***Warning***  This response is rather lengthy - and far exceeds what I set
out to say...

While I seriously doubt that the things mentioned were things that were said
in 1959 (for many of the reasons already given plus a few more), Tom
Emerson's question about inflation is one that has always piqued my
interest.

Consider this, when I started working as a teenager in 1967 (okay it's a few
years after 1959, but not much), the minimum wage was $1.10 / hour.
Considering the fact that a minimum wage earner would have then earned a
gross wage of $44 / week, a weeks groceries for $20 would have eaten up
nearly 1/2 of your income.  Now consider the minimum wage of $6.35 / hour
(IIRC).  A MW earner would make weekly gross wage of $254.  Using the same
percentage, the week's worth groceries should take about $114 (and change)
from your pocket book.

However, considering the effects of inflation during that period, the week's
groceries should be eating up only about $103 of my pocket change.  Would
that mean that a minimum wage earner actually has an increase in disposable
income of approximately 6%?  Hardly!  Why?  There are several plausible
explanations - and I am sure someone on this list will be able to come up
with still more.  During that time, the amount that the average person eats
has risen (giving rise to a higher cost of groceries).  During that time the
total tax bite per taxpayer has risen (and this is not generally considered
when averaging the cost of inflation - they usually only consider the cost
of goods and services), yielding less disposable income.  During that time a
ghastly amount of previously free government services (such as textbooks for
students, auto tags, etc.) have been converted to "pay as you go services".
Again, these are traditionally left out of most inflation calculations.
During that time there has been a vast migration from rural America to the
city (again).  This has cost us dearly in terms of increased costs in real
rural America as there are few people to foot the bill and in real urban
America where costs have outstripped inflation.  Finally, the basic standard
of living in the US (and in most industrialized nations) has risen
dramatically.  With a higher standard of living, comes an increasing cost of
living - depriving many of a much needed increase in "discretionary /
disposable" income.  Any of these factors considered independently are not
overwhelming.  However, when taken collectively it has forced much of the
nation's economy (and much of the world's economy) to enter into a multiple
wage-earner status just to now maintain what we once accepted as the status
quo.

There are a lot of things that I would love to see done as a result of this
situation.  Here's just a few (and they apply equally overseas as they do
here)...

1.  Economists should correctly calculate the effects of inflation -
considering all factors that a typical taxpayer would have to "cover".

2.  Economic incentives should be used to entice rural relocation of massive
urban populations.  It should be targeted at those businesses and people
that are able to easily do so without risk of business or financial failure
(which is a much higher number than most people would figure!).

3.  I would like to see a variable minimum wage level that is in accordance
with prevailing cost of living.  In an effort to prevent imminent departure
to neighboring cities, those firms which simply move "borders" of one city
to another to escape a higher minimum wage should be prosecuted under fair
labor laws (that would need to be enacted).

4.  I would like to see all citizens who are better off than their parents
were (that would include most of the baby boomers of my generation - and
most gen-Xers) to willingly sacrifice to improve the standard of living of
those living in their towns and city who are not so well off.  I will use
myself as an example of what needs to be done...  We are a family of 3
living in a 3 bedroom house.  We have 5 computers hooked up and running and
6 television sets connected to cable.  In my son's class, I know of two
families where the kids do not have access to a computer... and one of those
does not have access to even a television set.  I should (and will) find a
way to either ensure that the children from these other families have
minimum access to a computer system (and perhaps television - even though
the worth of that may come into question).  It should be done willingly and
without governmental intervention.

Anyway, I'm off my soapbox now...

Glenn

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, etc *
*     please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html       *