Can Anyone Define What a "Living Wage" is to me?

poweRob · Jul 11, 2013

hidingrpolitics said:
I see this term thrown around all the time when it comes to minimum wage. I'm curious as to what this means.

Does living wage mean the minimum wage necessary to survive? Or is there a minimum amount of amenities one must also have such as a computer, car, television, etc.?

Minimum wage in America is more than what 90% of the rest of the world makes and even adjusting for purchasing power, living in the US is better than most of the rest of the world. I have a friend who makes less than minimum wage working for a charity and she says she gets by fine and doesn't accept food stamps because she doesn't want to set a bad example for the kids she mentors. Does this mean she is making a "living wage", or does living wage constantly change depending on a person's spending habits? And before the trolls come in and accuse me of partisanship, I am just telling a true anecdote that I understand is not proof of anything. I'd just like clarity on what criteria defines "living wage" and whether this means any less money will mean no longer living.

MIT made a living wage calculator and here is the statement that precedes it. It explains it rather well:

In many American communities, families working in low-wage jobs make insufficient income to live locally given the local cost of living. Recently, in a number of high-cost communities, community organizers and citizens have successfully argued that the prevailing wage offered by the public sector and key businesses should reflect a wage rate required to meet minimum standards of living. Therefore we have developed a living wage calculator to estimate the cost of living in your community or region. The calculator lists typical expenses, the living wage and typical wages for the selected location.

radcen · Jul 11, 2013

A "living wage" is anything over whatever the bottom 1/3 of people make, as costs will adjust up or down accordingly.

Papa bull · Jul 12, 2013

radcen said:
A "living wage" is anything over whatever the bottom 1/3 of people make, as costs will adjust up or down accordingly.

That makes it a no-brainer. Just make it a requirement that minimum wage is adjusted to one cent higher than the bottom 33% of the workers are earning. Problem solved.

ashurbanipal · Jul 12, 2013

I love how someone can post a relevant (and quite clear) quote from Adam Smith, and everyone ignores it. I think if you study history carefully, one of the first things that goes in a society that which is unravelling is education, and the general quality of public discourse. Income gap is another big indicator. When the gap widens to a certain point, and when the folks at the top start arguing that the people on the bottom are making too much money, that's a further sign of serious decay.

ItAin'tFree · Jul 12, 2013

hidingrpolitics said:
I see this term thrown around all the time when it comes to minimum wage. I'm curious as to what this means.

Does living wage mean the minimum wage necessary to survive? Or is there a minimum amount of amenities one must also have such as a computer, car, television, etc.?

Minimum wage in America is more than what 90% of the rest of the world makes and even adjusting for purchasing power, living in the US is better than most of the rest of the world. I have a friend who makes less than minimum wage working for a charity and she says she gets by fine and doesn't accept food stamps because she doesn't want to set a bad example for the kids she mentors. Does this mean she is making a "living wage", or does living wage constantly change depending on a person's spending habits? And before the trolls come in and accuse me of partisanship, I am just telling a true anecdote that I understand is not proof of anything. I'd just like clarity on what criteria defines "living wage" and whether this means any less money will mean no longer living.

I can share my experience with someone who used the term with me one time several years ago.

Back around 2001 or so, my soon to be future son in law got laid off from a job in Northern Virginia in which he was making about 16 or 17 bucks an hour. He was around 27 or 28 years old, living at home with his mother and she was paying his bills. I asked him how his job search was coming along and he said finding a job was simple but he was holding out for one that paid a "livable wage". I already had big doubts about this clown as to me a man has no business living at home with his mother at that age to start with but when he told me that, I knew damn good and well he was a dud. After about three months of sponging off his mom and not finding a job, getting closer to the wedding date with my daughter, my wife got him a job at the company where she worked. The guy that hired him made it clear to her the only reason he hired this bum was as a favor to her because he had big doubts about the guy. He didn't seem to him to be a go getter. To make a long story short, he got the job married my daughter and within 18 months was back home with his mother without a wife and without a job.

The guy was and is as useless as tits on a boar hog and if were was left to me, I would let him starve to death as he thinks he is worth more than he is and is lazy and expects others to take care of him. What's sad though is it's not just him. Millions of Americans have the same attitude as some politicians not only encourage such behavior, they legislate it.

humbolt · Jul 12, 2013

I'll just put my living wage over here with my working boots. Who knows what might happen? I'll just sit back, turn the tube on, and wait to see.

rathi · Jul 12, 2013

A living wage in the United States is that given a 40 hour work week, the pay is enough to cover rent, utilities, clothing, transportation, food and medical care. A job cannot be done without a living functioning member of society to perform it, so providing enough resources for the minimum upkeep of that individual is an absolute economic requirement. Paying less than that is of course possible, but only by having someone else (usually the government) subsidize that individuals existence enough to make up for the failure of the employer.

Sisyphus · Jul 12, 2013

rathi said:
A living wage in the United States is that given a 40 hour work week, the pay is enough to cover rent, utilities, clothing, transportation, food and medical care. A job cannot be done without a living functioning member of society to perform it, so providing enough resources for the minimum upkeep of that individual is an absolute economic requirement. Paying less than that is of course possible, but only by having someone else (usually the government) subsidize that individuals existence enough to make up for the failure of the employer.

Too subjective, IMO. Rents are all over the map. Clothing varies in cost. Etc., etc.

I'd posit that a living wage is the median income, since that's the primary driver of the market (what it costs to "live" in America ... our middle class lifestyle). And as for wage minimums, I'd suggest we make them half of the median. Thus a two-income household, which is becoming our societal norm, equates to a median income.

Papa bull · Jul 12, 2013

ItAin'tFree said:
I can share my experience with someone who used the term with me one time several years ago.

Back around 2001 or so, my soon to be future son in law got laid off from a job in Northern Virginia in which he was making about 16 or 17 bucks an hour. He was around 27 or 28 years old, living at home with his mother and she was paying his bills. I asked him how his job search was coming along and he said finding a job was simple but he was holding out for one that paid a "livable wage". I already had big doubts about this clown as to me a man has no business living at home with his mother at that age to start with but when he told me that, I knew damn good and well he was a dud. After about three months of sponging off his mom and not finding a job, getting closer to the wedding date with my daughter, my wife got him a job at the company where she worked. The guy that hired him made it clear to her the only reason he hired this bum was as a favor to her because he had big doubts about the guy. He didn't seem to him to be a go getter. To make a long story short, he got the job married my daughter and within 18 months was back home with his mother without a wife and without a job.

The guy was and is as useless as tits on a boar hog and if were was left to me, I would let him starve to death as he thinks he is worth more than he is and is lazy and expects others to take care of him. What's sad though is it's not just him. Millions of Americans have the same attitude as some politicians not only encourage such behavior, they legislate it.

Millions of losers will vote for someone that promises to keep government money flowing to them. They are literally buying votes with taxpayer money. I'll bet you 20 to 1 that the loser you are talking about votes (D) every time.

soot · Jul 12, 2013

ashurbanipal said:
I think if you study history carefully, one of the first things that goes in a society that which is unravelling is education...

Can you post some examples of what you're talking about.

I'm trying hard and I can't think of too many developed societies that have "come unraveled" since widespread public education became commonplace within such societies.

rathi · Jul 12, 2013

Sisyphus said:
Too subjective, IMO. Rents are all over the map. Clothing varies in cost. Etc., etc.

I'd posit that a living wage is the median income, since that's the primary driver of the market (what it costs to "live" in America ... our middle class lifestyle). And as for wage minimums, I'd suggest we make them half of the median. Thus a two-income household, which is becoming our societal norm, equates to a median income.

You are putting social beliefs ahead of economics. A living wage should be defined as the minimum needed to sustain the workers ability to continue performing the job without relying on outside subsidy. One can argue how much money a worker should be paid, but that is a separate issue.

rabbitcaebannog · Jul 12, 2013

Gipper said:
The problem is that wealth disparity, in and of itself, is not wrong or evil. Nobody with an economic background will say or even suggest that wealth is zero-sum. The "rich getting richer" is not a significant factor in the comfort level of the lower/middle class. In fact, the rich getting richer actually improves overall conditions on every level, as much of it is a result of scientific and technological breakthroughs and advancements. That rising tide lifts all boats.

How exactly is getting rich off the backs of the labor force going to lift all boats?

Gipper · Jul 12, 2013

rabbitcaebannog said:
How exactly is getting rich off the backs of the labor force going to lift all boats?

First of all, you make money in the method and fashion you can. Some people are designed to be nothing more than cheap labor.

The people who think, dream, and fund give jobs to those who grunt, and allow those who grunt to be directed toward tasks that allow them to grunt their way to great things.

People need to know their roles and quit bitching about someone else having it better than they do.

Sisyphus · Jul 12, 2013

rathi said:
You are putting social beliefs ahead of economics. A living wage should be defined as the minimum needed to sustain the workers ability to continue performing the job without relying on outside subsidy. One can argue how much money a worker should be paid, but that is a separate issue.

How so?

rabbitcaebannog · Jul 12, 2013

Gipper said:
First of all, you make money in the method and fashion you can. Some people are designed to be nothing more than cheap labor.

The people who think, dream, and fund give jobs to those who grunt, and allow those who grunt to be directed toward tasks that allow them to grunt their way to great things.

People need to know their roles and quit bitching about someone else having it better than they do.

Oh, I see. You don't really believe that saying "a rising tide lifts all boats". Thanks for the clarification.

Gipper · Jul 12, 2013

rabbitcaebannog said:
Oh, I see. You don't really believe that saying "a rising tide lifts all boats". Thanks for the clarification.

Nice try. The overall quality of life of today's "working poor" is still very good. Feel free to ask all the welfare mothers who wait in line at the Walmart check-out on their smartphones.

rabbitcaebannog · Jul 12, 2013

Gipper said:
Nice try. The overall quality of life of today's "working poor" is still very good. Feel free to ask all the welfare mothers who wait in line at the Walmart check-out on their smartphones.

Shouldn't they be collecting that pay from their employer instead of the public?

Sisyphus · Jul 12, 2013

rathi said:
You are putting social beliefs ahead of economics. A living wage should be defined as the minimum needed to sustain the workers ability to continue performing the job without relying on outside subsidy. One can argue how much money a worker should be paid, but that is a separate issue.

That ignores economics and speaks more to Maslow's Pyramid, and subsistence "living." And if we're being literal, it would be a wage sufficient to staying alive.

Now back to economics ...

Median wage is how we define our middle class, which is needed to sustain the market that businesses depend on for their success and ability to make payroll. So it's a model, in which each business depends on what other businesses pay their workers. If some are permitted to exploit our middle class, while creating working poor (workers unable to consume products made by companies who pay middle class wages) then those companies will have a parasitical effect, lowering the value of the market, per capita, which has a negative effect on both businesses and government revenue. In short, it shrinks the market, per capita.

Gipper · Jul 12, 2013

rabbitcaebannog said:
Shouldn't they be collecting that pay from their employer instead of the public?

Ideally, yes. Bottom line is that the "poor" today still have it pretty damn good. I also have no use for people who want to "soak the rich" and blame them for their lots in life.

rabbitcaebannog · Jul 12, 2013

Gipper said:
Ideally, yes.

Then we agree. The rest of your post is a red herring.

Gipper · Jul 12, 2013

rabbitcaebannog said:
Then we agree. The rest of your post is a red herring.

If red herrings drive us away from socialism and hyper-redistribution, so be it.

I have no need for do-nothings who bitch about being have-nots.

rabbitcaebannog · Jul 12, 2013

Gipper said:
If red herrings drive us away from socialism and hyper-redistribution, so be it.

I have no need for do-nothings who bitch about being have-nots.

You should use those for bumper stickers

Sisyphus · Jul 12, 2013

rabbitcaebannog said:
Shouldn't they be collecting that pay from their employer instead of the public?

Not if we choose to sustain the market in other ways. The economy (ours and every other modern economy) depends on redistribution; keep the money moving in the economy. And it can come in many ways. Higher wage requirements redistributes money that corporations would otherwise retain, and not necessarily spend it as workers do with remarkable consistency. Taxing higher earners and corporations also redistributes. So whether through higher wages, or taxing companies and subsidizing workers, the effect is essentially the same, economically.

Other forms of redistribution is building roads, maintain a standing army, funding research, creating regulations which "cost" businesses (every dollar of cost is spent back in, buying whatever is needed to comply with the regulation.)

Gipper · Jul 12, 2013

rabbitcaebannog said:
You should use those for bumper stickers

Why not?

The ones who are offended are probably the ones that don't understand them.

Gipper · Jul 12, 2013

Sisyphus said:
Not if we choose to sustain the market in other ways. The economy (ours and every other modern economy) depends on redistribution; keep the money moving in the economy. And it can come in many ways. Higher wage requirements redistributes money that corporations would otherwise retain, and not necessarily spend it as workers do with remarkable consistency. Taxing higher earners and corporations also redistributes. So whether through higher wages, or taxing companies and subsidizing workers, the effect is essentially the same, economically.

Other forms of redistribution is building roads, maintain a standing army, funding research, creating regulations which "cost" businesses (every dollar of cost is spent back in, buying whatever is needed to comply with the regulation.)

Hyperinflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can Anyone Define What a "Living Wage" is to me?

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Papa bull

ashurbanipal

ItAin'tFree

Well-known member

humbolt

rathi

Count Smackula

Sisyphus

Papa bull

soot

rathi

Count Smackula

rabbitcaebannog

Gipper

Sisyphus

rabbitcaebannog

Gipper

rabbitcaebannog

Sisyphus

Gipper

rabbitcaebannog

Gipper

rabbitcaebannog

Sisyphus

Gipper

Gipper

Can Anyone Define What a "Living Wage" is to me?

USMC 1988-1996

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Well-known member

Count Smackula

Count Smackula

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency