Minimum Wage = Living Wage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I find out any business is paying $15 or more an hour to collect grocery carts in a parking lot, I'm going to get that job.

It'll be like getting a gym workout for free yet getting paid. WOO HOO !

Oh yes, what a fun job. Especially when it's raining, or snowing, or 100 degrees out, or some douchebag leaves their cart at the very very very end of the parking lot. Good luck, pp!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The PP said that all should get a living wage, and that wage shouldn't matter regardless of working for pin money or rent money. But the PP has not yet said whether a living wage should be defined as supporting an individual, a family with one working member, or a family with two working members. Those are significantly different amounts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The PP said that all should get a living wage, and that wage shouldn't matter regardless of working for pin money or rent money. But the PP has not yet said whether a living wage should be defined as supporting an individual, a family with one working member, or a family with two working members. Those are significantly different amounts.

NP. I think you need to re-read what PP wrote. They clearly answered this. "Individual" was probably the key word there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A few factors that would make all housing more affordable in DC if you deregulated:
-there are a lot of vacancies in the officially designated "affordable housing" units. not enough people meet the requirements to fill those units. if you opened those units up to the free market, many families would happily fill in. this alone with increase the supply of housing in DC, and decrease housing prices.
-the shortage of free market apartments in DC marks up the price. when you free up those vacant units currently designated as 'affordable', then you loosen some of the demand on these free market apartments and their inflated prices will come down.
-affordable housing attempts to desegregate neighborhoods but does so ineffectively, in my opinion, by creating mini-ghettos within neighborhoods, which is not real integration. if you had a truly free, open housing market, then the currently designated "affordable" apartments in desirable neighborhoods would increase in price but the overall rate for the neighborhood would decline because of the increased supply - so you could have upper middle class people move into otherwise exclusively high income neighborhoods, with the displacement of some lower income people. in the lower demand neighborhoods, truly middle class families would find the nicely maintained, formally 'affordable' units somewhat desirable and they would move in - so you would get a mix of lower & middle income families. In the long term, the borders of these neighborhoods blends and there's less and less of stark line between which areas are livable and those that are not.

In my opinion, the livability problems with DC are not the wages. It's primarily the housing and secondarily the crime. You can reduce the crime with better housing policy, which would lead to true integration and safer neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP from the first quote here--it appears my ideological twin (hi!!) has answered the follow up!

So I think the min wage should be calculated based on a living wage across a 40 hour workweek. And yes, I think that there's definitely a place for part-time employment in a just system--employers want part-time employees, and lots of folks don't want to work a 40h week, for whatever reason; student, SAHP, etc.

And I agree with the above; I'd love to see the disincentives for multiple part-time employees removed. I don't understand why health care and other benefits that cover basic human needs ought to be tied to employment. That system is bad for citizens and bad for business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The PP said that all should get a living wage, and that wage shouldn't matter regardless of working for pin money or rent money. But the PP has not yet said whether a living wage should be defined as supporting an individual, a family with one working member, or a family with two working members. Those are significantly different amounts.

NP. I think you need to re-read what PP wrote. They clearly answered this. "Individual" was probably the key word there.

Are you referring to "Two individuals doing the same exactly job should be paid exactly the same."? In which case, no, that doesn't indicate how to determine what they should be paid, merely that they should be paid the same (e.g. it doesn't matter if one is working for rent or the other is working for fun).

I ask for clarification, because I find people using "living wage" in multiple different ways. For example, someone might say "A single mom with 3 children to support should be paid a living wage!" just as someone might say "The young man serving coffee should be paid a living wage!" A single young man and a single mom with 3 children probably have different "living wage" needs. It helps a discussion when everyone at least knows what everyone else means, even if we disagree with each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't start a company so that others could afford more goods and services. This is a business, not social services.

If you want to spend years building a business- then feel free to. Take all of your hard work, sacrifice, and passion and channel into making sure that others can buy more goods. You do that with your business.

As for my business- if I need someone to answer the phone, respond to emails, stuff envelopes....whatever. I am not paying 40k a year. Keep on pushing and you will push me to outsource even more than I already do. And when I say outsource, I mean to Asia, not to another company. Less hassle, little red tape, harder workers.

So I still win, and you have pushed someone else out of a job.

If you don't like it, then start your own company.

[Anonymous]

I think we should guarantee a basic income for everyone with a job.

About 25% of median income. This will ensure that people will be able to afford a very small living space, food, clothing and some extras if you save (like transportation - cheap used car, bike, moped, etc.).

I agree w prev. poster about minimum wage jobs isn't meant to support a family etc.

The difficulty is that with such a weak economy, all the power is with employers in wage bargaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't start a company so that others could afford more goods and services. This is a business, not social services.

If you want to spend years building a business- then feel free to. Take all of your hard work, sacrifice, and passion and channel into making sure that others can buy more goods. You do that with your business.

As for my business- if I need someone to answer the phone, respond to emails, stuff envelopes....whatever. I am not paying 40k a year. Keep on pushing and you will push me to outsource even more than I already do. And when I say outsource, I mean to Asia, not to another company. Less hassle, little red tape, harder workers.

So I still win, and you have pushed someone else out of a job.

If you don't like it, then start your own company.

And the result is that you've extracted what you want out and left what? Poor workers overseas, poor neighbors in low wage jobs, etc. If everyone does this, America will be a third world country where vast legions of poor and a few rich people own everything, if not already.

Minimum/living wage shouldn't make anyone feel comfortable, but we should try to ensure that legal citizens can make it if they try (I've no sympathy for illegals). You can't even try to improve yourself when you're a paycheck away from starving and being homeless.

[Anonymous]

I find this entire line of reasoning to be extraordinary. If one raises the minimum wage to a level that is a living wage for those with minimal education and skills, one would presumably need to increase the salaries of those who have some educational attainment or skills. Once when starts to do this, we become increasingly out of line with some parts of the world and you'll see outsourcing and the movement of manufacturing jobs overseas become an even bigger problem. This is quite apart from the inflationary impact of increasing minimum hourly rates significantly.

Let market forces determine what wages should be and those with the right education and/or skills should be compensated accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Minimum wage to me means that working people earn enough to not be homeless or to not live on welfare. And yes, enough for a family to get by. A baby consumes surprisingly little.
The expense is astronomical right now because of the cost of day care, so for those there are day care vouchers and wic

A working person should earn more than someone living off welfare. And a working person should have their own place to live, a means of transportation to work, able to eat well and access to health care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I didn't start a company so that others could afford more goods and services. This is a business, not social services.

If you want to spend years building a business- then feel free to. Take all of your hard work, sacrifice, and passion and channel into making sure that others can buy more goods. You do that with your business.

As for my business- if I need someone to answer the phone, respond to emails, stuff envelopes....whatever. I am not paying 40k a year. Keep on pushing and you will push me to outsource even more than I already do. And when I say outsource, I mean to Asia, not to another company. Less hassle, little red tape, harder workers.

So I still win, and you have pushed someone else out of a job.

If you don't like it, then start your own company.

I am applauding you. I will also ask people why you expect this man to pay for your choices in life?

[Anonymous]

People who know nothing about economics, an the supply and demand of labor prattling on about raising the minimum wage and forcing an arbitrary standard of "living wage". It'll just make goods and services too expensive for the poor to afford. Companies will hire less people and we'll have more unemployment. Only q fool would believe that companies won't lay off people, use more tech and other one time costs to cut down on costs. But then again most of you work for the government and live off the teet of the American tax paying public.

[Anonymous]

Finally, the last several posts are from informed people who have a basic understanding of economics unlike those who make asinine arguments supporting paying a so called living wage without regard to market forces.

We have already seen a massive move in both manufacturing and some service jobs away from the US to less expensive countries. Keep this up and you will see more of the same. Sure the burger flippers will remain here but if someone working at Mickey D makes over $30,000 a year working full time what would the justification be for not paying the more educated and skilled workers more? And as salaries ramp up, we will see increased inflation as well as the shifting of even more jobs overseas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who know nothing about economics, an the supply and demand of labor prattling on about raising the minimum wage and forcing an arbitrary standard of "living wage". It'll just make goods and services too expensive for the poor to afford. Companies will hire less people and we'll have more unemployment. Only q fool would believe that companies won't lay off people, use more tech and other one time costs to cut down on costs. But then again most of you work for the government and live off the teet of the American tax paying public.

The minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage. It used to be a living wage. How come it used to be a living wage, and economic disaster did not ensue, but now if we had a living wage, economic disaster would ensue?