Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[Bern80]

That is a subjective question. The answer is there really is no living wage since the cost of living varies so widely depending on where you live. It's why a minimum wage is so pointless. Hell my kids got 8 or 9 bucks an hour at Taco Bell when they were growing up. And the minimum wage was far below that.

if it was that pointless then why would states increase the wages? you would think that if it was pointless they would try to keep it as low as possible.

Pointless...unless you can convince enough people it isn't to get the votes you need to win an election.

 

[Bern80]

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.

Yes we are talking about high school kids and everyone else who does not require an income to live on. If we aren't talking about those people that what you are suggesting is that despite having the same job the teen he works at mcdonalds should be paid market value for their job but the adult should be paid whatever a living wage would be for them. You aren't in any position to be calling anyone else, absurd bud.

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.

The only person's mental capacity I'm questioning is yours. America is about the ONLY country where a person actually does have the opportunity to change their starting position is life. But doing so is on you. The opportunities are out there. It's a question of what you're willing to sacrafice now to improve you're life later. Wanna have a starting position that pays upper five figures. I know exactly where to find one. You're just going to have to move to North Dakota to get it. The biggest predictor of where you're going to end up in life is the choices YOU make. You can't be shocked that a single mother of two is having a hard time getting by given the choices it took to become a single mother of two.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Yet... many who can 'tell' still have cable TV, a car, $50 shoes, ice cream in the freezer, a cell phone, video games, money for beer and smokes, etc...

So we don't take your "we can pretty much tell" very seriously

 

[editec]

According to the BLS the median hourly wage in this nation is $15.57

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/figure3.pdf

So that means that 50% of the population makes less than $15.57 an hour and 50% more than that amount.

A full time worker making the median wage earns $31,140 pretax dollars.

In most places for most people under normal circumstances (i.e. they aren't living off trust funds, weren't given their homes and cars etc) that is really NOT a living wage.

If you're extremely careful and frugal, if you never have a bit of misfortune, never get sick, never have accidents, never get laid off or any of the host of things that actually happen to real people every day?

You have a SURVIVALIST wage making that amount (at best!)

 

[DiamondDave]

And it is their responsibility to earn that subjective 'living wage' or make the necessary sacrifices to remain where they are...

Your personal problems are not my problems... I had to work my way up, without a college degree, by making proper choices, learning, gaining experience, not buying everything I wanted, skipping meals, etc... it is just the way it should be done... you want comfort and not just the basics of ramen, public transportation, goodwill clothes, no time because you work 2 jobs, and 4 roommates in a 2 br slum apartment?? Do what it takes, whatever it takes.. learn, train, advance, study instead of watching tv (which is a luxury anyway), make your work reputation, join the military, etc

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The living wage is so I can do whatever menial ass job I want, work 25 hrs a week and have as much disposable income as my neighbor who gets up at 5am and works all day and gets home at 7pm.

 

[Bern80]

According to the BLS the median hourly wage in this nation is $15.57

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/figure3.pdf

So that means that 50% of the population makes less than $15.57 an hour and 50% more than that amount.

A full time worker making the median wage earns $31,140 pretax dollars.

In most places for most people under normal circumstances (i.e. they aren't living off trust funds, weren't given their homes and cars etc) that is really NOT a living wage.

If you're extremely careful and frugal, if you never have a bit of misfortune, never get sick, never have accidents, never get laid off or any of the host of things that actually happen to real people every day?

You have a SURVIVALIST wage making that amount (at best!)

That simply isn't true ed. I know that because I make less than that and live pretty comfortably. All of my basics are covered, rent, power, gas, auto payment. And I still have enough on top of that for high speed internet, cable, video game subscriptions, hobbies, walkin around money and enough to stick in savings.

 

[kwc57]

If it takes 15.00 an hour to have a "living" wage, well I really dont have an issue with that except that really all your doing is raising the cost to build a widget, or grow a widget to a point in which the 8.00 an hour becomes 15.00 an hour it seems to me
What is a living wage?

$45 per hour.

Do us a favor. Start a business, any business and pay that wage. Report back to us how that worked out for you.

 

[asterism]

According to the BLS the median hourly wage in this nation is $15.57

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/figure3.pdf

So that means that 50% of the population makes less than $15.57 an hour and 50% more than that amount.

A full time worker making the median wage earns $31,140 pretax dollars.

In most places for most people under normal circumstances (i.e. they aren't living off trust funds, weren't given their homes and cars etc) that is really NOT a living wage.

If you're extremely careful and frugal, if you never have a bit of misfortune, never get sick, never have accidents, never get laid off or any of the host of things that actually happen to real people every day?

You have a SURVIVALIST wage making that amount (at best!)

That's just not true. First, a full time position is 2089 hours. So that makes it $32,525.73. Secondly, in "most places" that's a decent life. It's not fancy and it's not opulent. It's a basic house, a used car, good eating, decent clothes, decent healthcare (assuming it's not provided by the employer - something the BLS doesn't consider) and plenty of time off.

It's not an above average lifestyle by any means, but it's way above survivalist.

 

[asterism]

According to the BLS the median hourly wage in this nation is $15.57

http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/figure3.pdf

So that means that 50% of the population makes less than $15.57 an hour and 50% more than that amount.

A full time worker making the median wage earns $31,140 pretax dollars.

In most places for most people under normal circumstances (i.e. they aren't living off trust funds, weren't given their homes and cars etc) that is really NOT a living wage.

If you're extremely careful and frugal, if you never have a bit of misfortune, never get sick, never have accidents, never get laid off or any of the host of things that actually happen to real people every day?

You have a SURVIVALIST wage making that amount (at best!)

That simply isn't true ed. I know that because I make less than that and live pretty comfortably. All of my basics are covered, rent, power, gas, auto payment. And I still have enough on top of that for high speed internet, cable, video game subscriptions, hobbies, walkin around money and enough to stick in savings.

Ed's a bit of a "theorist" in my perception. I don't think he has done a whole lot outside of teach. I could be wrong, but that's just my perception.

 

[kwc57]

Will you pay double for my products over a competitor if I pay all of my employees a living wage?

To be fair, those advocating an increase in minimum wage are not saying that you and you alone should pay your employees a living wage. They are saying your competitor should as well (increasing your competitor's costs as well).

Live within your means.

That is a problem for those who are trying to get by on the bare minimum and still finding their means to be insufficient. These people usually receive food stamps or welfare, proving that the costs still go somewhere.

Who is working two jobs just to pay living expenses for an extended period of time? I've had plenty of minimum wage jobs and have always gotten a raise after a few months for working hard. Clock punchers who don't want to put forth the effort to get ahead are stuck, that's true.

Who? Primarily single mothers. You are right that most people working minimum wage jobs tend to get raises after a period of time if they show up for work, etc., but those wages won't necessarily take them above the livable wage threshold.

Our minimum wage laws are only a tiny factor in the income inequality, though. Australia has much lower income inequality than the U.S. to show for its $15/hr minimum wage. However, Japan has a minimum wage at 645 yen an hour (which is $8.40 an hour now, but was much lower a few years ago--less than $6.50 an hour in 2007). Japan's income inequality is better than Australia's.

Saying that Australia's minimum wage is $15 is a little misleading.

National minimum wage - Pay - Fair Work Ombudsman

National minimum wages for apprentices, juniors & trainees

Special national minimum wages have also been set for trainees, apprentices and juniors who are not covered by any other award or agreement. These apply from the first pay period on or after 1 July 2011.

For junior employees, the minimum rates are:

Under 16 years of age $5.71
At 16 years of age $7.34
At 17 years of age $8.96
At 18 years of age $10.59
At 19 years of age $12.80
At 20 years of age $15.15

For apprentices, the rates are:

Year 1 of apprenticeship $9.93
Year 2 of apprenticeship $11.74
Year 3 of apprenticeship $14.45
Year 4 of apprenticeship $17.16

For employees on a traineeship, the minimum rates are:

At least the relevant wage from Schedule E- National Training Wage in the Miscellaneous Award 2010.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What is a living wage? It depends on where you live. In India, a living wage is $30, a month.

In the US, unions are weak and worker's rights have gone south. Greedy corporations take their business to India.

 

[Bern80]

What is a living wage? It depends on where you live. In India, a living wage is $30, a month.

In the US, unions are weak and worker's rights have gone south. Greedy corporations take their business to India.

What rights exactly?

 

[kwc57]

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.

Negged for being such an ignorant fuck. Your problem is class envy as shown in your response above. You want what other people have without doing what other people did to get it. I wouldn't bother with school if I were you. You are angry, arrogant and clueless. I doubt that you can be taught anything in your current mind set. You make your own "luck" in this life. The sooner you realize this and take responsibility for your own actions, the sooner you can be one of the haves instead of the have nots. It doesn't happen overnight, it takes time.

 

[Sky Dancer]

What is a living wage? It depends on where you live. In India, a living wage is $30, a month.

In the US, unions are weak and worker's rights have gone south. Greedy corporations take their business to India.

What rights exactly?

Safe, healthy and fair working conditions.

 

[kwc57]

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.

So, any job in Fort Smith should pay $52.8K? Doesn't matter what the work is? The guy who works for the nursery on the planting crew who comes to your house and digs the hole for your new tree should make $52.8K? The Wal-Mart greeter should make $52.8K? The waitress who brings you your cup of coffee should make $52.8K? What if the owner of the nursery or cafe only makes about $52.8K per year after overhead such as building lease, taxes, salaries, maintenance, etc? How is he going to pay each of his employees $52.8K per year? I guess if they charged $500 to plant your tree or $15 for a cup of coffee, it could be done.

You see, that is the problem with a "living wage". One size does not fit all. If every employer in Fort Smith were required to pay at a minimum $52.8K per year to each employee, it would be ghost town inside a month.

Do you class warfare/envy people even bother to think these fairytales thru?

 

[Bern80]

What is a living wage? It depends on where you live. In India, a living wage is $30, a month.

In the US, unions are weak and worker's rights have gone south. Greedy corporations take their business to India.

What rights exactly?

Safe, healthy and fair working conditions.

Ummm. Those are federal laws here and have nothing to do with unions.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is important to understand in the wierd world of economics that the median income will be considerably less than the average income.

And income is also relative to the household income - the median household income in 2009 was $50,221

And as several have pointed out, the average salary and household income, prosperity is largely determined by where you live. $50k doesn't go very far in Palo Alto but is a very comfotable living in rural Kansas.

Average and median income, however, usually doesn't take into account how many people are living in the household.

Poverty levels are also somewhat ambiguous depending on where one lives for the same reasons, but the government goes by a one-size-fits-all formula though it does consider how many people are in the household:

The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons
in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

\

The bottom line is that there is of course a segment of society who are impoverished through no fault of their own, but in this country almost all of the poorest of the poor are rich when compared to the poor of many other countries. The United States has long enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world and that includes some of our 'poor'.

Most people who are 'poor' are poor not because they chose to be poor but as a result of choices they have made: i.e. dropping out of school, not taking advantage of or frittering away opportunities, buying into the victim mentality, destroying initiative and health with addictions, disrespect for society and the law, being lazy or unwilling to take what work was available, irresponsible money management, etc. etc. etc.

So the question is. Do we help the poor more as Ben Franklin said by leading or driving them out of poverty? Or by rewardng poverty?

And what are the chances that a guaranteed 'living wage' no matter what the job or performance will only encourage much less productivity and excellence?

 

[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.

So, any job in Fort Smith should pay $52.8K? Doesn't matter what the work is? The guy who works for the nursery on the planting crew who comes to your house and digs the hole for your new tree should make $52.8K? The Wal-Mart greeter should make $52.8K? The waitress who brings you your cup of coffee should make $52.8K? What if the owner of the nursery or cafe only makes about $52.8K per year after overhead such as building lease, taxes, salaries, maintenance, etc? How is he going to pay each of his employees $52.8K per year? I guess if they charged $500 to plant your tree or $15 for a cup of coffee, it could be done.

You see, that is the problem with a "living wage". One size does not fit all. If every employer in Fort Smith were required to pay at a minimum $52.8K per year to each employee, it would be ghost town inside a month.

Do you class warfare/envy people even bother to think these fairytales thru?

Nice rant. Only problem is if you read my post you will see I am not asking for $52.8K for everyone. In fact, I clearly say " Wages would need to rise by 50%". Someone making $20K right now would then be making $30K. Still can't afford the house, but I never said everyone needed. Just the people in the middle. You know them. The Middle Class.

 

[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.

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.

I never said it was the average for the whole state. Just that city.

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.

First off, that's what I said. They all get $2 more per hour. If you read my post you would see that.

And I never claimed those were the only employees. I'm merely pointing out how it's possible to raise the wages of workers and not have an increase in costs, which means no price increases as a result.

And, man you assume a lot, I never said the Government needs to start setting salaries for CEOs. I think they should raise corporate taxes way up and then provide tax breaks based on the equality of salaries. The more equal, the less you pay in taxes.