them to those today. A little tougher then, if you ask me. You also had to master subjects before being promoted to the next grade level. What a concept.

Mr. Varanese. It was easy, even for me to determine that his comments lacked context. I'm sure as a restaurant owner he is concerned about how it will affect his business or even if he will still have a business if he is unsuccessful in passing along enough of the cost to his customers. I would encourage him to remember that all other restaurateurs will be operating under the same constraints. Continue to do what you have done so well and there may even be raises for the staff. I will continue to dine there when visiting Louisville. That's the only vote I have.

Income inequality. Deep subject. Won't argue that lobbyist intentions are not always pure or that tax reform is not necessary. Won't say everyone's income should be equal. How much inequality is too much? For anyone reading the board fortunate enough to be extremely wealthy I can answer the last question. It's far too much when the gap is so great and there is so little hope for a large enough segment of the population that they decide to just come and take it from you by force. Think Cuba 1959 since it's in the news. Just a little tidbit you might find interesting. I recently read that a not insignificant contributor to wealth concentration in the U.S. has been decisions to delay parenting by couples and decisions to have fewer children. Simple concept. Fewer children equals concentration instead of dilution. Great Grandma had ten kids. Grandma had two. Lots of only children. Just interesting to think about. I'm not declaring it the "reason".

Love this topic. For our Christmas task let's all find one good thing to say about someone we have savaged in our posts during the year. I love Robin because he has a great palate and manages this board so well! Robin, you do the Koch brothers!

I misspoke above. That should have read adjusted based on US productivity rate increases (ie revenue) not inflation.
In which case minimum wage would be $18.30 today and about $19.00 by 2016 (which under the current proposed plan would have us at $10.10 an hour).

If we pegged it to per capita real personal income, the personal income earned in the economy, excluding Social Security and other government programs, adjusted for inflation has grown by 100.6% since 1968. If our standard for minimum wages had kept pace with overall income growth in the American economy, it would now be $21.72 per hour.

If we're tying it to unrelated metrics, how about using Moore's law? That would mean minimum wage would double approximately every two years. So, in unadjusted for inflation terms, and using the period 2004 to 2014, the current minimum wage would be $ 164.80 ($ 342,784 annually). That sounds good to me. Get the Mayor on the phone.

I was thinking it should have a linear correlation to the number of pizza joints in St. Matthews. All of those high school and college kids scooping cream at Graeter's would be bringing home 500k a year under that model. And, even better, Mr. Graeter would be getting what he deserved for being a filthy, greedy, stinking rich ice cream tycoon that's taken advantage of all of these kids for so many years.

And, yes, for the record (I feel like you have to say it these days) that was sarcasm.