The Definition of a "Living Wage"

[The2ndAmendment]

Many of us talk about the economy, leftists talk about a "living wage," and righties (who deny the existence of such a thing) often talk about "wage stagnation." One often wonders how righties can talk about "wage stagnation" when they deny the existence of the concept "living wage."

Well, here's my definition, and it's best that we all have a non-partisan definition from which we can measure economic success for the common man (this definition is localized, meaning it is relative to location where one lives).

"Living Wage: A wage that allows a man to support a stay-at-home wife and two children by being able to pay rent, electric, heating, water, laundry, basic healthcare and three good meals a day in the place he currently resides."

Notice that the following are not present: Mortgage, car-gas, car insurance, premium health insurance...etc...because you have to work harder/improve your skills/education for these things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for my opinion:

With over 155 taxes on a loaf of bread, and steady inflation from the money printing presses, there's no doubt that most American males cannot procure the Living Wage that they should earn.

In my opinion, that rapacious taxation of the modern welfare state (money printing INFLATION is also considered a tax) has made the current wages that were OK in the past incapable of fulfilling the above definition today.

The answer is NOT to increase the minimum wage...because the minimum wage to 2014 was more than enough for a man to provide for his family 50 years ago. The answer is abolition of the welfare state, the repeal of the Regulation police and the REPUDIATION of Keynesian economic policy.

 

[Nyvin]

Yay! Make the United States the only developed country on planet Earth without any welfare!! Sure-fire success!

On a more serious note - Welfare alone does not cause inflation, It's a natural byproduct of the banking system we have. The debt gets bigger because we need debt to pay off the debt which makes the debt bigger.

Put it this way: You start with a pool of money (principal) from a loan, the loan needs to be paid off with principal and interest. The money pool you started with only has principal...where do you get the interest money from? Take out another loan...which also has interest....which makes the overall amount of money you owe bigger (and makes the money pool itself bigger too...IE Inflation). The cycle never ends, it's just a time-lag between the loan being created and the loan being paid back that we depend on to make the system function.

What happens when you stop taking out loans? The money starts being paid back...great right? Wrong, the money being paid back lowers the money supply, leading to deflation. Deflation is bad because it means money isn't circulating and loans aren't being made. Stopping the flow of debt doesn't solve the problem....it just leads to another one.

Trying to do away with inflation is a pipe dream...and tying it to Government Welfare programs is a Shroom experience.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

But, what is the cause of the debt?

Bush's Wars and Medicare expansions is half of it, Obama's welfare state is the other half.

Might need another Bill Clinton government hand-out reform.

But that's only short term.

155 taxes on a loaf of bread (and practically every other item) is the real problem.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Does the OP actually feel gears turning? It must be excruciating.

 

[Contumacious]

Many of us talk about the economy, leftists talk about a "living wage," and righties (who deny the existence of such a thing) often talk about "wage stagnation." One often wonders how righties can talk about "wage stagnation" when they deny the existence of the concept "living wage."

Well, here's my definition, and it's best that we all have a non-partisan definition from which we can measure economic success for the common man (this definition is localized, meaning it is relative to location where one lives).

"

Notice that the following are not present: Mortgage, car-gas, car insurance, premium health insurance...etc...because you have to work harder/improve your skills/education for these things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for my opinion:

With over 155 taxes on a loaf of bread, and steady inflation from the money printing presses, there's no doubt that most American males cannot procure the Living Wage that they should earn.

In my opinion, that rapacious taxation of the modern welfare state (money printing INFLATION is also considered a tax) has made the current wages that were OK in the past incapable of fulfilling the above definition today.

The answer is NOT to increase the minimum wage...because the minimum wage to 2014 was more than enough for a man to provide for his family 50 years ago. The answer is abolition of the welfare state, the repeal of the Regulation police and the REPUDIATION of Keynesian economic policy.

Living Wage: A wage obtained through a negotiated employment contract in which there is NO government involvement and which allows a man to support a stay-at-home wife and two children by being able to pay rent, electric, heating, water, laundry, basic healthcare and three good meals a day in the place he currently resides."

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Contumacious the definition doesn't differentiate between government or non-government involvement in the contract. Any wage, regardless of government action, that doesn't meet that requirement, is not a living wage.

 

[Little-Acorn]

What's so hard? A "living wage" is one that enables you to pay all your expenses - food, rent, heat, transportation, and the rest.

Now was that so hard?

The only odd thing attached to other people's definitions, is that somehow some of the sillier leftists expect EVERY job to pay that much.

That's like expecting every man to be at least 6 feet tall or taller. It isn't so, and only a fool would expect it to be.

If you use legislation to force the minimum wage to be, say, $8/hr, then all that does is eliminate all jobs that are worth less than that.

When was the last time you pulled into a gas station and had three guys come out to wash your windshield, check the oil and water, and put air in the tires?

Fifty years ago that was common at nearly every gas station. The people doing it were mostly teenagers, working their first job for pocket money, experience in doing what a boss told them, and a good recommendation from their boss for when they moved up to a better-paying job. Then the minimum wage started rising, and all those gas station windshield washers lost their jobs, except at the stations that maintained a separate "full service" island... where the gas cost more. And before long, those jobs went away too.

And all the while the liberal do-gooders kept crowing that they were helping the little guy... while carefully ignoring all the guys who lost their jobs as a result.

The more you hear about a "living wage" - from those same do-gooders - the more jobs are being eliminated below that wage level, whatever it is.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What's so hard? A "living wage" is one that enables you to pay all your expenses - food, rent, heat, transportation, and the rest.

Now was that so hard?

The only odd thing attached to other people's definitions, is that somehow some of the sillier leftists expect EVERY job to pay that much.

Because if it doesn't pay that much you die. That's why it's called LIVING WAGE.

If there was a job that paid $3 an hour to run out and clean windows --- no one would do it, not even illegals. You will die only making $24 a day.

There was a time when the guys running out to clean you window could actually survive on their wage, because inflation hadn't raised the cost of living to obscene levels.

 

[AntiParty]

Many of us talk about the economy, leftists talk about a "living wage," and righties (who deny the existence of such a thing) often talk about "wage stagnation." One often wonders how righties can talk about "wage stagnation" when they deny the existence of the concept "living wage."

Well, here's my definition, and it's best that we all have a non-partisan definition from which we can measure economic success for the common man (this definition is localized, meaning it is relative to location where one lives).

"Living Wage: A wage that allows a man to support a stay-at-home wife and two children by being able to pay rent, electric, heating, water, laundry, basic healthcare and three good meals a day in the place he currently resides."

Notice that the following are not present: Mortgage, car-gas, car insurance, premium health insurance...etc...because you have to work harder/improve your skills/education for these things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for my opinion:

With over 155 taxes on a loaf of bread, and steady inflation from the money printing presses, there's no doubt that most American males cannot procure the Living Wage that they should earn.

In my opinion, that rapacious taxation of the modern welfare state (money printing INFLATION is also considered a tax) has made the current wages that were OK in the past incapable of fulfilling the above definition today.

The answer is NOT to increase the minimum wage...because the minimum wage to 2014 was more than enough for a man to provide for his family 50 years ago. The answer is abolition of the welfare state, the repeal of the Regulation police and the REPUDIATION of Keynesian economic policy.

You absolutely confuse "A fair days work for a fair days pay" and " Team Profits" with a "Living Wage.

A living wage is just enough to keep you alive. You attack people using this title while probably also wanting to cut that living wage.

Christie Walton doesn't show up at work. Only the workers do. Why do you think she deserves more without being at work? This case is only 1 of the monopolies in the topic.

Contumacious the definition doesn't differentiate between government or non-government involvement in the contract. Any wage, regardless of government action, that doesn't meet that requirement, is not a living wage.

"A living wage" in my perspective is what is needed to provide food, shelter and "general welfare"for a family. Imagine where I got my perspective from..

I notice you hold the same perspective only you don't include HEALTH in yours... You do realize that without health, you die.

 

[ScienceRocks]

When it cost 200 dollars per month to feed yourself, 1,000 dollars for rent(if you don't own your own home) and another couple of hundred bucks for medical,etc. This is what it cost to live in this country now days.

I just feel that if you're going to put in a 40 hour work week, you fucking deserve 10 or 12 dollars per hour. That is ~1,600 per month! I am sorry, but in a world where the ceo, board, etc fleeces most of the profit for themselves. How is it right or moral to leave this power within the hands of people that could care less as they don't do one tenth of the actual work?

You think it is fair that someone breaks his back like in southeast asia?? While Apples board and ceo's take home tens of millions every year. Why not bring back slavery? What's the difference!

 

[Politico]

What's so hard? A "living wage" is one that enables you to pay all your expenses - food, rent, heat, transportation, and the rest.

And not have nothing but lint in your pocket afterwards.

 

[Noomi]

The cost of living keeps rising, so minimum wage MUST rise to reflect this. You cannot have people living on the same wages you earned 10 years ago when the cost of living has risen beyond that.

And I miss the guy who use to come out and fill the tank for you. A petrol station will turnover tens of thousands of dollars each year - paying a teenager a few bucks to wash your windows helps him build his work ethic and find him a better job. The servo can afford to keep him on, so why don't they? Greed, that is why.

 

[Vastator]

Fair? How is it unfair? Are they not paying their labor at the agreed upon rate?

 

[Vastator]

The cost of living keeps rising, so minimum wage MUST rise to reflect this. You cannot have people living on the same wages you earned 10 years ago when the cost of living has risen beyond that.

And I miss the guy who use to come out and fill the tank for you. A petrol station will turnover tens of thousands of dollars each year - paying a teenager a few bucks to wash your windows helps him build his work ethic and find him a better job. The servo can afford to keep him on, so why don't they? Greed, that is why.

Who are you to decide if, or what, a third party "can afford"?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Fair? How is it unfair? Are they not paying their labor at the agreed upon rate?

How is it fair to work 50 hours a week and live like shit, while a few men at the top live like kings? While, you're the one doing most of the heavy lifting and hard work.

 

[Vastator]

Fair? How is it unfair? Are they not paying their labor at the agreed upon rate?

How is it fair to work 50 hours a week and live like shit, while a few men at the top live like kings? While, you're the one doing most of the heavy lifting and hard work.

That's easy. Don't agree to work for less than you think your worth. And if you receive the pay both parties agreed to; then what the other guy makes is irrelevant.

 

[Vastator]

Fair? How is it unfair? Are they not paying their labor at the agreed upon rate?

How is it fair to work 50 hours a week and live like shit, while a few men at the top live like kings? While, you're the one doing most of the heavy lifting and hard work.

As for living like shit... that's a personal choice. Live below your means, or do something to sooth your envy...
Like taking the guy at the tops job.

 

[zeke]

Fair? How is it unfair? Are they not paying their labor at the agreed upon rate?

How is it fair to work 50 hours a week and live like shit, while a few men at the top live like kings? While, you're the one doing most of the heavy lifting and hard work.

That's easy. Don't agree to work for less than you think your worth..

I can hear it now. The guy without a job has applied to Walmart and got a call back to interview for a position.
Eventually the potential new hire asks how much does this job pays. And the HR person says it pays 8.50 an hour.
And the guy says he can't pay his bills on 8.50 an hour. He needs to be paid and is worth 12 dollars an hour.
And HR says the job pays 8.50 an hour; do you want the job or not? We got 200 more applicants to call if you don't want to work for 8.50 an hour.

The person takes the job and applies for food stamps to make his money cover his other expenses.

In your mind, it just would have been so much easier for this person applying for a job to just say no.
He would rather have no pay than some pay, even though he was being paid less than HE thought he was worth.
It don't work like that in the real world. Contrary to what YOU must have been told, the vast majority of my fellow Americans would rather work than receive a hand out. Even if the pay doesn't cover all their expenses.

And when there are hundreds if not thousands of others in the same position, the ability to tell an employer to pay me more cause I am worth it, does not exist.
You weird dude if you think it does.

 

[Vastator]

The person in the story enters into the situation, erroneously believing he is worth more than he is. You're worth what someone is willing to pay you. Like it or not; you are a commodity. It's your job to market you.

 

[Unkotare]

Many of us talk about the economy, leftists talk about a "living wage," and righties (who deny the existence of such a thing) often talk about "wage stagnation." One often wonders how righties can talk about "wage stagnation" when they deny the existence of the concept "living wage."

Well, here's my definition, and it's best that we all have a non-partisan definition from which we can measure economic success for the common man (this definition is localized, meaning it is relative to location where one lives).

"Living Wage: A wage that allows a man to support a stay-at-home wife and two children by being able to pay rent, electric, heating, water, laundry, basic healthcare and three good meals a day in the place he currently resides."

Notice that the following are not present: Mortgage, car-gas, car insurance, premium health insurance...etc...because you have to work harder/improve your skills/education for these things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for my opinion:

With over 155 taxes on a loaf of bread, and steady inflation from the money printing presses, there's no doubt that most American males cannot procure the Living Wage that they should earn.

In my opinion, that rapacious taxation of the modern welfare state (money printing INFLATION is also considered a tax) has made the current wages that were OK in the past incapable of fulfilling the above definition today.

The answer is NOT to increase the minimum wage...because the minimum wage to 2014 was more than enough for a man to provide for his family 50 years ago. The answer is abolition of the welfare state, the repeal of the Regulation police and the REPUDIATION of Keynesian economic policy.

You absolutely confuse "A fair days work for a fair days pay" and " Team Profits" with a "Living Wage.

A living wage is just enough to keep you alive. You attack people using this title while probably also wanting to cut that living wage.

Christie Walton doesn't show up at work. Only the workers do. Why do you think she deserves more without being at work? This case is only 1 of the monopolies in the topic.

Contumacious the definition doesn't differentiate between government or non-government involvement in the contract. Any wage, regardless of government action, that doesn't meet that requirement, is not a living wage.

"A living wage" in my perspective is what is needed to provide food, shelter and "general welfare"for a family. Imagine where I got my perspective from..

I notice you hold the same perspective only you don't include HEALTH in yours... You do realize that without health, you die.

In typical mindless lefty fashion, you can't even define the "living wage" magical incantation consistently to yourself. Your own attempt above is full of vagaries and inconsistencies.