Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[Inthemiddle]

No such society will ever exist.

It existed a few decades ago, and exists in many other countries.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And your evidence for this is?

History and common sense.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Cost of living varies by state and city, so too could a living wage. But as many have asked, how to decide on what that should be? Here's one way. Take the average salary of a city and compare it to the average cost of a home. Can the average person afford a home?

As an example, take Fort Smith, AK. One of the lowest costs of living. Median salary is $35.7K and the average home price is $222K. Assuming a 20% down payment on the house, loan payments would be roughly $1100 per month. Every financial adviser will tell you that mortgages or rent should be no more than 25% of your salary. That means to get that house, a person would need to earn $52.8K. This means the average person earning the average wage CANNOT afford a home. Ever.

I would say that's not good. Wages would need to rise by 50% for the average person to afford an average home.

Now, for the people whining that if wages go up then prices will too, that's not true. Take a Company with a CEO who makes $10M a year and has 1200 workers making $10 an hour. If the CEO's pay is cut in half, then every worker could get $2 more per hour. A 20% increase. The total cost of labour would remain unchanged, so there would be no increases to pass along to customers. Prices would remain the same. And the workers would afford to buy more products, thus increasing sales.

And yes, I know. The poor rich guy would only have $5M to live on. Maybe he could sell a yacht to get by.

 

[pgm]

Why does home ownership have to be the goal? High-density housing is much more economically efficient and better for the environment. But it's a nightmare to have 100 homeowners in one building.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Why does home ownership have to be the goal?

Purely an assumption on my part. I think the average American wants to get married, buy a house and raise kids. In this example, the average American can't do that.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Cost of living varies by state and city, so too could a living wage. But as many have asked, how to decide on what that should be? Here's one way. Take the average salary of a city and compare it to the average cost of a home. Can the average person afford a home?

As an example, take Fort Smith, AK. One of the lowest costs of living. Median salary is $35.7K and the average home price is $222K. Assuming a 20% down payment on the house, loan payments would be roughly $1100 per month. Every financial adviser will tell you that mortgages or rent should be no more than 25% of your salary. That means to get that house, a person would need to earn $52.8K. This means the average person earning the average wage CANNOT afford a home. Ever.

I would say that's not good. Wages would need to rise by 50% for the average person to afford an average home.

Now, for the people whining that if wages go up then prices will too, that's not true. Take a Company with a CEO who makes $10M a year and has 1200 workers making $10 an hour. If the CEO's pay is cut in half, then every worker could get $2 more per hour. A 20% increase. The total cost of labour would remain unchanged, so there would be no increases to pass along to customers. Prices would remain the same. And the workers would afford to buy more products, thus increasing sales.

And yes, I know. The poor rich guy would only have $5M to live on. Maybe he could sell a yacht to get by.

Actually there is a formula for defining a living wage...

I don't know the formula - a financial analysis would... Your rent/mortgage should not exceed 25% of your wage, your cost of living including debt should not exceed 50% of your wage...

I don't know the formula but using the formula one can determine what is a "living wage."

The formula is strongly based on personal responsibility tho....

It's only theory...

 

[JohnA]

Why does home ownership have to be the goal?

Purely an assumption on my part. I think the average American wants to get married, buy a house and raise kids. In this example, the average American can't do that.

siily mindless assumption isnt it .

I think if the average american wants to get married . buy a home and raise kids he/she should do what he /she has to do to obtain those goals .

just like the american who owns the average priced home did .

just because he /she want to own a average price home and cant afford to doesnt mean we should GIVE him or her more money .

Is the AVERAGE american in your example doing a AVERAGE job for AVERAGE pay and contributing to society like the the AVERAGE does . it he or she planning his or here future and looking for ways to improve his or her income level like (for example ) education and learning new skills just like the AVERAGE american does .

i could go on

 

[MeBelle]

I checked my area and it was not that far off. look i am a hard line conservative, but this is one area I have a real issue with and am not sure the Dems can get a free pass here either as they had the power to make this happen 09-2010
Australia has a 15.00 an hour minimum wage, why cant we? yes the price of goods would go up, but there making it happen in Australia some how
I really would like to see a study on this. I know what it would do to my business, but it would do the same to all that I compete with
Next question, does the welfare queen get the same raise?

Google
Australia compulsory
and you will find how many rights you actually lose for the living wage of $15 an hour.

 

[grunt11b]

Enjoy your marxism.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7rbQHJ9b3o]Marxist Philosophy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[MeBelle]

sorry... i dont think so.

Get some room mates and split bills. OR work two jobs, that is not a new concept.

No it's not, and people do have roommates and do work several jobs...they still aren't getting anywhere. There is something wrong when you have to work two jobs in the richest country in the world just to provide a roof over your head and food in your belly.

BTW, we work more hours and have fewer vacations than any other industrialized nation...you really think this is a good thing?

We've not made progress, we've lost progress and you are just saying "get another job." What happens when two jobs aren't enough to pay the bills? You give up sleeping????

Once upon a time a person worked two jobs to get ahead, or to send their kid through college, now they are working two jobs just to pay the bills and you think that's a good thing?

Getting somewhere or making progress is not the issue.

A living wage is is enough for:

Is enough to put a studio apartment over your head the size of a closet. A living wage is a beat up used car. A living wage is no flat panel TV, video game, Cable or Dish. A living wage is clothes from wallchart. A living wage is a bare bones no bells or whistles cell phone. A living wage is no computer, laptop or internet. A living wage is no vacations, nights out on the town, or movies. A living wage is clipping coupons, looking for sales and store brand food. A living wage is only having children and pets you can afford.

The rest are WANTS not needs. I think you get my idea here.

A cell phone??? New clothes and not thrift shop clothes? A TV?
Double and triple coupons at your local grcery store too, sistah!

 

[bripat9643]

life sucks..... why should a "living wage" include enough for a college tuition?

Earn... old concept. Work.

Are you fucking retarded? Or are you just one of these class warfare types that think people should be forced to stay within a certain category and have no right to anything more than whatever toil their caste is entitled, with no possibility of doing anything more with themselves.

People have the right to do whatever they want with their lives. However, they don't have the right to do it by taking money from the people who earned it. "Class warfare" is when 'A' believes he has the right to the wages of 'B.'

Now get to work, asshole.

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that everyone should earn enough to support a family is absurd. Why should teenagers who can't even put a happy meal together correctly be paid enough to cloth and house 4 people?

Nice straw man. Nobody is talking about high school students making that much money. We're talking about adult American citizens.

When you're talking about increasing the minimum wage, that's exactly what you're talking about. Any adult who has been out of school for more than a couple of years and is still earning the minimum wage is suffering from brain damage.

 

[chanel]

Interesting question. We just got back from Bermuda where the "minimum wage" (not mandated) is around 20 to 25 dollars an hour. Cost of gas - 8.50 a gallon. Loaf of bread + 6.00 Avg. home price - 1 million dollars. Teachers make 80K. When I asked how they can afford a home, people laughed. They said the only people who "own" are the ones who are lucky enough to inherit a home with a manageable mortgage.

I believe the min wage here in NJ is 7.25. Most employers pay 9 or 10. Supply and demand.

 

[bripat9643]

No such society will ever exist.

It existed a few decades ago, and exists in many other countries.

Nope. That's labor union propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

And your evidence for this is?

History and common sense.

No evidence, in other words.

 

[bripat9643]

Cost of living varies by state and city, so too could a living wage. But as many have asked, how to decide on what that should be? Here's one way. Take the average salary of a city and compare it to the average cost of a home. Can the average person afford a home?

As an example, take Fort Smith, AK. One of the lowest costs of living. Median salary is $35.7K and the average home price is $222K. Assuming a 20% down payment on the house, loan payments would be roughly $1100 per month. Every financial adviser will tell you that mortgages or rent should be no more than 25% of your salary. That means to get that house, a person would need to earn $52.8K. This means the average person earning the average wage CANNOT afford a home. Ever.

I would say that's not good. Wages would need to rise by 50% for the average person to afford an average home.

You're delusional if you think the average price of a home in AK is 222K. the average price for the entire USA is less than that.

Now, for the people whining that if wages go up then prices will too, that's not true. Take a Company with a CEO who makes $10M a year and has 1200 workers making $10 an hour. If the CEO's pay is cut in half, then every worker could get $2 more per hour. A 20% increase. The total cost of labour would remain unchanged, so there would be no increases to pass along to customers. Prices would remain the same. And the workers would afford to buy more products, thus increasing sales.

And yes, I know. The poor rich guy would only have $5M to live on. Maybe he could sell a yacht to get by.

First, your math is wrong. 1200X$10X2000 = $24 million, not $5 million. So the employees would only get an additional $2/hour, not $10/hour

A corporation with 1200 is tiny. No CEO of a company that size ever earned $10M a year. The CEO of corporation with 100,000 employees might earn that much. That would mean taking half his income would allow each employee to earn an additional $50/year. That's $50.00, not $50K.

That being said, what business is it of yours how much a corporation pays it's executives? When the government starts setting the salaries of CEOs, then this country is doomed.

 

[chanel]

The AFL-CIO complains that the average salary plus benefits at an S&P 500 company was $11,358,445.

Kanye West made $25 million in 2009 according to Forbes; Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) gets paid about $14 million a movie and “The Daily Telegraph measured his net worth at £30m, making him the 12th richest young person in the UK.” Nicolas Cage? $40 million. Jay Leno? $32 million. Tiger Woods? $110 million. Oprah Winfrey? $275 million.

Celebrity Salaries vs. CEO Salaries | AREA203 Digital Blog

$11 mil may seem like a lot, but my guess is most of these OWS types, believe it is much more.

When will the Hollywood Celebutards start demanding "equity" in their biz?

 

[editec]

There is no hard and fast number that one can put to the term LIVING WAGE.

But we can all pretty much tell when we're not making one.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Life isn't "fair".

So life is not fair, but the wages are always fair, without a doubt, unquestionably, as sure as the sky is blue? Oh, and Jesus rose again, right?

Some people are good at being creative and/or business.

Wait, you said pretty much anyone could do it. Now you're saying only some people will be good at it. Which is it? I think you're a bit lost in this tangled mess of a hole you're trying to dig yourself out of.



Okay, so you're saying that simply choosing to go to college makes it happen? That, of course, could be true if your theory of education being free in this country were true. But college costs money. What is a person to do if they don't have the money for college? No amount of "choice" will change the fact that they cannot afford the expense. Maybe you just need to learn to count your blessings and be a little more humble, instead of thinking that you are such hot shit that you can simply will anything into reality you want. You're not God, you know.



Nobody is bitching about people who have more money. We're discussing here how our society has taken turns and is making choices that to not encourage the greater good or general prosperity, or a structurally sound society or economy.



Oh, bummer. I guess the self righteousness simply boiled over before I could get you to turn down the heat. What you're basically saying is that your choices (neglecting your good fortune to have had the means to pursue them in the first place) make you worth a livable income for your work. But other people are not worth a livable income. That you are more deserving of fancy house decorations than they are of providing the bare necessities for their families. That the people who hired you are more deserving of a yacht than the poor are deserving of full meals. I have to say, it's pretty disgusting that you would engage in such class warfare like that.



Actually, no, it's not possible for anyone to have a decent life. Your theories here NECESSITATE that a certain section of our society remain impoverished, as if they have some kind of moral obligation to remain so, so that you can remain well above such conditions, and so that the mega wealthy can remain mega wealthy. Your approach can only be sustained by demanding people simply accept their poverty, as if it were a religious or patriotic duty. That is sick.



Yeah, that's why the vast majority of non-college-educated people make significantly less money than the college educated.



Really? How? Please enlighten the rest of the world.



I'm sorry, did I miss the global exodus where everyone moved to OK? Also, this contradicts what you said a moment ago. You said that the students could get a free education based on choices. You didn't say that they had to DEPEND on someone else's choices.



1) Either provide evidence that this is what happens, otherwise do not repeat the claim again.

2) You just said that the student must depend on their parent's choice to get signed up for the program. Now you're claiming that it's the student's choice. You must choose one or the other, but you cannot have both. Make a choice.

3) You have yet to explain how this singular state program does anything for the rest of the country where we supposedly have free education.



I'll agree to a certain extent. It's kinda like poker. It's not always fair. Sometimes it rewards the person who did wrong and punishes the person who did right. It's all about choices. But in poker, just like in life, you have to have the money first before the choice is even an available option.



You're right. Either you can or you can't. It's not true that everyone can, because not everyone has the means to do it. Many people may choose to do it but not have the funding. You continue to choose to ignore that fact.

Nobody owes you anything. They will pay you however a wage or salary commiserate with your skill, experience and ability.

This is a contradiction. If they don't owe me anything, they aren't going to pay me anything commiserate with my skills, experience, or ability. They are going to pay me as little as they can get away with regardless of my skill, experience, or ability so that they can retain as large a portion of the pie for themselves as they possibly can. They will, in fact, pay me so low that I cannot afford to adequately feed and clothe myself. They will, in fact, turn around and object to my appearance at work, and demand that I adequately feed and clothe myself, all while continuing to refuse to pay me a living wage. They will be the Jim Taggert who demands production without allowing for the means to produce.

The more you have, the more you'll make.

If you were to insert "money" after each "more" I'll agree with you. But that's about it.

No...Life isn't fair. Deal with it. If a person is unskilled they will be paid accordingly and appropriately.
Anyone may be creative and start a business. The question is are they capable?
This nation is one of the few on the planet where everyone has the opportunity to be the best they can and to reach their full potential.
"What happens if"....This is the line you libs use as the basis for every social program in existence today. You people assume that all people are capable of going down the tubes. You look upon people as helpless. So you petition government to further your notion of compassion then petition government to dispense your compassion the way you see fit. The Left's compassion invariably begins with other people's money.
Non one owed anything. Having access to higher education is not a right. However, there are literally billions of dollars in loans and grants( mostly to the poor and lower class earners) for college. The problem is most of the whiners are too lazy to get off their ass and go get it.
No YOU ARE discussing that. When I see terms like "common or greater good" I cringe.
That is Marxism.. "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"...Collectivism. That taking of assets and wealth by government to provide for the masses.
Yiu people have convinced yourselves ,with the help of the main stream media and the Obama regime that if one person has more wealth then by definition another MUST have less. That is of course idiotic. But you people in your seething misery have class envy on your minds 24/7. It is the pinnacle of greed to want the results of the work of others handed to you via threat of government sanctions.
You people use terms such as "the good fortune" so inaccurately. You comprehend skill, hard work and ambition turned into a comfortable life as "winning the lottery of life". That is crap. That idea is built straight out of the jealousy manual. You Lefties believe it just isn't fair that some people get to live in larger homes than others or whatever. At the end of the day though, your message is not "let's lift those at the bottom". It is let's punish those at the top because we believe they have caused there to be a bottom". Don't deny it because that is how your lib/progressive minds work. We hear it/read it all the time from the Left.
"Actually, no, it's not possible for anyone to have a decent life. Your theories here NECESSITATE that a certain section of our society remain impoverished, as if they have some kind of moral obligation to remain so, so that you can remain well above such conditions, and so that the mega wealthy can remain mega wealthy. Your approach can only be sustained by demanding people simply accept their poverty, as if it were a religious or patriotic duty. That is sick."
That is utter bullshit. The truth is anyone can have a decent life in this country. Some just have to work at it in different ways or harder than others. The bottom line is the more successful do not owe the less successful anything just because they are less successful.
That is a concept you people on the left cannot grasp.
As for the rest of your quote, it is based on a false premise. The existence of the zero sum game

 

[Bern80]

No it's not, and people do have roommates and do work several jobs...they still aren't getting anywhere. There is something wrong when you have to work two jobs in the richest country in the world just to provide a roof over your head and food in your belly.

There is a lot wrong with the above statement. That's for sure. Why do people say such dumb shit. "We're the richest country in the world so there's no excuse for................" for what. That suggests you believe wealth is supposed to be evenly distributed irregardless of one's effort in obtaining it. Your damn right there's something wrong with working two jobs that barely provide your basic needs. The something wrong is YOU fucked up somwhere along the line. Work on fixing that problem first.

BTW, we work more hours and have fewer vacations than any other industrialized nation...you really think this is a good thing?

A standard of living costs what it costs. You can't have that go down and pay go up. That should be obvious to anyone. The countries that do have things like 'holiday' have higher unemployment than we do also, more government assistance and higer taxes as a result. I would much rather succeed or fail on my own and the ability to keep more of what I earn than have more of it taken from me out of some faux government concern for someone else who doesn't think they have enough. If you think you're working too much and not enjoying life enough, find another way. Plenty of people have done so. You know.....the rich ones your pissing and moaning about.

We've not made progress, we've lost progress and you are just saying "get another job." What happens when two jobs aren't enough to pay the bills? You give up sleeping????

We aren't there yet. Not even close. Everyone intuitively and observably knows there are jobs out there that pay enough to provide basic necessities and jobs out there that pay enough to live quite well. If the two jobs you're working can't accomplish that it means you are working jobs that require little skill level that pretty much any monkey can do. Life is not about working hard. It's about working smart. If the two jobs you're working don't cut it, you need to learn how to do something else that does. It's that simple.

Once upon a time a person worked two jobs to get ahead, or to send their kid through college, now they are working two jobs just to pay the bills and you think that's a good thing?

I think those people are idiots and planned very poorly for life. It isn't anyone elses resonsibility but their own to correct that mistake.