What's a living wage?

Cosmo

I think we all have to come to the realization that it isn't the 1950s anymore. Or even the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s anymore. and as much as some folks would like... we ain't goin' back, THANK GOD!!!
...
The fast food industry is no longer a place for teenagers to hand out free food and piss in the pickle jars anymore. Many fast food workers are adults... often times mothers and fathers with families to raise. Yeah, it wasn't like that when you were a kid... but seriously, so fucking what? A LOT of things are different from when we were 12.
And if there were still those jobs where unskilled workers could learn how to build washing machines and water heaters... those workers would not be serving us burgers and fries.
The living wage comes from apathy for fellow citizen who, often times by bad decision making in their youth, end up little educated and lacking skills. if America were truely a Christian Nation... we would care more about the plight of our people... than the size of our bank accounts.

hedonist

Cos, this is why I'm a big fan of vocational schools and the like.

So while attending classes, interning, OTJ training or what have you, maybe I do work for a few months or a year at a job I'm not crazy about and that may pay me less than I'd prefer.

It's hopefully temporary, and hopefully worth the investment of self and time.

backseatLover12

Cosmo wrote:

I think we all have to come to the realization that it isn't the 1950s anymore. Or even the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s anymore. and as much as some folks would like... we ain't goin' back, THANK GOD!!!
...
The fast food industry is no longer a place for teenagers to hand out free food and piss in the pickle jars anymore. Many fast food workers are adults... often times mothers and fathers with families to raise. Yeah, it wasn't like that when you were a kid... but seriously, so fucking what? A LOT of things are different from when we were 12.
And if there were still those jobs where unskilled workers could learn how to build washing machines and water heaters... those workers would not be serving us burgers and fries.
The living wage comes from apathy for fellow citizen who, often times by bad decision making in their youth, end up little educated and lacking skills. if America were truely a Christian Nation... we would care more about the plight of our people... than the size of our bank accounts.

But that would mean that we're SOCIALISTS! :shock:

Anyway, I liked the 70s and the 90s. Life was simpler. We actually didn't have a problem with actually finding a somewhat decent job. Not like today, not like it's been since 2008.

Gern Blansten

It really comes down to whether we want the corporations that make billions a year paying higher wages or we want welfare to increase and spread that among the taxpayers.

I would rather have the corporations spend more of their profits in wages than have my taxes go up. Dedicating more profit to a living wage does NOT mean that prices would increase. If Burger King is willing to keep prices low then McDonald's will to.

And...like Henry Ford discovered, (look this up...he actually paid his workers enough to be able to afford a new FORD) when the large corporations pay their workers more the workers SPEND more. Wal Mart would probably get back half of what they paid out from the very people they paid wages to.

shortstack

SK359828 wrote:

I have a friend who was working as an endoscopy technician. Several times she had her hands inside someone, where one wrong move meant possibly puncturing someone's bowels. She was paid between $10-12 an hour. Thought I'd throw that out there for pondering.

not to derail.... but the endoscope goes in the other end

*runs away*

Cosmo

shortstack wrote:

SK359828 wrote:

I have a friend who was working as an endoscopy technician. Several times she had her hands inside someone, where one wrong move meant possibly puncturing someone's bowels. She was paid between $10-12 an hour. Thought I'd throw that out there for pondering.

not to derail.... but the endoscope goes in the other end

*runs away*

...
Hmmmm.... Maybe that's why she only gets paid 10 bucks an hour.

mookeywrench

Caveeze wrote:

I would rather someone be paid more by a business to work
than to have taxpayers pay somebody not to work, or supplement the rest needed to live

Which is why you don't want a minimum wage.

If the cost of labor supply increases...the quantity of labor demanded decreases.

When you put a price floor on a supply and demand curve, quantity supplied will outweigh quantity demanded which means you get a labor surplus.

A low or no minimum wage is what causes people to be paid by businesses rather than the taxpayer.

brianlux

know1 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Another way to look at this would be for us to stop supporting toxic fast "food" road kill "restaurants" and reduce our frivolous spending in general and specifically cease our purchasing of cheap worthless plastic shit from places like Walmart and put more people to work doing something useful. And, of course, at the very least, pay everyone a living wage.

People will say, "But the poor need places like Walmart." I disagree. Durable items last longer, impact the planet less and cost less in the long run. Let's teach people how to shop wisely and responsibly. We don't need no stinkin' Walmart!

Who "puts more people to work doing something useful"? How does that happen?

This is getting a little off topis but briefly the first thing I would suggest is to create more domestic jobs through domestic production in companies that produce durable goods. Create jobs through companies that produce energy efficient goods and vehicle (especially important as oil production costs continue to rise and increases CO2 emissions into the atmosphere continue to drive climate change). Increase training and education of health care practitioners- plenty of job opportunities will continue to be desired as boomers move into retirement. More jobs will be created out of sheer necessity in growing food as oil production becomes more costly.

That was easy- I didn't have to think much at all to come up with those. Given more sleep and time to think and a lot of tolerance from others here for veering off the course of this thread, I'm sure I come come up with several other suggestions.

Local economy.
Durable goods.
Responsible consumption.
Fair wages.

ajedigecko

North Dakota. Go.

even flow - question mark

So $7 an hour works out to 26,880.00 a year before taxes. If you are lucky to live in the north of your fine country, your gas and energy should work out unassited to approx 4k. Toss in the need for some kind of phone bill. (you can fix an amount) No cable will suffice. (live without the net too) We shall even use public transit at say another 1600 for the year. What do you think for the fine food products for the year......$2400 sound like a fair amount to not eat at any establishments for the year. Toss in some take out or fun with friends every once in a while. (again unsung, you can fix the amount to it). I know there is no need to go and have fun, but people tend to like to get together. I think that a fair minimum wage of about $12 an hour for a single person trying to get by would be a fair start. Oooops, I didn't even add in rent for a place to live. Hmmmmmm, I'd love to live in your world where being undercut is a good thing!

know1

You can absolutely live on minimum wage as a single person who is mildly frugal.

Trying to raise a couple of kids as a single parent on minimum wage is a completely different story. If you're in that situation, you probably need to be doing whatever you can to not be only making minimum wage.

brianlux

know1 wrote:

You can absolutely live on minimum wage as a single person who is mildly frugal.

Trying to raise a couple of kids as a single parent on minimum wage is a completely different story. If you're in that situation, you probably need to be doing whatever you can to not be only making minimum wage.

As a single person, barely- assuming you have no health issues and depending on where you live. If you get a chance, check out Barbara Ehrenreich's book Nickel and Dimed. She stowed all her money and went out and worked minimum pay jobs on her own. It was no cake walk and she was very frugal and fortunate to stay healthy and she was barely able to make it through the experiment. I wouldn't want to do it and most people cannot.

Drowned Out

even flow - question mark wrote:

So $7 an hour works out to 26,880.00 a year before taxes. If you are lucky to live in the north of your fine country, your gas and energy should work out unassited to approx 4k. Toss in the need for some kind of phone bill. (you can fix an amount) No cable will suffice. (live without the net too) We shall even use public transit at say another 1600 for the year. What do you think for the fine food products for the year......$2400 sound like a fair amount to not eat at any establishments for the year. Toss in some take out or fun with friends every once in a while. (again unsung, you can fix the amount to it). I know there is no need to go and have fun, but people tend to like to get together. I think that a fair minimum wage of about $12 an hour for a single person trying to get by would be a fair start. Oooops, I didn't even add in rent for a place to live. Hmmmmmm, I'd love to live in your world where being undercut is a good thing!

Your math is a bit off. A full time job paying $7/hr would gross $14,000, pre-tax. So in canada, take home would be about twenty five bucks a week

The problem with all of these welfare state discussions is that it comes down to a debate between helping your fellow man and natural selection. Someone has to fill these unskilled positions, or our society crumbles. And not everyone has the mental or physical capacity to do more than an unskilled job. So if some guy busts his ass washing dishes, never misses a day of work, and treats his employer and coworkers with respect...but has an IQ of 70 and isn't really capable of holding a better job....fuck him! Survival of the fittest, right?

know1

Cosmo wrote:

if America were truely a Christian Nation... we would care more about the plight of our people... than the size of our bank accounts.

I agree. Our government does not act very Christian.

As a Christian, I'd love to have more of my money in hand (lower taxes) so that I could do more for people who need help.

Gern Blansten

know1 wrote:

You can absolutely live on minimum wage as a single person who is mildly frugal.

Trying to raise a couple of kids as a single parent on minimum wage is a completely different story. If you're in that situation, you probably need to be doing whatever you can to not be only making minimum wage.

So what happens to the people to try to make more and they can't?

That's the idea behind the living wage. This really isn't a political issue. The data is solid that when income inequality is as skewed as it is now the economy suffers. Low wage earners SPEND all of their income. That benefits everyone.

You don't like the term "wealth redistribution" but that is what a capitalist society REQUIRES in order to survive and prosper. It isn't a matter of big government and government intrusion. It's a requirement for our government to make this system work. It clearly is not working except for the top 1%.

even flow - question mark

Drowned Out wrote:

even flow - question mark wrote:

So $7 an hour works out to 26,880.00 a year before taxes. If you are lucky to live in the north of your fine country, your gas and energy should work out unassited to approx 4k. Toss in the need for some kind of phone bill. (you can fix an amount) No cable will suffice. (live without the net too) We shall even use public transit at say another 1600 for the year. What do you think for the fine food products for the year......$2400 sound like a fair amount to not eat at any establishments for the year. Toss in some take out or fun with friends every once in a while. (again unsung, you can fix the amount to it). I know there is no need to go and have fun, but people tend to like to get together. I think that a fair minimum wage of about $12 an hour for a single person trying to get by would be a fair start. Oooops, I didn't even add in rent for a place to live. Hmmmmmm, I'd love to live in your world where being undercut is a good thing!

Your math is a bit off. A full time job paying $7/hr would gross $14,000, pre-tax. So in canada, take home would be about twenty five bucks a week

The problem with all of these welfare state discussions is that it comes down to a debate between helping your fellow man and natural selection. Someone has to fill these unskilled positions, or our society crumbles. And not everyone has the mental or physical capacity to do more than an unskilled job. So if some guy busts his ass washing dishes, never misses a day of work, and treats his employer and coworkers with respect...but has an IQ of 70 and isn't really capable of holding a better job....fuck him! Survival of the fittest, right?

Correct you are sir. Don't know what happened with my calculation so early this morning. But you got the drift of how hard it would be to survive. Thank you.

even flow - question mark

know1 wrote:

You can absolutely live on minimum wage as a single person who is mildly frugal.

Trying to raise a couple of kids as a single parent on minimum wage is a completely different story. If you're in that situation, you probably need to be doing whatever you can to not be only making minimum wage.

As was corrected for me with the $7 an hour post. How much is cheap rent in the states? If I can ask any of you people. Not a shit hole with crack heads on the corner. But a basement appartment? Or a one bedroom on the fringe of a city?

$14,000, pretax may not make that 700 to 1000 a month rent with one mouth to feed, public transit and frugal!

ajedigecko

know1 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

if America were truely a Christian Nation... we would care more about the plight of our people... than the size of our bank accounts.

I agree. Our government does not act very Christian.

As a Christian, I'd love to have more of my money in hand (lower taxes) so that I could do more for people who need help.

yep...

but, far too many want the fed to make forced decisions for them.

know1

Gern Blansten wrote:

know1 wrote:

You can absolutely live on minimum wage as a single person who is mildly frugal.

Trying to raise a couple of kids as a single parent on minimum wage is a completely different story. If you're in that situation, you probably need to be doing whatever you can to not be only making minimum wage.

So what happens to the people to try to make more and they can't?

That's the idea behind the living wage. This really isn't a political issue. The data is solid that when income inequality is as skewed as it is now the economy suffers. Low wage earners SPEND all of their income. That benefits everyone.

You don't like the term "wealth redistribution" but that is what a capitalist society REQUIRES in order to survive and prosper. It isn't a matter of big government and government intrusion. It's a requirement for our government to make this system work. It clearly is not working except for the top 1%.

What do you mean they can't make more? Why can't they?

I don't see that it "clearly is not working except for the top 1%". Compare our poor to the poor of much of the rest of the world and they would trade places with our poor in a heartbeat. To me, that is far different from saying it isn't working.

To me, it just looks like envy that some people have a lot more money than others.

Gern Blansten

know1 wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

know1 wrote:

You can absolutely live on minimum wage as a single person who is mildly frugal.

Trying to raise a couple of kids as a single parent on minimum wage is a completely different story. If you're in that situation, you probably need to be doing whatever you can to not be only making minimum wage.

So what happens to the people to try to make more and they can't?

That's the idea behind the living wage. This really isn't a political issue. The data is solid that when income inequality is as skewed as it is now the economy suffers. Low wage earners SPEND all of their income. That benefits everyone.

You don't like the term "wealth redistribution" but that is what a capitalist society REQUIRES in order to survive and prosper. It isn't a matter of big government and government intrusion. It's a requirement for our government to make this system work. It clearly is not working except for the top 1%.

What do you mean they can't make more? Why can't they?

I don't see that it "clearly is not working except for the top 1%". Compare our poor to the poor of much of the rest of the world and they would trade places with our poor in a heartbeat. To me, that is far different from saying it isn't working.

To me, it just looks like envy that some people have a lot more money than others.

Why can't they? Seriously? Can you realize that minimum wage jobs are all that are available in many places?

The envy argument is ridiculous. A lot of the reason there is such inequality is because of the minimum wage. Corporations like Wal-Mart make billions on the backs of their minimum wage workers.