The way I see it, the thread title is just a primer. The OP is the gauge of the thread. Anyone that responds to a thread by reading only the title, and not the OP is guaranteeing failure in the thread, or at least a misguided approach to the thread. But, maybe that's just me.
There is a good debate to be had, as to whether a livable wage is even a real thing.
Well said.
Is asking for more of a definition 'characterization of poor people who want to have a living wage as greedy mouth breathers.'?
Food:
Steak, mac n cheese, or toast?
Housing: One bedroom, multi-bedroom, view?
Transportation: Used Yugo, new Malibu, Lincoln Navigator?
The term is so vague as to leave itself open for interpretation of many degrees. The point being that 'living wage' is too subjective, and cannot properly be defined by someone receiving it.
The next move would be to leave that interpretation up to a governing body, and other then setting a basement, the government has no business in determining wages.
I "defined" a liveable wage, however, I never said we as a country can meet that definition. To truly define liveable wage would be to take a look at everyone on a case by case basis which is frankly impossible. The closest we can come to is setting a min amount and even then it's dependent on region since states, cities, and counties vary greatly.
Is your solution to just not help anyone?
Most jobs have an intended demographic of people. Right now, that's kind of screwed up because older people are occupying entry level jobs, and entry level-ready young people can't get full-time jobs at all. That means that a lot of people are currently living on a lot less than what they built their life on, so they are going to have unique problems due to the fact that their current work prospects are out of step with the demographics those jobs are designed for.
But ignoring that, and pretending that isn't the case, the "livable wage" mostly applies to people on the low end of the job market, since, by definition, everything above it is higher and will probably therefore being supporting a life with more unnecessary things in it, or more responsibilities related to family/self care.
When we're talking about a "living wage," we're talking about young people without degrees who are probably single, or at least don't have kids.
It also kind of depends on where you're living.
In the city, a livable wage in that bracket is a flat share without having to starve. You can have stuff in a stable area, and your bills and food are paid. Space is limited and therefore expensive, so you shouldn't expect to be able to live alone, and maybe not have a car.
In the country, stuff's cheaper and space is easier to come by, so maybe the wage is lower in sheer numbers, but maybe it's still enough for a trailer or renting a guest house, and probably having a used car, which is necessary in the country.
A living wage means someone is able to function with the basics of stability, food, and the necessities to keep their job.
To call a third world living a "living wage" in this kind of country is a statement that you'd like to move back to feudalism, quite frankly.
I am sick and tired of this "but the poor have TV's" statistics. From when I was living in low-end apartments, you know what? Most of them come with a TV. A TV that's older than I am and worth 5 bucks at the most, and doesn't even get reception anymore. Yeah, it has a cable, but the cable isn't necessarily hooked up. The landlords put stuff like that in there to make the place seem less cheap. It costs them nothing. That does not mean people living there aren't poor.
And a refrigerator? Are you serious? Most people don't have the resources to grow their own damn food. Without a fridge, and without space to make your own food, you have to give up on the best methods of getting calcium, protein, and a lot of minerals. How are they supposed to eat adequately in a populous country without a refrigerator? Are we seriously begrudging the poor means of storing food?
Good lord.
A living wage means someone is able to function with the basics of stability, food, and the necessities to keep their job.
I eliminated the rhetorical parts of the post and this was all that remained.
So if someone can do this under minimum wage, all is good, right? Many people can and do.
So does this mean you're in favor of keeping and maintaining an "appropriate" minimum wage?People can make it on minimum wage in most places if they really want to
I eliminated the rhetorical parts of the post and this was all that remained.
So if someone can do this under minimum wage, all is good, right? Many people can and do.
I've seen far too many people (that lack any sort of basic economic education) discuss some fictitious term like "liveable wage". I think it's time we let liberals define it.
What is it, people?
Gip, you will never, EVER meet someone who is tighter with a buck than I am. Seriously, I'm an absolute tight wad. And the reason for that is that I have been unbelievably poor. I have survived on half minimum wage.
But I did not have a good enough quality of life to meet that definition of a living wage until I was making over 8 bucks an hour. Before that, I was sometimes going hungry or being late on rent so that I had enough money to pay for my transit to work. I didn't even have my own room, and I had things stolen several times because I couldn't afford a way to securely lock it.
Food: Healthy food that provides the proper nutritional value that one needs to live a healthy life.
Housing: A place where all the needs of a proper shelter are meet, and a place that is safe. IE, not going to collapse on itself, no electrical problems, etc.
Transportation: Something that gets the job done.
It's not that hard people. Well I guess it is if you have an agenda that forces you to view poor people as greedy mouth breathers.
Well, let me ask you this - did you blame anyone when you weren't making a decent wage?
That kind of gets down to the crux of why I made this poll. Many people kicked around "liveable wage" in the Walmart thread, coming off like Walmart owed them a certain standard of living that went against economic principle.
Nope. I got where I was through my own decisions, which I still stand by. I also had other factors in play besides the minimum wage.
However, let me say something very clearly: most of the time I spent working at minimum wage, I was doing so in countries that have a higher minimum wage than we do. I was making, in American dollars, a bit over 8 bucks an hour.
I have never worked the American minimum wage as an adult. And I can't imagine trying to live on it by my definition of a livable wage.
I don't think it's right for people to be able to work full time and still not be able to have that definition of a living wage. That's super basic. Just because someone doesn't have a degree doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to live on their work. Have you forgotten how much a degree costs?
I don't think it's too much to ask to be able to have food in a fridge in exchange for working 40 hours a week of their life.
I have no problem with people making sacrifices. You don't have to be below poverty level for that.
My problem is that people seem to resent Big Business because they drive a Toyota instead of a Lexus, or eat a Whopper instead of a steak, or have to play the classic Zeldas on a SNES instead of the latest version of Wind Waker on the newest Nintendo out to date..
Yeah I know those types, have to have the best of the best even if they can't afford it and resent people who can. Although anyone who resents having to play one of the greatest games ever made needs their head checked.
Your words, not mine.
Your definition gets even vaguer.
Food: so now people can be told what, and how much to eat, to meet this 'nutrition' criteria?
Housing: Already addressed by laws. If they chose to live somewhere that fails to meet those laws, then they need to report it to the housing authority.
Transportation: Then public transportation, where available, will get the job done.
When you want to take from one hand and give it to another, with no incentive from the second hand to do more to improve themselves, then it is easy to spend someone else's money....
Your two statements are contradictory. Look at it this way... If the minimum education level is raised to "Bachelors" (30k) then it won't take long before that Bachelor's degree (30k) is just like a high school diploma (12k) is now.
I have seen it first hand. In the Navy, there are qualifications called a Warfare Designator (Air, Surface, etc) They USED to be voluntary. They were hard to get and required a lot of effort to get ESWS or EAWS (Enlisted Surface/Air Warfare Specialist) qualified. It really broke out the professionals from the guy just getting by. A few years back, they made the qualification mandatory. Now, the norm is to see Dual or even Triple qualified Sailors. You would think "Hey, Great. They are now more highly trained." But they are not. The qualifications are now easier to get and they have no impact besides a "check in the box".
I understand that "guaranteeing access" is different than "mandating" BUT, if we suddenly have 80% of the American populace with a Bachelors Degree, then it will not be long until the only way to get a "high level" job is to have a Master's. It is already starting to be that way, and there is no doubt in my mind that the trend will continue.
My definition isn't vague, it is rather clear. People are free to purchase what they want, but a living wage should afford everyone access to these foods that provide all the nutrition a person needs.
Also, public transportation is not available everywhere. Where I live, if you don't have a car, you aren't going anywhere.
And where are we taking the money from? These people are working for this wage, mandating that the minimum wage be a livable wage isn't stealing from anyone.
Like I said, it's not that complicated and this stuff is very basic and stuff that every adult wage should provide.
My definition isn't vague, it is rather clear. People are free to purchase what they want, but a living wage should afford everyone access to these foods that provide all the nutrition a person needs.
Also, public transportation is not available everywhere. Where I live, if you don't have a car, you aren't going anywhere.
And where are we taking the money from? These people are working for this wage, mandating that the minimum wage be a livable wage isn't stealing from anyone.
Like I said, it's not that complicated and this stuff is very basic and stuff that every adult wage should provide.
big difference. education does not necessarily equal job training. it is weightlifting for the mind, and intellectual rigor during the maturation of the brain has benefits outside of a degree. the new neural connections can be used for a wide variety of computational purposes. ensuring access to college is absolutely key.
i see the point you're trying to make, but guaranteeing access to college is a net benefit for the individual, the economy, and the society. when your economy runs on innovation, you need the largest pool of innovators as possible to draw from.
Increased wages isn't going to come off a company's bottom line... they will increase their prices, which means everybody pays for it.
So defining a 'living wage' means they can spend it however they want. Access doesn't mean they will buy it. Which leaves that vast grey area of definition about what is 'necessary' and what is not.
Not everyone in a 'minimum wage' position is supporting themselves to live..... So, by your phrase, 'adult wage', means that there should be a separate required wage, based on age, rather then ability?
And I agree with all of your points in theory. However, in practice it is going to drive the market the way I described. We will all be better off with the vast majority of our citizens being college educated.
For example: Not too long ago, graduating from High School was a big deal. I remember when I graduated (1984), I had friends that were the first to do so in their family. Back then, having a diploma opened a lot of doors. Now, you cannot get a steady job without one.
Case in point; I have a good friend that owns a towing business, one of the oldest and most successful in Central Florida. Right now, he will not hire a driver without a diploma. His father started the business many years ago, with no HS education, and would be hired today..... Granted, the tow truck drivers are much better educated and can make better decisions when on their own etc. I get that. BUT... there was once a time when you would think that a HS dropout would be just fine working as a driver. Now, that is not the case.
By the time my grandchildren are my age, you will need a degree to operate a cash register. Everyone will be more educated and in the end, society will benefit from the increased knowledge, problem solving skills, and innovation skills... but just because you are college educated, will not equate to better paying jobs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?