So What Do You Think Is A Fair And Decent Wage?...

[gallantwarrior]

This thread isn't about Political Ideology. I don't care if you're a Conservative or a Communist. That's a different discussion for a different thread. I'm just interested in what people think is a humane/survivable Wage in today's America. I just think it's fascinating observing the different takes on the question.

I agree. And I have been trying to religiously avoid partisanship, politics, and ideology. But shall we depart the thread if we can't provide a number? How do you discuss what is a fair and decent wage without at least considering the concepts that go into that? At least for those of us who see a fair and decent wage as something other than a number?

It's a tough one. But i'm trying to stick to numbers. Survival in America is only about the numbers. Does a person have the sufficient funds to get by or not? That's all it comes down to. Politics doesn't matter. People do what they do to survive.

I'm just looking for a round-about Wage most would consider humane and feasible. I realize most Americans could care less about the question. In fact, i would say most don't want the question asked at all. But i asked it anyway. So far the numbers range from $4 an hr to $12 an hr. But $12 an hr. seems to be the most frequent number thrown out there. But we'll see where it heads. Hopefully, more Posters will take part in the discussion.

If a person has insufficient funds to support him/herself, then they have many options. First, they can seek to improve themselves, making themselves more professionally desirable. In the meantime, they can live within their means. For many young people, that may mean they live longer with their parents or they have roommates. For some young families, perhaps both parents must work, even on separate shifts, to support the family. If this society hadn't so diligently worked to destroy the family, maybe the family would be there to support and assist the younger people, or the older ones...as needed. In the meantime, who should be responsible for paying these people a "living wage", or a "decent wage"? If their work skills are not worth that money to employers, why should all the rest of us who do work, have worked to improve our lot, why should we be expected to fund their "living wage"?

 

[gallantwarrior]

The most an employer is willing to pay me for my services.

In terms of numbers, what's your personal feeling on how much is fair & decent?

OK, you've many responses. I ask you now, what do YOU consider "fair & decent"? You must have some number in mind. What is it? And why do you consider your number "fair & decent"?

 

[paulitician]

Whatever the employer is willing to pay and the employee is willing to accept. Whatever that number is, it is ABSOLUTELY fair and if agreed to voluntarily, decent.

Does that do it for you?

Well, i was hoping to get a number from you.

Not possible...which is my point really.

How much do you personally feel an average American should be able to get by on?

Depends entirely on each individual. The average would simply be the the middle point for all those individual decisions.

Take your time and think about it. I know it's a very difficult question. So many factors to contemplate. Just give what you believe to be a round-about number average Americans should be able to survive on. Thanks.

The problem with your request is "should be". I do not, nor does anyone else, have the understanding to know what another person "should" be able to survive on. Again, it depends entirely on that individual, his expenses, his choices, his lifestyle.

There are people that live entirely off the land with no income at all. That's extreme of course, but they survive, which serves to demonstrate the futility of establishing an average. It serves no purpose. It means nothing. Only the individual's requirements matter.

I think it's possible to throw an estimated number out there. What can an average American get by on these days? Is it $4 an hr? Is it $10? I know it's an estimate. But take a shot.

 

[Spiderman]

Well, i was hoping to get a number from you.

Not possible...which is my point really.



Depends entirely on each individual. The average would simply be the the middle point for all those individual decisions.

Take your time and think about it. I know it's a very difficult question. So many factors to contemplate. Just give what you believe to be a round-about number average Americans should be able to survive on. Thanks.

The problem with your request is "should be". I do not, nor does anyone else, have the understanding to know what another person "should" be able to survive on. Again, it depends entirely on that individual, his expenses, his choices, his lifestyle.

There are people that live entirely off the land with no income at all. That's extreme of course, but they survive, which serves to demonstrate the futility of establishing an average. It serves no purpose. It means nothing. Only the individual's requirements matter.

I think it's possible to throw an estimated number out there. What can an average American get by on these days? Is it $4 an hr? Is it $10? I know it's an estimate. But take a shot.

Then why don't you give a number and then defend it?

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on guys. Don't turn on the author of the OP. He has asked a fair (and interesting) question and a question does not require that the asker of the question provide an answer for it.

I may disagree with him that it is possible to state a reasoned dollar amount as a valid answer to the question as many of us have argued here. A person who merits sufficient grades in their basic schooling, qualifies for pre-med, and then goes on to med schoool and internship has devoted a LOT of money and at least 20 years of his/her life to qualify for his/her profession. Minimum wage of any amount would not be a fair and decent wage for that kind of dedication and expertise.

Minimum wage at any amount could be a fair and decent wage for somebody who needs to acquire a work ethic, develop marketable skills, and acquire references to qualify for a 'living wage' however that is defined.

 

[kaz]

Minimum wage at any amount could be a fair and decent wage for somebody who needs to acquire a work ethic, develop marketable skills, and acquire references to qualify for a 'living wage' however that is defined.

That is what I don't like about the question. It sounds like what the "minimum wage" should be. And the implication is that it's the employer's fault if they don't pay that. If you don't pay this, you are scum! In reality, the only reason for a minimum wage to exist is to force employers to pay certain employees more than they are worth. But for that, it has no purpose to exist. And that is never going to go well for the employees who aren't worth what they are paid unless they are on a quick path to get there. And the purpose of that is to push government dependency.

The minimum wage is like Obamacare, it's not designed to succeed, it's designed to fail.

The minimum wage should be zero. If someone doesn't like what jobs pay, they should put in on themselves as to why they want/need more money than their employer (or other employers) are willing to pay. Do they care about their work? Do they show up on time? Do they put forth effort? Are they consistent? Is their cost of living too high? Those are all questions for the employee. The employer is paying them what they are worth.

 

[High_Gravity]

This thread isn't about Political Ideology. I don't care if you're a Conservative or a Communist. That's a different discussion for a different thread. I'm just interested in what people think is a humane/survivable Wage in today's America. I just think it's fascinating observing the different takes on the question.

I agree. And I have been trying to religiously avoid partisanship, politics, and ideology. But shall we depart the thread if we can't provide a number? How do you discuss what is a fair and decent wage without at least considering the concepts that go into that? At least for those of us who see a fair and decent wage as something other than a number?

It's a tough one. But i'm trying to stick to numbers. Survival in America is only about the numbers. Does a person have the sufficient funds to get by or not? That's all it comes down to. Politics doesn't matter. People do what they do to survive.

I'm just looking for a round-about Wage most would consider humane and feasible. I realize most Americans could care less about the question. In fact, i would say most don't want the question asked at all. But i asked it anyway. So far the numbers range from $4 an hr to $12 an hr. But $12 an hr. seems to be the most frequent number thrown out there. But we'll see where it heads. Hopefully, more Posters will take part in the discussion.

Thats the damn truth, preach my brother.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

i think this whole little exercise points out the libtard absurdity of setting a minimum wage....

 

[Foxfyre]

Minimum wage at any amount could be a fair and decent wage for somebody who needs to acquire a work ethic, develop marketable skills, and acquire references to qualify for a 'living wage' however that is defined.

That is what I don't like about the question. It sounds like what the "minimum wage" should be. And the implication is that it's the employer's fault if they don't pay that. If you don't pay this, you are scum! In reality, the only reason for a minimum wage to exist is to force employers to pay certain employees more than they are worth. But for that, it has no purpose to exist. And that is never going to go well for the employees who aren't worth what they are paid unless they are on a quick path to get there. And the purpose of that is to push government dependency.

The minimum wage is like Obamacare, it's not designed to succeed, it's designed to fail.

The minimum wage should be zero. If someone doesn't like what jobs pay, they should put in on themselves as to why they want/need more money than their employer (or other employers) are willing to pay. Do they care about their work? Do they show up on time? Do they put forth effort? Are they consistent? Is their cost of living too high? Those are all questions for the employee. The employer is paying them what they are worth.

I like the question a LOT. It requires people to think and actually defend their convictions. And it has been achieving that purpose in this thread. It is so rare that we actually seriously debate a CONCEPT that I have been enjoying the exercise enormously. I suspect Paulitician is baiting us just a bit with the question--he no doubt had a personal motive for offering it--but that kind of baiting I appreciate.

And I especially appreciate Paulician's very competent guidance to keep politics and partisanship out of it. Which of course is why so few of our leftist friends are participating probably, but that's a topic for another thread. It has been a good mental work out for the thinking right anyway.

I am with you in that I strongly resist and will always protest the government dictating what a 'living wage' or even, as the OP suggested, a 'fair and decent wage' must be. I don't philosophically have all that much problem with there being a minimal minimum wage to prevent an unscrupulous employer from overusing unpaid apprenticeships, etc. in lieu of hiring people.

But even there, my libertarian heart says people should have the liberty to work for free if they choose to do that too. So I am struggling with that concept and can't say I have it firmly settled in my own mind.

 

[Foxfyre]

And again, for me, a 'fair and decent' wage is whatever a person's labor is worth to an employer. That's the definition in a nutshell.

 

[kaz]

I don't philosophically have all that much problem with there being a minimal minimum wage to prevent an unscrupulous employer from overusing unpaid apprenticeships, etc. in lieu of hiring people.

You understand that not only are employees competing for jobs, but employers are competing for employees? I don't grasp what you are struggling with. Why would government ever step in and tell someone they can't take a job because government says it doesn't pay enough? In your mind, you can really say there's a point you're comfortable removing that choice from an employee?

 

[kaz]

And again, for me, a 'fair and decent' wage is whatever a person's labor is worth to an employer. That's the definition in a nutshell.

Yes, I'd add it's the price where a deal gets done. An employer, looking at their options and requirements, gets the best value in an employee for the job. And an employee looking at their options, commitment, risk get the best pay for what is expected.

That can only happen in a free marketplace. Free for employers and employees.

 

[kaz]

i think this whole little exercise points out the libtard absurdity of setting a minimum wage....

If an employee is worth minimum wage, there is no issue, they get it. If an employee is not worth minimum wage, they aren't going to get it. Then they go to government for their needs. The minimum wage is a hurdle, not a tide. The minimum wage is designed to fail and foster government dependency. It's like Obamacare.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't philosophically have all that much problem with there being a minimal minimum wage to prevent an unscrupulous employer from overusing unpaid apprenticeships, etc. in lieu of hiring people.

You understand that not only are employees competing for jobs, but employers are competing for employees? I don't grasp what you are struggling with. Why would government ever step in and tell someone they can't take a job because government says it doesn't pay enough? In your mind, you can really say there's a point you're comfortable removing that choice from an employee?

Except if you put my comment that you quoted into its full concept, that isn't what I said.

 

[kaz]

I don't philosophically have all that much problem with there being a minimal minimum wage to prevent an unscrupulous employer from overusing unpaid apprenticeships, etc. in lieu of hiring people.

You understand that not only are employees competing for jobs, but employers are competing for employees? I don't grasp what you are struggling with. Why would government ever step in and tell someone they can't take a job because government says it doesn't pay enough? In your mind, you can really say there's a point you're comfortable removing that choice from an employee?

Except if you put my comment that you quoted into its full concept, that isn't what I said.

I didn't intentionally cut anything you said and I'm not sure what you mean. I am addressing specifically the point I quoted, where you said there's a point you don't have a problem with a "minimal minimum wage."

A minimal minimum wage removes the choice from the employee to take a position that doesn't pay that, does it not? Can you clarify what point you think I missed because I don't see it. I was addressing that point.

 

[Foxfyre]

You understand that not only are employees competing for jobs, but employers are competing for employees? I don't grasp what you are struggling with. Why would government ever step in and tell someone they can't take a job because government says it doesn't pay enough? In your mind, you can really say there's a point you're comfortable removing that choice from an employee?

Except if you put my comment that you quoted into its full concept, that isn't what I said.

I didn't intentionally cut anything you said and I'm not sure what you mean. I am addressing specifically the point I quoted, where you said there's a point you don't have a problem with a "minimal minimum wage."

A minimal minimum wage removes the choice from the employee to take a position that doesn't pay that, does it not? Can you clarify what point you think I missed because I don't see it. I was addressing that point.

I addressed the issue of personal choice in my comment if you will look again. And I also know that if there is no mandated minimal minimum wage at all, it opens the door for unethical employers to use unpaid apprentices excessively when they have no intention of ever hiring them for wages. So I do weigh these two things in my mind and I admitted I have not yet adopted a firm conviction of which way it should be.

But I do think the minimum wage should be a very modest amount commensurate with the worth of labor of the person with no work ethic, no skills of any kind, little aptitude, no references, etc. A very modest minimum wage at least provides an incentive for a person to take the job for pocket money and have an opportunity to acquire those things while not punishing the employer by requiring him to pay a wage that the employee is not earning while he/she learns.

 

[kaz]

Except if you put my comment that you quoted into its full concept, that isn't what I said.

I didn't intentionally cut anything you said and I'm not sure what you mean. I am addressing specifically the point I quoted, where you said there's a point you don't have a problem with a "minimal minimum wage."

A minimal minimum wage removes the choice from the employee to take a position that doesn't pay that, does it not? Can you clarify what point you think I missed because I don't see it. I was addressing that point.

I addressed the issue of personal choice in my comment if you will look again. And I also know that if there is no mandated minimal minimum wage at all, it opens the door for unethical employers to use unpaid apprentices excessively when they have no intention of ever hiring them for wages. So I do weigh these two things in my mind and I admitted I have not yet adopted a firm conviction of which way it should be.

But I do think the minimum wage should be a very modest amount commensurate with the worth of labor of the person with no work ethic, no skills of any kind, little aptitude, no references, etc. A very modest minimum wage at least provides an incentive for a person to take the job for pocket money and have an opportunity to acquire those things while not punishing the employer by requiring him to pay a wage that the employee is not earning while he/she learns.

And regarding the red, why would you ever believe that government is more capable of making that decision for an employee than an employee is capable of making that decision for themself?

Keep in mind that if the employer makes a commitment, then the employee does have civil court for redress.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't intentionally cut anything you said and I'm not sure what you mean. I am addressing specifically the point I quoted, where you said there's a point you don't have a problem with a "minimal minimum wage."

A minimal minimum wage removes the choice from the employee to take a position that doesn't pay that, does it not? Can you clarify what point you think I missed because I don't see it. I was addressing that point.

I addressed the issue of personal choice in my comment if you will look again. And I also know that if there is no mandated minimal minimum wage at all, it opens the door for unethical employers to use unpaid apprentices excessively when they have no intention of ever hiring them for wages. So I do weigh these two things in my mind and I admitted I have not yet adopted a firm conviction of which way it should be.

But I do think the minimum wage should be a very modest amount commensurate with the worth of labor of the person with no work ethic, no skills of any kind, little aptitude, no references, etc. A very modest minimum wage at least provides an incentive for a person to take the job for pocket money and have an opportunity to acquire those things while not punishing the employer by requiring him to pay a wage that the employee is not earning while he/she learns.

And regarding the red, why would you ever believe that government is more capable of making that decision for an employee than an employee is capable of making that decision for themself?

Keep in mind that if the employer makes a commitment, then the employee does have civil court for redress.

The government wouldn't be making the decision. The government would simply be removing the incentive for employers to exercise something that unethical with impunity.

The employer would have no way to know that the guy who is allowing him to work for free has absolutely no intention of ever hiring him or training him to do anything. And he could provide free labor for days before he finally caught on to the scam. And there is the possibility that an unscrupulous employer could utilize unpaid apprentices in that way in lieu of hiring a work force.

But even at say $3/hour, the scammed employee would not walk away with absolutely nothing.

Isn't that what the Founders intended the government to do? To ensure that we could not do economic or physical violence to each other with impunity so that our unalienable rights would be secured? To leave it up to the individual to determine what is and is not acceptable economic or physical violenceis anarchy. And that secures nobody's rights.

 

[kaz]

The government wouldn't be making the decision. The government would simply be removing the incentive for employers to exercise something that unethical with impunity.

The government is telling an employee that you are not allowed to take a job for $2 an hour, we are prohibiting you from doing that. How is it not government making the decision?

Then you end up with stories like a restaurant that let a homeless guy sweep the sidewalk in front for a meal, and they had to stop because of employment and minimum wage laws. There is no law that is so small or innocuous that politicians and bureaucrats cannot abuse it.

The employer would have no way to know that the guy who is allowing him to work for free has absolutely no intention of ever hiring him or training him to do anything. And he could provide free labor for days before he finally caught on to the scam. And there is the possibility that an unscrupulous employer could utilize unpaid apprentices in that way in lieu of hiring a work force.

But even at say $3/hour, the scammed employee would not walk away with absolutely nothing.

Isn't that what the Founders intended the government to do? To ensure that we could not do economic or physical violence to each other with impunity so that our unalienable rights would be secured? To leave it up to the individual to determine what is and is not acceptable economic or physical violenceis anarchy. And that secures nobody's rights.

That still comes with the assumption that bureaucrats in Washington make those decisions over our lives better than we do ourselves. I don't get the founding fathers argument at all. When did they say government should proactively make our decisions for us on anything?

I don't always do this, only if the right person comes along. But I have had two assistants who I paid squat, though it was a little above minimum wage. They were both recent college graduates and worked for me roughly 9 months or so. The intent was never for it to be a long term position.

I worked their asses off. I have only done it when I felt someone was special. They were not working without a net, then weren't making final decisions on important matters, but I sent them out to do endless leg work for me. I was awed by both their creativity and willingness to go outside their comfort zone to do whatever I asked. One still works for me, the other doesn't, but only because he wanted to go in a direction I had nothing to offer him.

 

[FJO]

This was a still-born thread more than two days ago, because it assumed that that the question it raised can be logically and reasonably answered.

After 179 useless responses, (sadly, many of my own) are there anybody still responding to this thread familiar with the term: "Beating a dead horse"?