The Rise in Postal Rates v. the rise in minimum wage rats. 1952-2008

My husband specifically remembers that the cost of mailing a letter in the U.S. in 1952 was 3 cents. And Wikipedia bears him out.

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_Postal_Service_rates

Today the postage rate went up to 42 cents. According to the Wikipedia chart, the 3 cents we paid to mail a one ounce letter in 1952 was exactly what we would have paid to mail a one ounce letter in 1863.

Between 1863 and 1952, the cost of a postage stamp was stable -- 3 cents.

Since 1952, it has risen 39 cents per stamp. And, of course, the rise in the price of a stamp merely reflects the overall impact that inflation has on us.

Today, a postage stamp costs 14 times what it cost in 1952.

The minimum wage in 1952 was 75 cents per hour. Today it is 6.55 per hour. I believe that the minimum wage earner now gets 8.73 times what he or she would have earned in 1952. What is wrong with this picture?

Here is the history of the rise in the cost of postage:


Under the Eisenhower administration that cost rose a penny from 3 cents on January 1, 1952 to 4 cents on August 1, 1958.

Under Kennedy Johnson/ it rose 2 cents from 4 cents in 1958 to 6 cents in 1968.

During the Nixon years it rose 7 cents from 6 cents in 1968 to 11 cents in 1975.

Under Carter it rose 2 cents from 11 cents in 1975 to 13 cents in 1978.

During the first months of the Reagan era, it rose 5 cents from 13 cents in 1978 to 18 cents on March 22, 1981, a rise we can probably blame on the Carter administration, so arguably the price of a stamp rose 7 cents under Carter from 11 cents in 1975 to 18 cents in 1981.

But the Reagan administration is solely responsible for the rise in postage rates between 1981, when a stamp cost 20 cents to 1991 when a stamp cost 29 cents in 1991, a total rise of 9 cents.

The Clinton years saw a rise pf 5 cents per stamp from 29 cents in 1991 to 34 cents in 2001 (January 7).

Since GW Bush took office, the price of a stamp for postage for one ounce has risen 8 cents from 34 cents on January 1, 2001 to 42 cents on May 12, 2008. And the Bush years are not over yet.

The data on the rise in the minimum wage is here:

http://www.dol.gov/ESA/minwage/chart.htm

42 cents to mail an ounce of anything you like thousands upon thousands of miles? Still seems like a pretty good deal, IMHO.

When you think about how much gas costs these days, it's amazing that they can deliver the mail at these prices at all.

I'm guessing that since now they're not delivering as many letters and bills they're not getting the same profit that they used to. I don't really have any facts behind this theory, just my guess.

than you can realistically walk to deliver these days.

Hey, let's let businesses pay for hand-delivering all that junk mail and advertisements that they get to have on bulk mail prices ... it sure would cut down on the crap that goes directly from my mailbox to my recycle bin ... although, I should start hoarding that stuff for the winter months to come ...

that wages should have gone up more.

But you are the only one who got it.

With the cost of gas to deliver mail to farms and others in very remote areas, revenues going down due to email and online bill paying, I feel their rates are more than fair.

Minimum wage? Don't be surprised if it's done away with using the typical and always effective "it will create more jobs" and "the market will determine the rates" selling points to the Wal-mart public.

our minimum wage, however, could be considerably better.

"During the Nixon years it rose 7 cents from 6 cents in 1968 to 11 cents in 1975."

7+6=11?

I can't seem to get this one right. Thanks again.

cents we paid to mail a one ounce letter in 1952 was exactly what we would have paid to mail a one ounce letter in 1863.

Between 1863 and 1952, the cost of a postage stamp was stable -- 3 cents.

Since 1952, it has risen 39 cents per stamp. And, of course, the rise in the price of a stamp merely reflects the overall impact that inflation has on us.

Today, a postage stamp costs 14 times what it cost in 1952.

The minimum wage in 1952 was 75 cents per hour. Today it is 6.55 per hour. I believe that the minimum wage earner now gets 8.73 times what he or she would have earned in 1952. What is wrong with this picture?

Here is the history of the rise in the cost of postage:


Under the Eisenhower administration that cost rose a penny from 3 cents on January 1, 1952 to 4 cents on August 1, 1958.

Under Kennedy Johnson/ it rose 2 cents from 4 cents in 1958 to 6 cents in 1968.

During the Nixon years it rose 7 cents from 6 cents in 1968 to 11 cents in 1975.

Under Carter it rose 2 cents from 11 cents in 1975 to 13 cents in 1978.

During the first months of the Reagan era, it rose 5 cents from 13 cents in 1978 to 18 cents on March 22, 1981, a rise we can probably blame on the Carter administration, so arguably the price of a stamp rose 7 cents under Carter from 11 cents in 1975 to 18 cents in 1981.

But the Reagan administration is solely responsible for the rise in postage rates between 1981, when a stamp cost 20 cents to 1991 when a stamp cost 29 cents in 1991, a total rise of 9 cents.

The Clinton years saw a rise pf 5 cents per stamp from 29 cents in 1991 to 34 cents in 2001 (January 7).

Since GW Bush took office, the price of a stamp for postage for one ounce has risen 8 cents from 34 cents on January 1, 2001 to 42 cents on May 12, 2008. And the Bush years are not over yet.

The data on the rise in the minimum wage is here:

http://www.dol.gov/ESA/minwage/chart.htm

Responding to all the responses about what a good deal the postage is: my point is that while prices have risen, some, like gasoline more, and some, like postage, less, wages have not kept pace.

Here is an excerpt from a recent NY Times article on the discrepancy between the growth of middle class income and that of the wealthy class's income:

The Census Bureau has tracked the economic fortunes of affluent, middle-class and poor American families for six decades. According to my analysis, these tabulations reveal a wide partisan disparity in income growth. The real incomes of middle-class families grew more than twice as fast under Democratic presidents as they did under Republican presidents. Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families (at the 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike.
The cumulative effect of these partisan differences is enormous. If the pattern of income growth under postwar Republican presidents had matched the pattern under Democrats, incomes would be more equal now than they were in 1950 — a far cry from the contemporary reality of what some observers are calling a New Gilded Age.
It might be tempting to suppose that these partisan differences in income growth are a coincidence of timing, merely reflecting the fact that Republicans held the White House through most of the past three decades of slow, unequal growth. The partisan pattern, however, is remarkably consistent throughout the postwar period. Every Republican president since Dwight Eisenhower presided over increasing economic inequality, while only one Democrat — Jimmy Carter — did so. (I allow one year for each president’s economic policies to take effect, so the recession of 2001 is counted against Clinton, not Bush.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-idealab-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

The link may not be good. I do not subscribe to the NY Times, but the working link is available on a DU post by ihavenobias, which I will try to post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I buy a fraction of the stamps I did 10 years ago due to on line bill pay. That reduced demand has had to impact the USPS also.