Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

[pgm]

Then I have to ask, why is it 1/2 of that here? I checked your info and at a 38 hour weeks is what it related to was correct
I have already found that upon these wages reaching this level it looks as though they have a 38 hour work week, which is still a hell of allot better than a 40 hour week @ 7-8.00 an hour (pending what state your in)

Are you asking me why Australia has a $15 an hour minimum wage? I don't really know.

I do know that Australia is a lot more economically flat than the U.S. There are a lot less poor people and a lot less rich people. It helps that they have a smaller population (larger countries tend to have greater income inequality). Australia has an income inequality of about 30% compared to America's 45%, so Australia is about as economically equal as Western Europe and Canada and the U.S. is on par with China and Mexico (but not nearly as pronounced as Hong Kong, Brazil or South Africa). We have a lot more billionaires (412 or 13.2 per 10 million people) than Australia (11 or about 5 per 10 million people), but also a lot more poor people.

The average American is better in purchasing power (PPP GDP per capita), but the average Australian is better off in nominal terms per capita. So, when you adjust for exchange rates and for how much things cost in Australia, the average American makes about $7000 a year more than the average Australian. If you want to know nominal terms (which is better for international travel/purchases), Australians make about $9000 more per year on average. So, it's hard to say who is better off, an American or an Australian. Australians make more money, but have to pay more for goods.

I think paying $7/hr vs. $15/hr is part of what makes America, "America." People don't really view a minimum wage job as something permanent and certainly don't think people should be trying to make a living off of it. It makes sense to have a low minimum wage job for teens and other entry-level workers. It's unfortunate that so many have to try to live off of the minimum wage. Perhaps we could have the minimum wage at $8/hr for new workers and a bit higher for those who have worked at a company for some time. Most companies tend to do that already--this would just make it mandatory. The law of unintended consequences says that employers would simply only hire people for a year, but I don't see that as so likely because a high worker turnover is a big strain for companies. Many low-wage employers are reluctant to hire employees that they think will leave in a few months and they are reluctant to spend more than the minimum wage for new and potentially incompetent employees. This would address both as it incentivizes company loyalty and doesn't force companies to pay new people more. The only question after that is what is a fair minimum wage for new hires and what is fair for seasoned veterans. Ideally, those with experience should be making as close to a living wage as possible.

If you're question is just about Toyota factories in Australia, then I have a different answer. Toyota doesn't simply have factories in the U.S. because costs are cheaper than Australia. It realizes that hiring Americans to make cars in America to be sold to other Americans is a good business strategy. Labor is only a small part of the costs of a car, so the higher quality of work makes up for some of the higher costs. Also, the cars will already be in America, so shipping costs are lower. The American-made cars have less appeal to Japanese consumers (Toyota, Honda, Subaru, et al sell some different cars to Japanese consumers), so there's little point in making these cars in Japan. Finally, there's a PR boost to making things in America with American workers.

 

[DiamondDave]

Here is the whole issue with wages. A very large portion of our economy comes from consumer spending. The lowest income earners spend the greatest percentage of their incomes on products and services. The ability for consumers to spend, meaning they have money to spend, is what drives our economy. As spending power decreases among the middle class and underclass, so goes the economy. Rich people do buy goods and services, but they don't buy nearly as much as the rest of us do. If the top ten percent are earning approximately 45% of income, and the other 90% is earning the other 55%, do you really think that the top 10% is putting that money all back into the economy?

Increasing the wages of the lowest income earners will just put all that money right back into the economy. Everyone benefits. Of course it isn't quite so simple as just giving everyone a raise. However, when we look at the amount that the top income earners have increased their incomes by, we must ask ourselves what are they using that money for? Are they putting it back into the economy? With American businesses sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, the obvious answer is no. If that money was in the pockets of American workers, it would all be put right back into the economy creating substantial growth.

I am not saying that this is the solution, but just explaining that is how things actually work. Making it so is another story. The other problem that we have is that the baby boomers have reduced their spending considerably just due to the fact that they have everything they need. So we now have reduced spending on two fronts, the wealthy baby boomers and the rest of the populace that is just struggling to get by. But on the other end, we have the wealthy who continue to gain wealth while the rest of the country takes it up the ass.

Then with all of this happening, we have people like Herman Cain telling us we need to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy, those who are already increasing their wealth, while increasing taxes on everyone else, those who are already losing any wealthy they may have. It really makes sane people scratch their heads.

So you support guaranteeing a subjective 'fair' or 'living' wage over having people earn more because they advance, make better choices, etc... and unequal treatment by law under government

got it

Actually, I didn't say that. It isn't quite so simple as guaranteeing wages. I just stated that unless we find a way to increase wages for lower and middle income earners, our economy is not going to grow, and we will continue to see this economy stall, no matter who is in office. And cutting taxes further for the wealthy while increasing them on lower income earners certainly isn't going to make things better. If you think that doing so would, then you are bat shit crazy as a lot of others here.

It is not up to anyone else to increase someone's wages... just the person who wants or 'needs' the higher wage

And you, with your aversion to 'cutting taxes on the wealthy', then support the unequal treatment under law by government... that is, unless you support keeping taxes on 'the rich' where they are and upping everyone else's taxes up to their levels

 

[Bern80]

Maybe, what we need is a society where more money is used to pay people at the bottom of the pyramid, and less at the top of the pyramid. Then, prices don't have to rise after all.

But.....we already live in a society where education is free and anyone with an idea and an ounce of gumption can start their own business and keep as much as they want.

Wait. But I was told government regulations and health care and high taxes were stifling job creation.

Those are not mutually exclusive bud.

 

[Defiant1]

What happens when employers build Widgets and don't pay a wage their employees can support their families on?

The taxpayer steps in and subsidizes food, housing and healthcare for that family. Employer gets to profit off of cheap widgets.....taxpayers make up the difference

Right winger can you comprehend what a question is? what is a living wage?

WHAT IS A LIVING WAGE?

The idea behind a living wage is that people who work in our community should be able to live decently and raise their families here. This requires a wage and benefits package that takes into account the area-specific cost of living, as well as the basic expenses involved in supporting a family.


Although living wage standards do, by definition, vary by region, they are all considerably higher than the federal minimum wage. This is because the minimum wage does not begin to meet the needs of working people or families anywhere in the country: in fact, it puts a parent with one child below the federal poverty line. A living wage aims to correct this by establishing, at a local level, a more reasonable minimum wage. Like many municipal standards in place around the country....

The Living Wage Fact Sheet

People should move to where they can afford to live.

 

[rightwinger]

the equivalent of the min wage in 1968, $10.50.

I started working in 1971 for $2.10 an hour. Working minimum wage jobs over the summers I was able to pay for four years of college. You could buy a new car for what you made on minimum wage. You could afford the rent on an apartment for what you made on a minimum wage job.

Kids now working minimum wage jobs can't afford to leave their parents house

 

[JRK]

Then I have to ask, why is it 1/2 of that here? I checked your info and at a 38 hour weeks is what it related to was correct
I have already found that upon these wages reaching this level it looks as though they have a 38 hour work week, which is still a hell of allot better than a 40 hour week @ 7-8.00 an hour (pending what state your in)

Are you asking me why Australia has a $15 an hour minimum wage? I don't really know.

I do know that Australia is a lot more economically flat than the U.S. There are a lot less poor people and a lot less rich people. It helps that they have a smaller population (larger countries tend to have greater income inequality). Australia has an income inequality of about 30% compared to America's 45%, so Australia is about as economically equal as Western Europe and Canada and the U.S. is on par with China and Mexico (but not nearly as pronounced as Hong Kong, Brazil or South Africa). We have a lot more billionaires (412 or 13.2 per 10 million people) than Australia (11 or about 5 per 10 million people), but also a lot more poor people.

The average American is better in purchasing power (PPP GDP per capita), but the average Australian is better off in nominal terms per capita. So, when you adjust for exchange rates and for how much things cost in Australia, the average American makes about $7000 a year more than the average Australian. If you want to know nominal terms (which is better for international travel/purchases), Australians make about $9000 more per year on average. So, it's hard to say who is better off, an American or an Australian. Australians make more money, but have to pay more for goods.

I think paying $7/hr vs. $15/hr is part of what makes America, "America." People don't really view a minimum wage job as something permanent and certainly don't think people should be trying to make a living off of it. It makes sense to have a low minimum wage job for teens and other entry-level workers. It's unfortunate that so many have to try to live off of the minimum wage. Perhaps we could have the minimum wage at $8/hr for new workers and a bit higher for those who have worked at a company for some time. Most companies tend to do that already--this would just make it mandatory. The law of unintended consequences says that employers would simply only hire people for a year, but I don't see that as so likely because a high worker turnover is a big strain for companies. Many low-wage employers are reluctant to hire employees that they think will leave in a few months and they are reluctant to spend more than the minimum wage for new and potentially incompetent employees. This would address both as it incentivizes company loyalty and doesn't force companies to pay new people more. The only question after that is what is a fair minimum wage for new hires and what is fair for seasoned veterans. Ideally, those with experience should be making as close to a living wage as possible.

If you're question is just about Toyota factories in Australia, then I have a different answer. Toyota doesn't simply have factories in the U.S. because costs are cheaper than Australia. It realizes that hiring Americans to make cars in America to be sold to other Americans is a good business strategy. Labor is only a small part of the costs of a car, so the higher quality of work makes up for some of the higher costs. Also, the cars will already be in America, so shipping costs are lower. The American-made cars have less appeal to Japanese consumers (Toyota, Honda, Subaru, et al sell some different cars to Japanese consumers), so there's little point in making these cars in Japan. Finally, there's a PR boost to making things in America with American workers.

You make allot of great points. One I will say that Americans building Toyota's are doing 100% better than UAW Americans building GMs
I am not anti union, I am anti stupid. Legacy cost, never mind, that is another issue. Would a 15 an hour wage in the US equate to raising the cost of the basic needs so much it would be a wash with were it is now?
I do not think so. I also think my wage would go up also

 

[rightwinger]

My God.... the ignorance is mind bending.

That is the reality of our welfare programs. If taxpayers are footing the bill to support YOUR employees........YOU are making money off of the taxpayer

The taxpayers aren't supporting my employees.

Do any of your employees receive food stamps, low cost housing or subsidized healthcare?

 

[Kuros]

But.....we already live in a society where education is free and anyone with an idea and an ounce of gumption can start their own business and keep as much as they want.

Wait. But I was told government regulations and health care and high taxes were stifling job creation.

Those are not mutually exclusive bud.

I am not a partisan Republican, so I'm having trouble reconciling the two.

So you're saying that the United States is a great society where education is free and anyone with an idea and some perspiration can start their own business and keep as much as they want.

But that its also a declining socialist economy with looming regulations, health care expenditures, and high taxes preventing the job creators from keeping as much as they want.

 

[Bern80]

Then I have to ask, why is it 1/2 of that here? I checked your info and at a 38 hour weeks is what it related to was correct
I have already found that upon these wages reaching this level it looks as though they have a 38 hour work week, which is still a hell of allot better than a 40 hour week @ 7-8.00 an hour (pending what state your in)

Are you asking me why Australia has a $15 an hour minimum wage? I don't really know.

I do know that Australia is a lot more economically flat than the U.S. There are a lot less poor people and a lot less rich people. It helps that they have a smaller population (larger countries tend to have greater income inequality). Australia has an income inequality of about 30% compared to America's 45%, so Australia is about as economically equal as Western Europe and Canada and the U.S. is on par with China and Mexico (but not nearly as pronounced as Hong Kong, Brazil or South Africa). We have a lot more billionaires (412 or 13.2 per 10 million people) than Australia (11 or about 5 per 10 million people), but also a lot more poor people.

The average American is better in purchasing power (PPP GDP per capita), but the average Australian is better off in nominal terms per capita. So, when you adjust for exchange rates and for how much things cost in Australia, the average American makes about $7000 a year more than the average Australian. If you want to know nominal terms (which is better for international travel/purchases), Australians make about $9000 more per year on average. So, it's hard to say who is better off, an American or an Australian. Australians make more money, but have to pay more for goods.

And that is EXACLTY the outcome many here have said would happen if this $15/hr living wage were instituted. I won't go so far as to say that it works out that way all because of the min wage, but do you think it's merely a coincidence? But I think it does clearly show that a higher min wage has NOT resulted in greater purchasing power for those making that wage.

[I think paying $7/hr vs. $15/hr is part of what makes America, "America." People don't really view a minimum wage job as something permanent and certainly don't think people should be trying to make a living off of it. It makes sense to have a low minimum wage job for teens and other entry-level workers. It's unfortunate that so many have to try to live off of the minimum wage. Perhaps we could have the minimum wage at $8/hr for new workers and a bit higher for those who have worked at a company for some time. Most companies tend to do that already--this would just make it mandatory. The law of unintended consequences says that employers would simply only hire people for a year, but I don't see that as so likely because a high worker turnover is a big strain for companies. Many low-wage employers are reluctant to hire employees that they think will leave in a few months and they are reluctant to spend more than the minimum wage for new and potentially incompetent employees. This would address both as it incentivizes company loyalty and doesn't force companies to pay new people more. The only question after that is what is a fair minimum wage for new hires and what is fair for seasoned veterans. Ideally, those with experience should be making as close to a living wage as possible.

Good job pointing out another reason not to have a federal living wage. The fact is not all people who have a job need enough from that job to live on. Like teenagers or perhaps secondary income to a household or people wanting to work a second job. If it's enough for the employee and it's fine with the employer why rock the boat?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

That is the reality of our welfare programs. If taxpayers are footing the bill to support YOUR employees........YOU are making money off of the taxpayer

The taxpayers aren't supporting my employees.

Do any of your employees receive food stamps, low cost housing or subsidized healthcare?

No, why would they?

 

[Katzndogz]

Libs believe that they are entitled to a certain amount of money. They will never consider living within their means, the means should rise up to the level of entitlement. Minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage. It would be detrimental to have minimum wage one that someone could live on. If that were so, there would be little to no incentive to move beyond minimum wage. Entry level would be quarantined into itself. Workers are expected to move out of minimum wage quickly. Unless they are kids with summer jobs, or elderly looking for pin money, minimum wage jobs are not supposed to last very long, a year perhaps.

I have known and worked for companies that have a minimum wage time limit. As short as 90 days, as long as a year. Either you become qualified to move up, or you are out of a job.

 

[Bern80]

Wait. But I was told government regulations and health care and high taxes were stifling job creation.

Those are not mutually exclusive bud.

I am not a partisan Republican, so I'm having trouble reconciling the two.

So you're saying that the United States is a great society where education is free and anyone with an idea and some perspiration can start their own business and keep as much as they want.

But that its also a declining socialist economy with looming regulations, health care expenditures, and high taxes preventing the job creators from keeping as much as they want.

Technically it was some else who said the former, but yeah, I basically agree with both. The only change I would make to what the other person said is that people have the opportunity MAKE as much as they want as opposed to 'keep'. Certainly regulations, providing health care and taxes are barriers to that, but they came be overcome. The problem is those barriers indeed are getting 'thicker' so to speak.

 

[rightwinger]

The taxpayers aren't supporting my employees.

Do any of your employees receive food stamps, low cost housing or subsidized healthcare?

No, why would they?

Then you are paying a living wage

 

[Utilitarian]

Libs believe that they are entitled to a certain amount of money. They will never consider living within their means, the means should rise up to the level of entitlement. Minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage. It would be detrimental to have minimum wage one that someone could live on. If that were so, there would be little to no incentive to move beyond minimum wage. Entry level would be quarantined into itself. Workers are expected to move out of minimum wage quickly. Unless they are kids with summer jobs, or elderly looking for pin money, minimum wage jobs are not supposed to last very long, a year perhaps.

I have known and worked for companies that have a minimum wage time limit. As short as 90 days, as long as a year. Either you become qualified to move up, or you are out of a job.

If minimum wage is something that you shouldn't be able to live on, then what are you supposed to do when the only job you have pays minimum wage? Getting a second job isn't exactly something you can quickly acquire in this economy.

 

[Jackson]

Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

Simple. It is what you earn from working according to your skills and motivation. A living wage is not sitting at your mailbox waiting for the government check.

The American Way is being the best you can and profiting from it.

 

[JRK]

Explain to us Libs, what is a living wage?

Simple. It is what you earn from working according to your skills and motivation. A living wage is not sitting at your mailbox waiting for the government check.

The American Way is being the best you can and profiting from it.

I keep hearing at these wall street rallies (which I am 100% against) that one of there demands is a living wage
That to me has nothing to do with my 401-k and what I do day trading, but it does interest me. The very reason I am not at home is that there is no 15.00 an hour jobs with-in 40 miles of my house except working in the prison system
with what I have saved 35-40,000 a year would do me fine. At my present status I could live on less
What I guess i am interested in is why does left scream for something like this and really never explain what it means and how they plan to get there

My case is simple, if we had a minimum wage of 15 an hour, I would be home, not 1000 miles from home finishing a refinery addition
I read here-in a minimum wage is not meant to be lived off-of?
I dis agree. you work, you should get paid enough to live. 400.00 a week?
600? I think that is the right number

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Do any of your employees receive food stamps, low cost housing or subsidized healthcare?

No, why would they?

Then you are paying a living wage

They're mostly CPA's and tech people. They are paid commensurate with their skill sets and/or education. Living wage has nothing to do with it.

If I ran a janitorial service, I doubt I'd pay much simply because cleaning a toilet isn't really much of a skill set, hence, not worth much.

Lesson: Learn to do more than clean toilets.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Libs believe that they are entitled to a certain amount of money. They will never consider living within their means, the means should rise up to the level of entitlement. Minimum wage was never supposed to be a living wage. It would be detrimental to have minimum wage one that someone could live on. If that were so, there would be little to no incentive to move beyond minimum wage. Entry level would be quarantined into itself. Workers are expected to move out of minimum wage quickly. Unless they are kids with summer jobs, or elderly looking for pin money, minimum wage jobs are not supposed to last very long, a year perhaps.

I have known and worked for companies that have a minimum wage time limit. As short as 90 days, as long as a year. Either you become qualified to move up, or you are out of a job.

If minimum wage is something that you shouldn't be able to live on, then what are you supposed to do when the only job you have pays minimum wage? Getting a second job isn't exactly something you can quickly acquire in this economy.

Throw your arms up in the air and demand that you be paid $45,000/yr to work a french fry machine.

 

[pgm]

And that is EXACLTY the outcome many here have said would happen if this $15/hr living wage were instituted. I won't go so far as to say that it works out that way all because of the min wage, but do you think it's merely a coincidence? But I think it does clearly show that a higher min wage has NOT resulted in greater purchasing power for those making that wage.

This is the mean purchasing power, not the purchasing power of those making minimum wage. Someone making $15/hr in Australia is much better off than someone making $7.50/hr in Miami. Income inequality is much lower in Australia than the U.S., so its poor people are much better off and its average person and above are worse off.

Australia is quite economically vibrant and fairing better than the U.S. in the depressed world economy. This is primarily because of, but not limited to, Chinese demand for Australian mining and raw materials. Australia, despite its high minimum wage, has a freer economy than the United States (well, about equal--Australia is 4th in the world and the U.S. is 5th (this shift happened under Bush, not Obama)). The U.S. has by far the world's freest labor market according to Forbes. (Low scores equaling free: U.S., 4.55; Canada, 11.49; Korea, 13; Australia is #6 at 22.68). All this means, in my view, that there are some things Australia does better economically and some things we do better. Objectively, I'd rather be American than Australian, but that has more to do with geographic diversity and the lower number of scary animals. (Subjectively, I'd rather be American because I love this country and it was where I was born). At my current stage in life, I'd be better off as an Australian, but later in life, I'd be better off as an American. Our schools are better, but more expensive, so I think that's a wash.

Good job pointing out another reason not to have a federal living wage. The fact is not all people who have a job need enough from that job to live on. Like teenagers or perhaps secondary income to a household or people wanting to work a second job. If it's enough for the employee and it's fine with the employer why rock the boat?

I agree with that except for the large number of Americans who live in poverty because they can't live off of a minimum wage job (or in many cases two minimum wage jobs) and don't have the skills or ability to get a better job. In my opinion, there are three methods to address this. The first is to increase the minimum wage (the Australian model). The second is to provide greater social welfare (the French model). This is kind of what we do now (we just don't do it well). The third is to train minimum wage workers to get them skills to work better jobs (the German model). No matter what you do, the costs of giving someone enough money so they don't starve to death falls onto someone. It's got to go to either businesses, the consumers or tax payers (or some combination of the three). The only other option is letting people die.

Even if people don't die, you're going to force kids to grow up in the worse neighborhoods with their parents working at least two jobs (possibly a piece). If you don't end up with starving kids, you'll at least end up with the next generation of criminals. So, view this as an investment for the future.

 

[syrenn]

Just a thought...


What ever happen to the idea of working two jobs to EARN your "living" wage?