Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Cleita

(75,480 posts)

6. There was a formula used back when I was in college and the

Reply to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 07:55 PM

Feb 2013

jobs I got were pretty much minimum wage. However this was back in 1958 and you could actually live on minimum wage back then. I think it was tied to going rents and food expenses that the number crunchers were supposed to keep track of. I wish I knew how they did it, but it did work.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Instead of indexing the minimum wage, why not..... [View all] Omaha Steve Feb 2013 OP

Because Congress doesn't get annual wage increases? jeff47 Feb 2013 #1

But they have no problem getting them, even if they aren't "annual" AllyCat Feb 2013 #2

Congress Votes Itself a Pay Raise... Omaha Steve Feb 2013 #3

I'm not saying they don't vote themselves raises. You were saying they get annual raises jeff47 Feb 2013 #4

Sorry if it sounded that way Omaha Steve Feb 2013 #5

There was a formula used back when I was in college and the Cleita Feb 2013 #6

That would just bring an end to congressional payraises. JVS Feb 2013 #7

Why not tie it to CEO salaries? EvolveOrConvolve Feb 2013 #8