“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
Over the past seventy years or so, the general American public has been the unwitting victim of, and in some cases willing participant in, the largest fraud ever perpetrated. And the truly diabolical part about it is, even when faced with the evidence of this fraud, a significant majority still applauds the scheme.
This fraud is not a sole domain of any particular party, both major parties have been participants at various times. But it is characterized by the so-called “pro-business” philosophy generally more fully embraced by the Republicans, but not exclusively.
The fraud itself is simple, as most scams are, and the evidence right in front of our eyes, but the implementation has been so smooth and subtle that even when many suffer from its effects, they are still blinded to it.
There are two fairly straightforward elements that show the results of this fraud; the ratio of executive (CEO, CFO) salaries to worker salaries and the federal minimum wage. There are corollary supporting elements, historical P/E rates and the move from productivity as a measure of business viability to profitability and shareholder returns.
But the prime examples are the earnings gap and historical minimum wage.
| Year / Era | CEO‑to‑Worker Pay Ratio |
| 1950 (est.) | ~20:1 |
| 1965 | 21:1 |
| 1978 | ~30:1 |
| 1989 | ~58–60:1 |
| 2000 | ~350–380:1 |
| 2007 | ~325–330:1 |
This rise is executive compensation and decline in worker compensation demonstrates the dramatic change in the focus from productivity to shareholder return.
Along with the decline in unions which formerly balanced the compensation picture, workers lost ground while executives gained much more.
Coupled with executives gaining more control over the board of directors (which control executive compensation) the fallacy of what’s good for business is good for America strains credulity.
EPI’s research shows CEO pay rose ~1,100% since 1978 while worker pay rose ~25%. [epi.org], [epi.org]
But the real stark evidence is in the decimation of the buying power of minimum wage.
| Year | Nominal minimum wage | Real value (≈ 2024 dollars) |
| 1950 | $0.75 | ≈ $9.50–10.00 |
| 1960 | $1.00 | ≈ $10.00–10.50 |
| 1968 (peak) | $1.60 | ≈ $13.50–14.00 |
| 1980 | $3.10 | ≈ $11.50–12.00 |
| 1990 | $3.80 | ≈ $8.50–9.00 |
| 2009 | $7.25 | ≈ $10.00–10.50 |
1950s–1960s: Minimum wage did track cost of living
- Real minimum wage stayed flat or rising
- A full‑time minimum‑wage job could:
- Cover basic housing
- Provide food and transportation
- Support a single adult above poverty
In 1968, the minimum wage was worth ~40–45% of the average production work
1970s–1980s: Inflation breaks the link
- High inflation + infrequent adjustments
- Real value falls even when nominal wage rises
- Minimum wage stops keeping up with housing, healthcare, and education costs
By the early 1980s, minimum wage workers experienced double‑digit real pay cuts despite “raises.” [budget.house.gov]
1990s–2020s: Structural decoupling
- Minimum wage adjustments become political, not automatic
- No indexing to inflation
- Real value oscillates but trends downward
By the 2020s:
- Real minimum wage is ~30–40% below its 1968 peak
- Covers far less than basic living costs in most U.S. regions
Minimum wage vs cost of living today
2025 reality
At $7.25/hour:
- Annual full‑time earnings ≈ $15,000
- Federal poverty line (single adult): ~$15,000
- Median rent for a 1‑bedroom apartment: $1,200–1,600/month
In other words, the federal minimum wage no longer reflects the cost of living at all—it roughly equals poverty, not subsistence. [concordcoalition.org]
Bottom line
As a cost‑of‑living measure:
- ✅ 1950–1968: Worked reasonably well
- ⚠️ 1970s–1980s: Became unreliable
- ❌ 1990–2025: Failed completely
In real terms, today’s federal minimum wage buys less than it did in 1950, and far less than it did at its 1968 peak.
| Decade | Statutory Federal Minimum (nominal $/hr)* | Typical real purchasing power (today’s $/hr, band) | Key context |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1950s | $0.75 → $1.00 | $9–$11 | Post‑war floor broadly kept up with prices. [fred.stlouisfed.org], [ecommons.cornell.edu] |
| 1960s | $1.00 → $1.60 (1968) | peaks ≈ $14–$15 | Highest real value (1968). [legalclarity.org] |
| 1970s | $1.60 → $3.10 | $9–$12 | Inflation erodes gains; still above 2009–2025 levels. [ecommons.cornell.edu] |
| 1980s | $3.10 → $3.35 | $7–$10 | Long pauses; real value falls. [ecommons.cornell.edu] |
| 1990s | $3.80 → $5.15 | $8–$10 | Two step‑ups (1990–91, 1996–97). [fred.stlouisfed.org] |
| 2000s | $5.15 → $7.25 (2009) | ~$9–$11 | 2007–09 hikes; then frozen. [fred.stlouisfed.org] |
| 2010s | $7.25 (flat) | ~$8–$10 | Inflation steadily chips away. [statista.com] |
| 2020s | $7.25 (flat) | ~$7–$8 | Lowest real value since the 1950s. [economic.github.io] |
So when the political powers that be argue that minimum wage was never intended to be a living wage, you can now see the lie.
When companies strip salary and benefits from workers to pay executives whose sole purpose is to increase shareholder returns on the backs of those workers and seek to weaken or destroy unions that try to prevent such actions, you’ll see the lie.
Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is not an argument for socialism. This is an argument for a return to fairness doctrine where workers at the lowest level can survive on a minimum wage and afford the necessities of life.
I have no issue with a corporation paying executives two or three hundred times the wage of their lowest workers, as long as those workers can enjoy a livable salary for their work.
This is supposed to be a land of opportunity for everyone who works hard. At a minimum, it should be fair on both ends of the spectrum.
The Writing of Joe Broadmeadow 