Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: OWS = 2nd Bill of Rights

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 19, 2012, 11:21 a.m. EST by gsw (3359) from Woodbridge Township, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here's a good spokesman, FDR, who dealt with similar issues, and inspired people to support workers.

Is this doable yet? Good thing the historic footage was found.


Here's a nice platform and we have a great spokesman.

Can we support this candidate?


Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator


In many American communities, families working in low-wage jobs make insufficient income to live locally given the local cost of living. Recently, in a number of high-cost communities, community organizers and citizens have successfully argued that the prevailing wage offered by the public sector and key businesses should reflect a wage rate required to meet minimum standards of living. Therefore we have developed a living wage calculator to estimate the cost of living in your community or region. The calculator lists typical expenses, the living wage and typical wages for the selected location. Select a Location To get started, enter a location into the search box above, or browse to a location using the list below.

http://www.universallivingwage.org/. Living Wage Petition



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

The living wage calculator you linked to is a must see. It shows wages required by state and county with necessities itemized and by number of adults and children. Excellent!


[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 8 years ago

Unfortunately, though, it is terribly skewed. In my county, for example, both parents are typically employed; this means they pay far more for childcare than the zeros represent here. Also, their insurance costs are four to five times higher; likewise - at four dollars a gallon - so is their transportation costs. What is the significance anyway of a "living wage"? If it costs thirty dollars an hour, forty hours a week, to survive in some reasonable comfort, isn't that the living wage? Is it even possible to "survive" on less?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

If both parents work, just add the child care cost from the single parent column.

Why is their insurance and transportation cost 4x-5x higher?

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 8 years ago

Well to start with a family policy where I live is $1250. - not 275 - even if there are only two adults in the home. Transportation costs of 5 - 600 a month are too low even without a car payment - insurance is in the 200+ range and gasoline is in the 400 a month range. The housing bracket is ok if we consider only rentals. But... the 2 adult figure is roughly half of what is necessary to minimally subsist; it really makes no sense, either. to suggest that 2 adults and two children can live on half - 50k - of what one adult and three children require - 93k - where is the logic in that?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Health insurance is frequently paid by the employer so that was probably already factored in.

Transportation costs vary greatly depending on what car you drive and how many miles it's driven.

What county are you looking at? I don't see such a large discrepancy between 1 adult 3 children and 2 adults 2 children in my county, Riverside CA.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 8 years ago

It is now but won't be in the near future unless you are a federal employee or a congressman.

Stupid question but isn't this proof of a living wage as arbitrary?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Yes, what a living wage is depends on each person's point of view and circumstances. But the fact remains that people working full time at minimum wage, about $15,000 a year, still qualify for food stamps and other services.

It would be better for the employer to pay a living wage than for the rest of us via an inefficient government bureaucracy make up the difference. Setting a livable minimum wage actually costs less overall and shrinks government.

[-] 0 points by RedDragon (-161) 8 years ago

I agree, raise their wages. I'm just saying that I don't know how we would define "livable minimum."

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

The MIT wage calculator gets us in a ballpark range. It won't be perfect, but it will be better than the present system which guarantees that many will continue to collect inefficient government funds that could be more efficiently spent by the employee when received directly from the employer. I would set the minimum wage for one worker only. How they set up their household and number of children should be their responsibility. It wouldn't be fair for an employer to pay twice as much to one worker because he chose to have more children than the rest of the employees.

[-] 3 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

Absolutely OWS should embrace FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights.

From an earlier post ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/fdrs-2nd-bill-of-rights-should-be-the-demands-of-t/ ) :

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or arms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education .    

All of these rights spell security for all, even the 1%. Very forward thinking for being almost 70 years in the past. FDR spoke these rights at the last State of the Union address from '44 before he died. If he lived, we would have seen these rights granted to all."

And FDR's Four Freedoms:

"We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-- everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want . . . everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear . . . anywhere in the world. --President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message to Congress, January 6, 1941" http://occupywallst.org/forum/fdrs-2nd-bill-of-rights-should-be-the-demands-of-t/#comment-311286

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 8 years ago

FDR Looks very Healthy in Video on 2nd Bill of Rights. Leads to questions about his death. There are missing testimony from federal archives about an attempted coup during his presidency. One of the Generals came forward and stated with all the honor as an officer (?) that he was asked to be part of a military coup. There was an investigation, but as governments do decisions were made and testimony was kept secret.

If FDR was about to sign off on a 2nd Bill of Rights ... it is like the same dangerous ground of eliminating the US Central Bank. FDR would have been a big target for wackos, bankers, and the privileged class for assassination.

[-] 2 points by gsw (3359) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 8 years ago

Yes. Although in capitalism a love story, there was some reference that FDR had been sick, and did not do this chat at fireside, but did turn on cameras for the 2nd Amendment Piece. It is at the end of movie.


[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 8 years ago

Wow, good link to good quote. Thanks.

"...many of the defeated nations were given the rights proposed by FDR, but Americans were not..."

So in the short year after his 2nd Bill of Rights he died April 12, 1945. Wikipedia says he was exhausted and in Mar 1944 he was found with many health issues... chronic high blood pressure, systemic atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease with angina pectoris, and myopathic hypertensive heart disease with congestive heart failure. So maybe we have at least six Dangerous FDR stories:

1) How FDR stayed on as president despite knowing his health was failing ... perhaps to fix the nation, try to preserve rights, or fight the Wealthy...

2) Or how FDR died as he frightened many of the Wealthy or Privelaged that would lose power, lose control, lose status, ... or who would be offended if common people had the same status as them.

3) FDR was behind a Strong United Nations and it was in his Campaign in 1944. That must have Offended many US conservatives or republicans or corporations.

4) There were no Income Taxes before WWII, so it was Congress and Roosevelt that started Income Tax and Witholding Taxes as well as SS in 1937. But he Issued an E.O. that capped Salaries at $25K by way of 100% tax above that level. So he offened many people there.

5) FDR gave minorities Civil RIghts. Very dangerous move.

6) FDRs full employment program, government employment through the civilian conservation corps is a dangerous Idea. I think I could get assaulted any week here for trying to promote that idea today in my local bars.



1944: The Republicans nominated Thomas E. Dewey, the liberal governor of New York. The opposition lambasted FDR and his administration for domestic corruption, bureaucratic inefficiency, tolerance of Communism, and military blunders. Labor unions, which had grown rapidly in the war, threw their all-out support behind Roosevelt.

Roosevelt pushed for even higher income tax rates for individuals (reaching a marginal tax rate of 91%) and corporations and a cap on high salaries for executives. He also issued Executive Order 9250 in October 1942, later to be rescinded by Congress, which raised the marginal tax rate for salaries exceeding $25,000 (after tax) to 100%, thereby limiting salaries to $25,000 (about $356,000 today).[99][100][101] To fund the war, Congress not only broadened the base so that almost every employee paid federal income taxes, but also introduced withholding taxes in 1943.

[-] 2 points by gsw (3359) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 8 years ago

I have heard critics on this site claim those without jobs are not trying hard to get one, or not flexible to take a lower paying job than what they had or trained for, and that there are jobs, they need to want one more, or they believe Often people here in USA want to not work and be free loaders.

I believe work is valuable, and should be encouraged, for most, although if there are kids, it s good to have a parent home to care for child, that is a parental duty, and hopefully they can afford this, or at least work a schedule where the grandparent or other family member can help out often, so work can be supported.

Now, I believe, for those who can not find work and want to, if there was a website they could go and put in qualifications and get list of employers for which there could be jobs, that might be a thing businesses might want to develop.

Next, for people who can not find a job, what to do with them?

Are there areas they could be useful and interested in working?

Such as caregiving, labor, service, agriculture, education?

If they could have opportunity to link up and intern with a company as they are receiving unemployment or other assistance, I see no harm, but only good in that.

I don't think this is a free loading enterprise, as some would characterize it.


[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 8 years ago

Yes, we might be similar in our thinking. People want to do things, and want to work. Work can be a big teacher. Work helps you grow in experience with people, people of your age, people that you look up to, and you get exposed to office tasks, training courses, and the ways that businesses, organizations, and governments work.

Now there are some problems with narrow job tasks, boring jobs, lack of opporutinity to prove yourself, lack of opportunity to grow or learn, lack of advancement or a career, etc.

And there is a sort of systemic problem with some jobs where you will never be given authority, broad responsibility, opportunity to take the reins and run an opporation. This is the factory style of manangement that grew out of military traditions. Often you find the experts are in place above you and you will never be an expert no matter what you do. This is the systemic problem.

Career? If you have a career already then you probably are not unemployeed. But many people don't want to work in fast food, or restaurants, or work for tips like a bartender ...for the rest of their life.

Personally I gave up way too much for a career where I would never be an expert or get recognition. I retired. Now I can try to find my heart.

I think there is a big opportunity in Internships, Apprentiships, Training programs ... no matter what the conservatives or republicans or corporate leadership say.

I also think there should be a 1% Tax on imports and some kind of protection for the jobs that are fulfilling. Probably we need to cap executive compensation and make sure organizations are all rated publically based on their high compensation packages. We also have too many monopolies ...which probably has the effect of huge executive compensation to few people. The use of part time larbor is totally out of hand ...although it might work in Restaruants and bars.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

thanks for linking the living wage calculator. That is an awesome tool

Great post!

[-] 2 points by gsw (3359) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 8 years ago

Petition for Living Wage


[-] 1 points by RedDragon (-161) 8 years ago

Key words: "Basis of Security and Prosperity":

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom; freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad."

The point is that FDR here links all to a universal prosperity; he didn't exclude the monopolization of the market place - he placed it at the center of discussion - and so should we.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

Thank you for this post.