Minimum Wage = Living Wage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that a minimum wage should absolutely be a living wage.

For an individual or a family (and if family, what size family and how many working members)?

Anonymous wrote:
Many 16 year olds aren't working to get pocket cash or to keep busy - but to actually help financially provide and support their families.

It's incredibly naive to think that 16 year old are just bumming off their parents and don't need the money. That mentality comes from an enormous place of privilege, and lack of awareness about different kinds of family structures (financial and otherwise) in the US.

Ok, you're a superior person. Gold star!

Now, back to the question. Does it matter if the person getting the job (regardless of age, gender, sex, religion, marital or other familial status) is working for pin money or rent money?

Let me make it explicitly clear, since that comment was too much for you to take in. I do not believe that wages should be based on discriminatory demographic categories. Two individuals doing the same exactly job should be paid exactly the same. Simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you could more effectively improve people's lives by deregulating the housing market - it is ridiculous that the majority of apartment that cost less than 2k+/month in safe neighborhoods in DC are "affordable housing" which means that only people making minimum wage and supporting several dependents are eligible to live there. What about the entry-level secretary with a child? Where is she supposed to live? If you freed up the housing market, maybe she could afford a home for her & her kid.

I think that's an interesting idea. But since land is a limited thing, won't highly desirable areas necessarily have higher housing costs? How do you prevent the pressures of "5 people want to rent this apartment, and person A will keep bidding up the cost?" beyond, say, requiring decent documentation about ability for repayment for anyone borrowing money for real estate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think if your business can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you shouldn't be in business, because you are doing it on the back of the rest of us and causing more taxes to pay to house, cloth, and feed YOUR employees and their families.

So if all businesses paid a living wage (and what would that be based on? a living wage for an individual? a family?), would you argue that we still have a need for a social safety net, or do you see the living wage as replacing that?

[Anonymous]

Absolutely not. MInimum wage and living wage are two different concepts and should not be conflated. There have to be jobs out there that are not intended to support a person or family on. These jobs can go to the second income of a family, a person who does not need to support themselves, such as a teen or a person who is augmenting other income, say a retired person on a pension that is looking for additional income. Trying to make the minimum wage into a living wage is another sign of an overactive nanny state. Yes, I understand that there is a shortage of living wage positions, but that does not mean that you need to change the minimum wage so that every small job out there has to be paid a living wage. Doing this would kill small businesses and would require some businesses to do without certain type of basic support staff. I'm sorry, but having a person who comes in to assist an office doing small jobs that take up about 5-10 hours per week (sorting mail, answering telephones, running errands) and paying them a living hourly wage is ridiculous. Paying fast food workers or carry out drivers a living wage is ridiculous. Companies should not be expected to pay out living wages for basic unskilled jobs such as this. And trying to lobby for this will ultimately result in fewer jobs and certainly will cut down on the number of part-time flexible jobs. If you have to pay insurance and living wages for such jobs, then it becomes more likely that you'll hire one person for 40-60 hours per week instead of two or three people for 20 or 30 hours per week because the overhead to maintain 2 or 3 people will be cost prohibitive. Thus, those people who want or need flexibility due to family issues or trying to work more than one job to augment family income will be burnt first.

There is a place for minimum wage jobs and a place for living wage jobs. We need more of the latter, but not by making all of the former into the latter.

[Anonymous]

The problem with the "social safety net" is that it is all or nothing. Lost your full-time job during the recession? Fine, here's unemployment. Only job you can find is part-time that won't pay as much as unemployment? Too bad. Instead of helping to make up the difference and incentivize work, the "safety net" just cuts you off. The whole social/financial system, including the corporate/business tax structure, needs to be overhauled to make more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how would the government control the prices of everything else if the minimum is increased to living? Wouldn't living then become the minimum and low again?

The argument I've seen is that while wage increases do exert pricing pressures, it's not a 1-to-1 reaction. Costs of goods and services would increase, but not as much as the wages did. So a 40K salary under a living wage required society wouldn't be worth as much as a 40K salary under a smaller-minimum required society, but it wouldn't be a 0-sum increase either.

You've hit another part of the question. What should a minimum salary buy? If I can rent shared housing, eat beans and rice, and make it to the cheap clinic, is that sufficient? Or do we think we people in our society should have a higher standard of living than that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely not. MInimum wage and living wage are two different concepts and should not be conflated. There have to be jobs out there that are not intended to support a person or family on. These jobs can go to the second income of a family, a person who does not need to support themselves, such as a teen or a person who is augmenting other income, say a retired person on a pension that is looking for additional income. Trying to make the minimum wage into a living wage is another sign of an overactive nanny state. Yes, I understand that there is a shortage of living wage positions, but that does not mean that you need to change the minimum wage so that every small job out there has to be paid a living wage. Doing this would kill small businesses and would require some businesses to do without certain type of basic support staff. I'm sorry, but having a person who comes in to assist an office doing small jobs that take up about 5-10 hours per week (sorting mail, answering telephones, running errands) and paying them a living hourly wage is ridiculous. Paying fast food workers or carry out drivers a living wage is ridiculous. Companies should not be expected to pay out living wages for basic unskilled jobs such as this. And trying to lobby for this will ultimately result in fewer jobs and certainly will cut down on the number of part-time flexible jobs. If you have to pay insurance and living wages for such jobs, then it becomes more likely that you'll hire one person for 40-60 hours per week instead of two or three people for 20 or 30 hours per week because the overhead to maintain 2 or 3 people will be cost prohibitive. Thus, those people who want or need flexibility due to family issues or trying to work more than one job to augment family income will be burnt first.

There is a place for minimum wage jobs and a place for living wage jobs. We need more of the latter, but not by making all of the former into the latter.

+1, and I'm a Democrat. The minimum wage needs to be revisited more often to keep up with inflation, but does not need to be made into a living wage (which varies based on regional COL anyway, so a federally mandated living minimum doesn't make sense).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Should the minimum wage for an area be a living wage for that area?

Does it matter if it's a 16 year old living at home who's applying to sweep floors at Jiffy Lube, or a 25 year old living on his own applying for that same job?

If you think the minimum wage should be a living wage, should it be a living wage for one person, a person supporting a family with another person making a similar wage, a person supporting a family on his own?

Should the wage depend on the circumstances of the job (e.g. training required) or the circumstances of the person (e.g. 16 yr old vs single mother of 2)?

Of course, absolutely, without question. If you work, you should be able to support yourself. That's the basic social contract.

And yes, if businesses cannot afford to pay folks enough to live on, then boohoo for them. (Hint to the PP that said "that's not how business works" ... if you pay people more money, then they can afford to buy more goods and services. Henry Ford had that one right.)

And equal work for equal pay--that's just such a basic tenet of fairness. If you allow differences in pay based on who we *think* needs the money, well hell, you might as well just give up and go back to the days when women were paid half of what men got based on the assumption that men were supporting a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, someone working a fulltime job should be able to support themselves on the wages of that job.

Ok. Can I add a follow-on question?

Should there be any requirements about jobs hiring full time employees vs part time employees (since working full time for one place is generally easier than part time for 2+ places) or should that be left up to the employer figuring out his particular needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that a minimum wage should absolutely be a living wage.

For an individual or a family (and if family, what size family and how many working members)?

Let me make it explicitly clear, since that comment was too much for you to take in. I do not believe that wages should be based on discriminatory demographic categories. Two individuals doing the same exactly job should be paid exactly the same. Simple as that.

Aww, you just lost your gold star. You missed a question! Snarky and self-satisfied doesn't work when you're showing yourself to share the same deficiencies you view in the other person. But look! Another opportunity to be that superior person and re-gain that gold star!

Should the living wage be for an individual or a family? If family, what size, how many working members?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think that a minimum wage should absolutely be a living wage.

For an individual or a family (and if family, what size family and how many working members)?

Let me make it explicitly clear, since that comment was too much for you to take in. I do not believe that wages should be based on discriminatory demographic categories. Two individuals doing the same exactly job should be paid exactly the same. Simple as that.

Aww, you just lost your gold star. You missed a question! Snarky and self-satisfied doesn't work when you're showing yourself to share the same deficiencies you view in the other person. But look! Another opportunity to be that superior person and re-gain that gold star!

Should the living wage be for an individual or a family? If family, what size, how many working members?

I believe the PP who you are arguing with answered your question. Twice. Re-read what s/he wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a place for minimum wage jobs and a place for living wage jobs. We need more of the latter, but not by making all of the former into the latter.

I think we would all agree that having more living wage jobs would be fabulous. A simplified version of the counter argument I see is that basic greed is preventing some employers who could pay more from paying more. A living wage requirement would basically prevent those employers from being greedy. Do you think that there are other, better ways to encourage employers to pay better? Or do you think it should come down to what the market will create?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with the "social safety net" is that it is all or nothing. Lost your full-time job during the recession? Fine, here's unemployment. Only job you can find is part-time that won't pay as much as unemployment? Too bad. Instead of helping to make up the difference and incentivize work, the "safety net" just cuts you off. The whole social/financial system, including the corporate/business tax structure, needs to be overhauled to make more sense.

Would you do that in addition to requiring a living wage, or do you see adjusting the social safety net as essentially taking care of the over-arching problem that there are people who are working who are finding it impossible to make ends meet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, someone working a fulltime job should be able to support themselves on the wages of that job.

Ok. Can I add a follow-on question?

Should there be any requirements about jobs hiring full time employees vs part time employees (since working full time for one place is generally easier than part time for 2+ places) or should that be left up to the employer figuring out his particular needs?

I think it should be required that a part-time employee be offered full-time work before another part-time employee is hired. Too many companies get around federal laws requiring benefits by making all their employees part time.

Of course, I think health insurance should be nationalized, so I'd like to see employers taken out of that equation altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yes, if businesses cannot afford to pay folks enough to live on, then boohoo for them. (Hint to the PP that said "that's not how business works" ... if you pay people more money, then they can afford to buy more goods and services. Henry Ford had that one right.)

And equal work for equal pay--that's just such a basic tenet of fairness. If you allow differences in pay based on who we *think* needs the money, well hell, you might as well just give up and go back to the days when women were paid half of what men got based on the assumption that men were supporting a family.

Would you also argue that there shouldn't be lower wages to positions like waitstaff with the assumption that tips will account for a portion of their wages?

What about piece workers (I read http://www.latimes.com/news/columnone/la-me-strawberry-pick-20130503-dto,0,2988343.htmlstory about the picking of fruits and veggies and found it enlightening.), the slower ones would do better under a living wage, but the faster ones would likely to worse. Do you worry about that segment of the work force?