NationStates Jolt Archive

In my sociology class we were discussing living wage and, with me livng in one of the most liberal areas in the country, most everyone took the same side.

So, I was wondering, what do other people think of the issue of living wage?

Enough so that a single worker can support a family of 6, with enough left over for a month's worth of vacation in Tahiti.

In my sociology class we were discussing living wage and, with me livng in one of the most liberal areas in the country, most everyone took the same side.

So, I was wondering, what do other people think of the issue of living wage?

Can you please elaborate on the question? What is the stance taken in your class?? Not sure we are aware of the issue at hand..

Can you please elaborate on the question? What is the stance taken in your class?? Not sure we are aware of the issue at hand..
He's just asking for your opinion. No more no less.

Can you please elaborate on the question? What is the stance taken in your class?? Not sure we are aware of the issue at hand..

The issue is whether or not communities should impliment a living wage.
I just want to see what other people think of the issue. Most of my class was pro-living wage.

Its really more complex than yes or no. I support a living wage, for anyone progressing to the best of their ability. I think students should be given a living wage in college. I believe than someone who is actively looking for work, under the supervision of a welfare agent or something similar, should recieve a living wage. I think anyone who is disabled, but still shows a will to be productive in whatever ways they can should be given a living wage. I also think minimum wage should be raised, though on a state level, not federal(different area's require different wages. Living in Ohka, Missouri is a bit cheaper than living in San Francisco).

Uh, being able to live decently of your earnings if you have a job should be a given. Sadly some don't seem to see that.

I also think minimum wage should be raised, though on a state level, not federal(different area's require different wages. Living in Ohka, Missouri is a bit cheaper than living in San Francisco).

Wait... isn't that living wage?

Wait... isn't that living wage?
Depends on where you are.

Depends on where you are.
I mean what he described.

In my sociology class we were discussing living wage and, with me livng in one of the most liberal areas in the country, most everyone took the same side.

So, I was wondering, what do other people think of the issue of living wage?
#1, having attended 4 universities, I have yet to see a "Sociology" course that wasn't a "Socialisim" course.

Most people woudn't consider what I make to be a "living wage" - yet I live in the greater Chicago area, own my own condo and own my own car... not to mention multiple firearms, computers and other nonessential crap.

the "Living wage" is simply political BS designed to further the "progressive"/Socialist agenda. If you don't buy into USian Consumerism, you don't "need" 1/2 of what "they" say you do.

Depends on where you are.

True. In Santa Fe New Mexico USA it is decided on the city level, i.e. they have a higher minimum wage than the federal one.

I mean what he described.
I figured that, but it seemed to good of a line to pass up:p

I am not in favor of a living wage. There are several jobs that are either not important enough or have to many "applicants". I believe that such a law would lead to runnaway inflation.

Uh, being able to live decently of your earnings if you have a job should be a given. Sadly some don't seem to see that.
Define "decently". See above. I pay $5.00 US a month for basic ISP. I refuse to pay for Cable/Satellite/Broadband/New(ish) Cars/random-financed-commodities/etc.

For all that I am a "Capitalist", I am NOT a "Consumerist". It's not hard to live within your means if you not only don't try to "keep up with the Jones'", but don't give a shit what they think at all.

Live Simply, so others may Simply Live... and bank the rest.

I am not in favor of a living wage. There are several jobs that are either not important enough or have to many "applicants". I believe that such a law would lead to runnaway inflation.
If the job isn't important enough for those doing them to make enough to live off of than why are they important enough to have in the first place?

Define "decently". See above. I pay $5.00 US a month for basic ISP. I refuse to pay for Cable/Satellite/Broadband/New(ish) Cars/random-financed-commodities/etc.

For all that I am a "Capitalist", I am NOT a "Consumerist". It's not hard to live within your means if you not only don't try to "keep up with the Jones'", but don't give a shit what they think at all.

Live Simply, so others may Simply Live... and bank the rest.
Now thats what all the debate is about isn't it:D

Now thats what all the debate is about isn't it:D
Yah. Unfortunately, most people see it as a "I don't make enough" issue rather than an "I spend too much" issue.

But then, You can't base a political platform on "My Constitutants are too stupid to live within their means". :rolleyes:

Yah. Unfortunately, most people see it as a "I don't make enough" issue rather than an "I spend too much" issue.

But then, You can't base a political platform on "My Constitutants are too stupid to live within their means". :rolleyes:

Jimminy, who could survive without Chantel 49?

Define "decently". See above. I pay $5.00 US a month for basic ISP. I refuse to pay for Cable/Satellite/Broadband/New(ish) Cars/random-financed-commodities/etc.

For all that I am a "Capitalist", I am NOT a "Consumerist". It's not hard to live within your means if you not only don't try to "keep up with the Jones'", but don't give a shit what they think at all.

Live Simply, so others may Simply Live... and bank the rest.
Most of the time living wage is calculated with the notion of children in mind, how much a single parent would have to make to survive. It's also supposed to be local.

In my sociology class we were discussing living wage and, with me livng in one of the most liberal areas in the country, most everyone took the same side.

So, I was wondering, what do other people think of the issue of living wage?

Getting it to work is somewhat tricky, because generally speaking wage spikes in the lower classes are associated with inflation, but yes, I'm in favor of a living wage, although it's going to be different from region to region.

While I tend to follow Syniks method of non-consumerism, I must also note, however, that at present if we didn't have everyone trying to outspend everyone else, our economy would tank. I think a healthy economy is one where we produce enough to meet our reasonable needs and everyone is paid sufficiently to purchase those needs, but it cannot be denied that by that definition we have a very unhealthy economy and curing it would mean crushing rates of unemployment for the lower classes.

Most of the time living wage is calculated with the notion of children in mind, how much a single parent would have to make to survive. It's also supposed to be local.
I understand that. I also have to deal with a secretary who thinks buying $150/hr plane rides is an appropriate expendature for her 6 & 7 year old's birthday party.

Or the other employee who has to have Broadband, Cable, X-Box and a (financed) 42" TV.

And then they complain about not making enough. :rolleyes: (psst, they both make more than me... and I'm essentially a "part owner" in the business.)

Spending too much then pissing about it is the "American Way". :mad:

I understand that. I also have to deal with a secretary who thinks buying $150/hr plane rides is an appropriate expendature for her 6 & 7 year old's birthday party.

Or the other employee who has to have Broadband, Cable, X-Box and a (financed) 42" TV.

And then they complain about not making enough. :rolleyes: (psst, they both make more than me... and I'm essentially a "part owner" in the business.)

Spending too much then pissing about it is the "American Way". :mad:

Heh, when we disscussed this in class, we had a project where groups had to calculate living wage for a woman with two children in our area. One group was able to get a salary that was below minimum wage. Then again it had the family living in a one bedroom apartment with a diet consisting entirely of Ramen.

Heh, when we disscussed this in class, we had a project where groups had to calculate living wage for a woman with two children in our area. One group was able to get a salary that was below minimum wage. Then again it had the family living in a one bedroom apartment with a diet consisting entirely of Ramen.
My wife and I budget $30/wk on food. :eek:

And yet, from that $30 we buy a case of cola every 2 weeks, Pizza every week, basic staples and sufficient food that we sometimes have money left over.

Budgeting isn't hard, it just requires a little common sense. But without either common sense or budgeting, no amount of income will be enough.

We don't buy "name brands". We buy basic staplesthat are easy to prepare.

And yet, people visiting our condo, especially after I have made them a drink from my decently stocked bar, think I make 2-3 times what I do.

Minimum wage here is (IIRC) $5.15 - though I don't believe any but tipped resturaunts pay that.

However, $5.15*40 = 206*52 = 10712 = 892.66/mo

A 2 bedroom apt here runs $300(+/-)/mo. Assume food @ 50/wk for @216/mo (now at 516) Add $75/mo for Petrol & Maintenance, (591) and $100/mo for Utilities (691) that leaves $200/mo for clothes & sundries.

I exclude Taxes because a 3 person household making only minimum wage not only has to pay no taxes, but is elegible for EIC payments (extra annual income). Also, if there are Children, a minimum-wage earner will be eligible for WIC, and other Child Welfare services - not to mention Food Stamps and other programmes (more "extra income").

The problem isn't income, it's expendature. Period.

My wife and I budget $30/wk on food. :eek:

And yet, from that $30 we buy a case of cola every 2 weeks, Pizza every week, basic staples and sufficient food that we sometimes have money left over.

Budgeting isn't hard, it just requires a little common sense. But without either common sense or budgeting, no amount of income will be enough.

We don't buy "name brands". We buy basic staplesthat are easy to prepare.

And yet, people visiting our condo, especially after I have made them a drink from my decently stocked bar, think I make 2-3 times what I do.

Minimum wage here is (IIRC) $5.15 - though I don't believe any but tipped resturaunts pay that.

However, $5.15*40 = 206*52 = 10712 = 892.66/mo

A 2 bedroom apt here runs $300(+/-)/mo. Assume food @ 50/wk for @216/mo (now at 516) Add $75/mo for Petrol & Maintenance, (591) and $100/mo for Utilities (691) that leaves $200/mo for clothes & sundries.

I exclude Taxes because a 3 person household making only minimum wage not only has to pay no taxes, but is elegible for EIC payments (extra annual income). Also, if there are Children, a minimum-wage earner will be eligible for WIC, and other Child Welfare services - not to mention Food Stamps and other programmes (more "extra income").

The problem isn't income, it's expendature. Period.
true however, how is a 2bedroom apt only $300 by you, the cheapest one around me is 550-600 a month.

true however, how is a 2bedroom apt only $300 by you, the cheapest one around me is 550-600 a month.
The ones in my area go for $800 at the very least.

true however, how is a 2bedroom apt only $300 by you, the cheapest one around me is 550-600 a month.

Yeah, no shit. I live in the middle of freakin' nowhere, and I pay $390, which is a hell of a good deal around here.

Yeah, no shit. I live in the middle of freakin' nowhere, and I pay $390, which is a hell of a good deal around here.
You can't even rent a shitty little room for that where I live...

You can't even rent a shitty little room for that where I live...
$850 for that shitty little room.

$850 for that shitty little room.
If you don't have anything valuble that you'd miss if someone stole it or fucked it up you could rent a room in the beach flats for $600...

If you don't have anything valuble that you'd miss if someone stole it or fucked it up you could rent a room in the beach flats for $600...
I have a kitten and a girlfriend and this lap top...

What beach flats?

I make a "living wage", or at least it would be if I lived in Arkansas. Unfortunately, I live in Southern California. It would have to be implemented regionally - in Kentucky I could live on my $30,000 a year comfortably, in Moreno Valley, California, I can barely pay the rent.

And yes, I'm all in favor of implementing living wage legislation.

I have a kitten and a girlfriend and this lap top...

What beach flats?
The apartment flats next to the Boardwalk in Santa Cruz.

You can't even rent a shitty little room for that where I live...

Right, but as I said I live in the absolute middle of nowhere. The nearest metropolitan areas are Grand Rapids, Mich and Detroit. GR is about 3 hours away, and Detroit is about 4. The normal starting wage for non-skilled labor around here is $5.50

Right, but as I said I live in the absolute middle of nowhere. The nearest metropolitan areas are Grand Rapids, Mich and Detroit. GR is about 3 hours away, and Detroit is about 4. The normal starting wage for non-skilled labor around here is $5.50
BAY CITY!

BAY CITY!

Oh yeah, I forgot about Bay City. Which isn't all that hard to do...

Not that Mount Pleasant (where I live) is any better.

The minimum wage is only $5.15!? I think it's £5.50 here in britain.. apparently that's $9.65... how can people afford to live on that much?

edit: It's actually £4.85 which is still about $8.

In the UK the lowest minimum wage is currently set at £4.25/hour and will increase to £4.45/hour in October 2006. If you work over 16 hours a week (the max before your dole payments get cut off) then this wage will give you approximately 1.5 times what you would get for unemployment benefit (JSA). The lowest amount of JSA you can get is £45/week. This is meant to cover your costs for food, fuel/heating, electricity charges and water charges - quite spartan. Benefit for rent is covered separately. This clearly leaves room for the private profit motive to operate and will not reduce productivity.

The minimum wage is a clever way of reducing government expenditures on social security and reducing bureaucracy.

I fully support the minimum wage, but as to where it should be precisely I do not know.

The minimum wage is only $5.15!? I think it's £5.50 here in britain.. apparently that's $9.65... how can people afford to live on that much?Much cheaper prices. The CAP dramatically increases the cost of food and fuel duties dramatically increase the cost of energy. Without the CAP it has been estimated that we might pay as little as 50% of what we currently now pay for food.

300 dollars for rent?!?! Must be low income housing or something. Easy to say you can live life on the frill with rent like that. A decent 2 bdrm where I'm at is 1100 to 1300 a month. Minimum wage would be the suck.

Hmmmm...living wage = inevitable inflation, the decrease in the purchasing power of a dollar, and generally not a good thing for America's poor. Eventually the inflation will counteract the living wage concept, and it'll have to be raised again. On top of that, prices will increase even beyond the rate of inflation to offset this "living wage" and that will also decrease the purchasing power of a dollar. Makes VERY bad economic sense. Not only that, but smaller firms, espescially family owned businesses will unlikely be able to keep up, and a living wage would be just as effective at forcing them out of business as WalMart.

Hmmmm...living wage = inevitable inflation, the decrease in the purchasing power of a dollar, and generally not a good thing for America's poor. Eventually the inflation will counteract the living wage concept, and it'll have to be raised again. On top of that, prices will increase even beyond the rate of inflation to offset this "living wage" and that will also decrease the purchasing power of a dollar. Makes VERY bad economic sense. Not only that, but smaller firms, espescially family owned businesses will unlikely be able to keep up, and a living wage would be just as effective at forcing them out of business as WalMart.
I don't know that giving people enough money so that they can pay their bills neccisarily equates to them having excessive buying power causing inflation. They'll be paying thier bills rather than not paying them, not shopping at The Sharper Image.

And Wal*Mart would be the one that would have to increase what thier paying thier employees the most.

Hmmmm...living wage = inevitable inflation, the decrease in the purchasing power of a dollar, and generally not a good thing for America's poor. Eventually the inflation will counteract the living wage concept, and it'll have to be raised again. On top of that, prices will increase even beyond the rate of inflation to offset this "living wage" and that will also decrease the purchasing power of a dollar. Makes VERY bad economic sense. Not only that, but smaller firms, espescially family owned businesses will unlikely be able to keep up, and a living wage would be just as effective at forcing them out of business as WalMart.Uh... isn't inflation calculated by price increases, so for prices to increase faster than inflation just wouldn't make sense...

It is inevitable that we live in a non-zero inflation economy. Prices will always increase, and wages should increase the follow suit.

Besides, the 'poor' are more effiecent consumers and are less likely to save any money they recieve. So a greater demand will counter the inflationary pressures of higher lower bracket wages.

Hmmmm...living wage = inevitable inflation, the decrease in the purchasing power of a dollar, and generally not a good thing for America's poor. Eventually the inflation will counteract the living wage concept, and it'll have to be raised again. On top of that, prices will increase even beyond the rate of inflation to offset this "living wage" and that will also decrease the purchasing power of a dollar. Makes VERY bad economic sense. Not only that, but smaller firms, espescially family owned businesses will unlikely be able to keep up, and a living wage would be just as effective at forcing them out of business as WalMart.
I think you're missing the point here. Living wage isn't about the economy. It's about keeping up the facade that the government cares. It's about giving the unions something to fight for to stop there members realising that they're not doing anything. Surely the economy can take a hit if it keeps the masses down right?

I don't know that giving people enough money so that they can pay their bills neccisarily equates to them having excessive buying power causing inflation. They'll be paying thier bills rather than not paying them, not shopping at The Sharper Image.
It means that there are more dollars being spent in the system. Which means that the supply is up and the value falls. I don't care how they spend the money, it's still being spent. It's basic macroeconomics.

And Wal*Mart would be the one that would have to increase what thier paying thier employees the most.
Actually, WalMart pays their employees several dollars over the minimum wage, if I remember correctly, and they are also one of the strongest advocates for raising the minimum wage.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/

Uh... isn't inflation calculated by price increases, so for prices to increase faster than inflation just wouldn't make sense...
The inflation rate is calculated from the price increases, but it deals with the money supply. What I should have said is that the price increases would occur higher than what it would be if only normal inflation was taking effect. Sorry, it's still worded funny.

It is inevitable that we live in a non-zero inflation economy. Prices will always increase, and wages should increase the follow suit.


Besides, the 'poor' are more effiecent consumers and are less likely to save any money they recieve. So a greater demand will counter the inflationary pressures of higher lower bracket wages.
Inflation is desirable to minimize though, and increasing the minimum wage will force prices higher and we'll be back at step 1 all over again. The US economy has been able to maintain incredibly low rates of inflation since the Paul Volcker was the fed chief.

It means that there are more dollars being spent in the system. Which means that the supply is up and the value falls. I don't care how they spend the money, it's still being spent. It's basic macroeconomics.


Actually, WalMart pays their employees several dollars over the minimum wage, if I remember correctly, and they are also one of the strongest advocates for raising the minimum wage.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/
Or less debt, meaning the effect won't be so cut and dry, or 'basic' as you'd like to paint it.

I'll see your PR story link with another (http://www.nea.org/topics/walmart-fact.html).

EDIT: I should also add that it's not neccisarily more money in the system, it's money going to different locations...

Or less debt, meaning the effect won't be so cut and dry, or 'basic' as you'd like to paint it.
Less debt in current dollars, but people will continue to rack up debt irregardless. And if someone institutes deflationary policies, then the debt burden will be incredible.

Elimination of debt by inflation was once considered to be a rational thing to do for many economies under the Keynesian system, but it proved to be unhealthy, and the economic woes of the late sixties and seventies were the results. On top of that, when someone gets some sense back into their heads and kicks in some deflationary policies, it hurts. A lot. Albeit for a short amount of time, as was seen in the early eighties, but the pain is tremendous. Anti-inflationary policies are the only wise economic course to pursue.


I'll see your PR story link with another (http://www.nea.org/topics/walmart-fact.html).
I never said that WalMart was a good thing, just that they're calling for a raise of the minimum wage. I believe a while back there was a discussion about this such thing and how it didn't effect WalMart at all. Instead it was a clever ploy to whack small businesses who couldn't absorb such an increase.

EDIT: I should also add that it's not neccisarily more money in the system, it's money going to different locations...
It's that more money is being spent. On top of the fact that its an increase in the cost of labor, and therefore how much each good or service costs the firm to sell. None of which are good for businesses.

Less debt in current dollars, but people will continue to rack up debt irregardless. And if someone institutes deflationary policies, then the debt burden will be incredible.

Elimination of debt by inflation was once considered to be a rational thing to do for many economies under the Keynesian system, but it proved to be unhealthy, and the economic woes of the late sixties and seventies were the results. On top of that, when someone gets some sense back into their heads and kicks in some deflationary policies, it hurts. A lot. Albeit for a short amount of time, as was seen in the early eighties, but the pain is tremendous. Anti-inflationary policies are the only wise economic course to pursue.



I never said that WalMart was a good thing, just that they're calling for a raise of the minimum wage. I believe a while back there was a discussion about this such thing and how it didn't effect WalMart at all. Instead it was a clever ploy to whack small businesses who couldn't absorb such an increase.
Since I'm tired I'm just going to say you haven't convinced me and leave it at that.

Since I'm tired I'm just going to say you haven't convinced me and leave it at that.
Really? I was about to say the same thing. Would you like a glass of sweet tea?


EDIT: I'll share with anyone else who wants some as well. It's delightful, not quite the good stuff I get in the Carolinas or Louisiana, but it's the best I can pull off in Ohio.

In my sociology class we were discussing living wage and, with me livng in one of the most liberal areas in the country, most everyone took the same side.

So, I was wondering, what do other people think of the issue of living wage?
Please define it for me first, just so we're both talking about the same thing.

Less debt in current dollars, but people will continue to rack up debt irregardless. And if someone institutes deflationary policies, then the debt burden will be incredible.

Elimination of debt by inflation was once considered to be a rational thing to do for many economies under the Keynesian system, but it proved to be unhealthy, and the economic woes of the late sixties and seventies were the results. On top of that, when someone gets some sense back into their heads and kicks in some deflationary policies, it hurts. A lot. Albeit for a short amount of time, as was seen in the early eighties, but the pain is tremendous. Anti-inflationary policies are the only wise economic course to pursue.
Not to mention that those of us on "fixed incomes" are basically screwed when inflation takes off. :(

Really? I was about to say the same thing. Would you like a glass of sweet tea?


EDIT: I'll share with anyone else who wants some as well. It's delightful, not quite the good stuff I get in the Carolinas or Louisiana, but it's the best I can pull off in Ohio.
Nah, no tea for me. I will make one cowardly parting shot (at least I'll admit it, though, but I'm pretty much going to bed after I make this so if I respond to any response it will be much later)

I think you are over estemating the effect of raising up the lowest income earners to the point where they can pay their bills, as if all labor is done at the minimum wage and the bulk of the population lives below the poverty line. It's not 'everyone gets more' it's 'everyone who works full time gets enough to at least pay their bills.'

G'night, fully acknowledging it's now day...

Nah, no tea for me. I will make one cowardly parting shot (at least I'll admit it, though, but I'm pretty much going to bed after I make this so if I respond to any response it will be much later)
At least you admit it. Good to have a civil discussion on a forum once every millenia or so.

I think you are over estemating the effect of raising up the lowest income earners to the point where they can pay their bills, as if all labor is done at the minimum wage and the bulk of the population lives below the poverty line. It's not 'everyone gets more' it's 'everyone who works full time gets enough to at least pay their bills.'
It's the concept of runaway inflation that I'm concerned with. The sort of stuff they worried about in the sixties and seventies.


G'night, fully acknowledging it's now day...
I've done that before...

The inflation rate is calculated from the price increases, but it deals with the money supply. What I should have said is that the price increases would occur higher than what it would be if only normal inflation was taking effect. Sorry, it's still worded funny. Whoops, forgot about inflation related to money supply. You mean a minimum wage increases inflation, that is, prices increasing at a faster rate than they would otherwise?Inflation is desirable to minimize though, and increasing the minimum wage will force prices higher and we'll be back at step 1 all over again. The US economy has been able to maintain incredibly low rates of inflation since the Paul Volcker was the fed chief.However, it is ridiculous to expect an economy to sustain itself if a segment of society is paid less than it costs to live. So a trade off of higher inflation to prevent an economy collapsing seems worthwhile. If wages became low enough I would presume we would witness deurbanisation, as workers left the cities to return to an agarian lifestyle where they can provide for themselves and their families directly (Ok, so that's taking it to an extreme, but it could happen).

Ahh, the "living wage"... can we say a subjective buzz phrase?

What qualifies as the "living wage"?

How many cars? and of what condition?
TV/Cable/internet?
Do they smoke? Drink?
What level of phone service?
Rent/Own?
Name brand foods or generic?
Name brand clothes?
Etc.

What are they going to base it on? Either way, the ones who recieve it will soon cry that they're not getting enough as prices increase?

Like Syniks said, it's the level of consumption in most cases.

In my sociology class we were discussing living wage and, with me livng in one of the most liberal areas in the country, most everyone took the same side.

So, I was wondering, what do other people think of the issue of living wage?
There is a theory, that rather than placing minimum wage levels, the state should impose wage banding, with both bases and ceilings. movement to higher wages would require the attainment of new skills or promotion based on experience. Granted, this idea has only, Ithink, breifly, been tried in Malawi and was useful for detecting fraud - until the ruling party discovered it could be used against its members who had been helping themselves to the trough. The positives behind such a system are that it allows the state to make the nation more/less competitive and to prevent coruption and can allow a suitable mix between allowing the market to control the econbomy and the state to regulate the ecconomy, both have negative effects and the desire is to off set each against the other. The negative effect of such a system are that it allows the government of the day to favour specific classes and groups of workers at the expense of other and politicises wages even more.

300 dollars for rent?!?! Must be low income housing or something. Easy to say you can live life on the frill with rent like that. A decent 2 bdrm where I'm at is 1100 to 1300 a month. Minimum wage would be the suck.Yes, where you are it would suck. Especially for a single income family. BUT, you don't have to live there - or remain a minimum-wage single-income household. But then, define Decent.

I live in commuting distance to Chicago, by Train or car, and 2 miles from the Lake Michigan beach.

My 2-1/2 bedroom, 2 bath, 3 level condo costs $600/mo. That's mortgage, taxes, insurance, fees and dues.

The house My wife & her 2 sibs grew up in, your typical '50s rancher, is apparantly unacceptable today. Nobody wants to live in a 2000 sq ft home any more. It's McMansions, DeLuxe Apartments/Condos or nothing.

A savvy person can get a brand-new manufactured home (not a mobile) for considerably less than $100,000

Simply, expectations are too high for incomes.

Inflation sucks! Even with both military retirement and Social Insecurity, an increase in inflation would probably mean I'd have to go back to eating Ramen Noodles. Ramen Noodles should be outlawed as a biological weapon!

Define "decently". See above. I pay $5.00 US a month for basic ISP. I refuse to pay for Cable/Satellite/Broadband/New(ish) Cars/random-financed-commodities/etc.

For all that I am a "Capitalist", I am NOT a "Consumerist". It's not hard to live within your means if you not only don't try to "keep up with the Jones'", but don't give a shit what they think at all.

Live Simply, so others may Simply Live... and bank the rest.

Wow, you and I agree on something ;) I think a lot of people think a living wage should include a brand new 27" TV, a new car, owning your home, being able to go on vacation every year, etc. I am for a living wage. A living wage should include enough to able to afford minimal transportation to and from work, enough to eat without EVER eating out, medical insurance, a roof over your head but NOT a separate bedroom for each person, and enough for basic clothing, not new stuff every week or designer clothes. No more than that. If you want more go out and seek better.

The most common argument for the living wage is the single-parent with 10 children living in a shoe. However, most people are NOT that. Proponents say that these children need our help. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! They yell. What they don't remind you is that most people have or will have children. They forget that in raising minimum wages and providing income subsidies, they are stealing from those people and their children. What makes family "a" any more deserving than family "b"? More over, why is it worth STEALING from someone to subsidise the idiot(s) that chose to have more children than they can afford to support?

Not that Mount Pleasant...is any better.
Dude, you have a ski hill thingy in the city or very near you, if I remember right. Here I got one I walk to, but that's besides the point. *is jealous*

Honestly, I think it depends on the occupation in particular; the living wage should only apply to people ages 18 and over, because otherwise companies are really just wasting money.

There are arguments for and against it, but I think overall a living wage for employees ages 18+ would be a good idea; however, more qualifications might be required to qualify for that wage rate since it is higher pay than the market rate.

Inflation sucks! Even with both military retirement and Social Insecurity, an increase in inflation would probably mean I'd have to go back to eating Ramen Noodles. Ramen Noodles should be outlawed as a biological weapon!
Granted, but you might as well have posted "Getting stabbed sucks," it doesn't speak to the actual issue but rather the boogeyman. No one is saying "Yay! Inflation!"

It's the concept of runaway inflation that I'm concerned with. The sort of stuff they worried about in the sixties and seventies.
First, let me say thanks for understanding.

I understand your concern, but here is what I am saying. In order for this overall dominating effect it seems to require that a very large portion of the population is living below the poverty line unable to meet thier basic needs. There are two things that bother me then-first, I don't know how we can then claim to be a successful economy with that many people unable to meet basic needs. The second is the tacit implication that these people shouldn't be able to meet thier basic needs, which betrays the admitedly already tatered "American Dream." Both seem untenable to me.

enough that the person earns the exact same amount as everyone else in the region

enough that the person earns the exact same amount as everyone else in the region
Yay Socialism. Lowering everyone's expectations and opportunities to the point of cultural stasis. :rolleyes:

No Thanks :headbang:

enough that the person earns the exact same amount as everyone else in the region

And the economy stagnates and dies while technology and productivity grind to a halt. The income gap is a good thing when it can be overcome through education and dedicated work.

And the economy stagnates and dies while technology and productivity grind to a halt. The income gap is a good thing when it can be overcome through education and dedicated work.
I don't think that it is at all reasonable or even sane to make not working an honest day's work while amassing or more likely retaining more personal wealth than the individual could ever possibly use or need, the carefully-considered pinnacle of human achievement. It is madness.

One thing I want to make clear, living wage is not the same as minimum wage. If someone were to pass a living wage law, the minimum wage would stay the same. Living wage is something that is usually implimented locally, in area where the cost of living is higher than the rest of the country. Central Tennesse probaly wouldn't have a living wage, while the suburbs of D.C. would. The main reaon for the living wage is to make sure people can afford the insanley high living prices in some areas.
Normally, living wage is calculated with the idea of a single parent in mind. It includes, healthcare, rent, food, clothing, transportation, tax, and utilities. Also, living wage would only apply to household providers, so it wouldn't apply to most teenagers.

One thing I want to make clear, living wage is not the same as minimum wage. If someone were to pass a living wage law, the minimum wage would stay the same. Living wage is something that is usually implimented locally, in area where the cost of living is higher than the rest of the country. Central Tennesse probaly wouldn't have a living wage, while the suburbs of D.C. would. The main reaon for the living wage is to make sure people can afford the insanley high living prices in some areas.
Normally, living wage is calculated with the idea of a single parent in mind. It includes, healthcare, rent, food, clothing, transportation, tax, and utilities. Also, living wage would only apply to household providers, so it wouldn't apply to most teenagers.
That's called a COLA, and that is why high cost of living areas usually already have an adjusted "minimum wage".

It's amazing to me how so many physically "disabled" people can make 5-1/2 or six figures, yet so many able bodied whine about how "disadvantaged" they are.

Sean Stephenson, a motivational speaker and author of (IIRC) 2 books before he was 28 - who also happens to live in a wheelchair because he has Osteogenesis Imperfecta (glass bone disease) puts it rather well:

"I believe the only disability is one's inability to adapt when life throws situations and you are not willing to change."

Spend less, make more. Sell stuff and move where life is cheaper. Get off your butt and work for a living. Who's fault is it anyway if you can't rise above "minimum wage" to make a "living" (if not lavish) wage.

-snip-
Spend less, make more. Sell stuff and move where life is cheaper. Get off your butt and work for a living. Who's fault is it anyway if you can't rise above "minimum wage" to make a "living" (if not lavish) wage.
The 'just move' thing creates a problem, something that cities like San Francisco is facing with gentrification. If the service workers at the bottom, the ones who actually make the city tick, can't afford to live in the city that they work for it becomes a problem. If you tell them 'just move' you don't have anyone to do essential jobs. It's not as cut and dry.

To the rest, Horatio Alger boot strap acedotal stories don't really 'prove' anything.

A 2 bedroom apt here runs $300(+/-)/mo. Assume food @ 50/wk for @216/mo (now at 516) Add $75/mo for Petrol & Maintenance, (591) and $100/mo for Utilities (691) that leaves $200/mo for clothes & sundries.Other people have mentioned the rather low rent, that's a bit low even for here, and we have the lowest housing costs for any city with over 200,000 people. I would like to point out your incredibly low amount for utilities; our gas bill alone is more than that.

Other people have mentioned the rather low rent, that's a bit low even for here, and we have the lowest housing costs for any city with over 200,000 people. I would like to point out your incredibly low amount for utilities; our gas bill alone is more than that.

My utility bill is a function of my rate of consumption. The other 24 townhome/condos in our association bitch about paying 3-4x what we do... and we are on an end unit. Silly me for keeping my heat to 65 and not running massive, powerhungry entertainment sytems.


And I "just moved". After 3 years of looking, and not finding, work where I was living, I sold off perhaps 80% of my stuff and moved across country - to a place where I don't particularly like to live, but where I have work.

I really have little sympathy for people who are unwilling to change. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

My utility bill is a function of my rate of consumption. The other 24 townhome/condos in our association bitch about paying 3-4x what we do... and we are on an end unit. Silly me for keeping my heat to 65 and not running massive, powerhungry entertainment sytems.I assume your condo has good insulation. You also have no children, which is useful, as children tend to be bad at conserving things.

And I "just moved". After 3 years of looking, and not finding, work where I was living, I sold off perhaps 80% of my stuff and moved across country - to a place where I don't particularly like to live, but where I have work.That sucks.

I really have little sympathy for people who are unwilling to change. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.Fighting for a living wage to be instituted isn't doing the same thing over and over.

I assume your condo has good insulation. You also have no children, which is useful, as children tend to be bad at conserving things.My condo has the same (moderately shitty) insulation as the rest of the units. But yeah, kids do tend to be wasteful little brutes. Glad I don't have to drown any.[/quote]
That sucks.Yep. Life sucks sometime. Had to sell my most favorite possession because it was worth the most... my Freedom Arms .454 Casull. :( But I did it because I was unwilling to stay in the rut of underemployment. Kids whine. Grownups deal.
Fighting for a living wage to be instituted isn't doing the same thing over and over.No, but staying un/underemployed, spending too much on nonessentials and whining about how little you make and how you need the State to ensure you make more is doing the same thing over and over. Unfortunately it's that insanity that drives "progressive" politics and policies.

My condo has the same (moderately shitty) insulation as the rest of the units. But yeah, kids do tend to be wasteful little brutes. Glad I don't have to drown any.Lol.
Are you sure that that $30 a week you spend gets you a balanced diet?
Yep. Life sucks sometime. Had to sell my most favorite possession because it was worth the most... my Freedom Arms .454 Casull. :( But I did it because I was unwilling to stay in the rut of underemployment. Kids whine. Grownups deal.Must've been frightening to have to start over again almost from scratch.

No, but staying un/underemployed, spending too much on nonessentials and whining about how little you make and how you need the State to ensure you make more is doing the same thing over and over. Unfortunately it's that insanity that drives "progressive" politics and policies.Seeing how capitalism requires unemployment, there will have to be people who are un/underemployed in capitalism.

Lol.
Are you sure that that $30 a week you spend gets you a balanced diet? Yep. Probably better than most people's since I actually cook rather than buy prepared frankenfood.
Must've been frightening to have to start over again almost from scratch.More irratating than frightening. I knew I was moving to where I had a 3 year, open-ended contract. That and the VA was enough to let me buy a 15 year old $70,000 condo. Better than scraping by for rent.
Seeing how capitalism requires unemployment, there will have to be people who are un/underemployed in capitalism.
Yes, it requires unemployment - temporary unemployment of individuals. Anyone who stays unemployed isn't trying hard enough. (I was never unemployed, just underemployed. There is plenty of temp work out there for people willing to work.)

Wait... isn't that living wage?(in reference to minimum wage)
Um...no. If you can live on that you should get a standing ovation 'cause damn...do you even have electricity? ...

Dude, you have a ski hill thingy in the city or very near you, if I remember right. Here I got one I walk to, but that's besides the point. *is jealous*

We don't have any here, but there is one in Gaylord, and one in Harrison I think. I know there are a couple up in Cadillac and TC.

Yep. Probably better than most people's since I actually cook rather than buy prepared frankenfood.Ah, you had the skill of cooking.

More irratating than frightening. I knew I was moving to where I had a 3 year, open-ended contract. That and the VA was enough to let me buy a 15 year old $70,000 condo. Better than scraping by for rent.That's good. Do you view VA as a good or a bad idea?

Yes, it requires unemployment - temporary unemployment of individuals. Anyone who stays unemployed isn't trying hard enough. (I was never unemployed, just underemployed. There is plenty of temp work out there for people willing to work.)But is that temp work enough to live off of? (I don't mean in subjective terms, either.)

Ah, you had the skill of cooking.And sewing. And Hunting. And Fishing. And Farming. And reading the full set of Harvard Classics I found at the dump as a child. A regular auto-diadect.
That's good. Do you view VA as a good or a bad idea?I'm ambivilent. As a Govt' program it is, like most of them, innefficient, poorly managed and expensive. Really the only thing the VA did for me when I bought the house was to give me a 0 down option on purchase. Nothing else really changed. I suppose the "cost" to the VA was maybe 2 hours of paperwork. However, there are a lot of ex-soldiers who paid with body parts to "get" their VA benefits, such as they are. I only did 8 years labor to be able to avoid scrounging a down payment.
But is that temp work enough to live off of?I could have lived off it indefinately. While the work wasn't steady, it was regular. Proper budgeting and a nonconsumerist lifestyle will let most people live quite adequately on 2/3 or so of the local "living wage". I wanted more stability and a non-random chance for growth, so I moved.

And sewing. And Hunting. And Fishing. And Farming. And reading the full set of Harvard Classics I found at the dump as a child. A regular auto-diadect.I wish I had all of those skills. (Well, I can, and do read.)

I'm ambivilent. As a Govt' program it is, like most of them, innefficient, poorly managed and expensive. Really the only thing the VA did for me when I bought the house was to give me a 0 down option on purchase. Nothing else really changed. I suppose the "cost" to the VA was maybe 2 hours of paperwork. However, there are a lot of ex-soldiers who paid with body parts to "get" their VA benefits, such as they are. I only did 8 years labor to be able to avoid scrounging a down payment. Seems to me that the VA program could use a little more funding, from your description.

I could have lived off it indefinately. While the work wasn't steady, it was regular. Proper budgeting and a nonconsumerist lifestyle will let most people live quite adequately on 2/3 or so of the local "living wage". I wanted more stability and a non-random chance for growth, so I moved.Could you have lived off it if you'd had children?

Could you have lived off it if you'd had children?
I won't say "yes" because I have no experience base there. However, I do know that I would have worked more hours if necessary or moved sooner.

I won't say "yes" because I have no experience base there. However, I do know that I would have worked more hours if necessary or moved sooner.Who would have watched your children while you were working?

Who would have watched your children while you were working?
My wife. Who is Disabled and can't "work".

Who would have watched your children while you were working?
There's another way to look at this. That is, one shouldn't have children until one can afford them. Not, one should be paid enough to care for children, so that one can have them.

There's another way to look at this. That is, one shouldn't have children until one can afford them. Not, one should be paid enough to care for children, so that one can have them.
Cookie!

My wife. Who is Disabled and can't "work".Ah, I see. Do you think everyone would be able to raise children with just one income earner?

There's another way to look at this. That is, one shouldn't have children until one can afford them. Not, one should be paid enough to care for children, so that one can have them. Yes, that's how it should be, but you have to ask: what becomes of the children that have been born whose parents can't afford them? In other words, why should the children be punished for the mistakes of their parents?

Ah, I see. Do you think everyone would be able to raise children with just one income earner?Given that the cost of day care often (usually) exceeds the income of the people we are talking about (vis-a-vis "living wage"), Yes. If they budget and don't fall into consumerisim.

How about an example: My wife volunteers at an after school program for (mostly low income) kids who would otherwise be "latchkey". For the token fee of $15/wk, a kid can stay at school involved in educational activities until 6pm.

It's funny how many people with Bling Cars, who are regularly running off on trips, who are wearing designer duds, ask if thereis a "program" to help them afford the $15/wk. :headbang:
Yes, that's how it should be, but you have to ask: what becomes of the children that have been born whose parents can't afford them? In other words, why should the children be punished for the mistakes of their parents?
Who should? Why me? How about the Parents? How about Parental responsibility? Familial Responsibility? Why is it State (i.e. MY) responsibility?

Ah, I see. Do you think everyone would be able to raise children with just one income earner?

Yes, that's how it should be, but you have to ask: what becomes of the children that have been born whose parents can't afford them? In other words, why should the children be punished for the mistakes of their parents?
Food stamps, the dole, a second job, or some combination of those will fill in the gaps.

It's funny how many people with Bling Cars, who are regularly running off on trips, who are wearing designer duds, ask if thereis a "program" to help them afford the $15/wk. :headbang: I don't know that the ever increasing sale of credit cards to people and therefore the ever increasing scale of debt is evidence that people aren't as poor as they claim to be.

Who should? Why me? How about the Parents? How about Parental responsibility? Familial Responsibility? Why is it State (i.e. MY) responsibility?Would you consider someone who has children they can't afford to be responsible? If not, then it's safe to say they won't be living up to their responsibilities...so I ask again: why should the child be punished for this?

Food stamps, the dole, a second job, or some combination of those will fill in the gaps.You would rather people have food stamps and welfare (i.e. not working) than working?

You would rather people have food stamps and welfare (i.e. not working) than working?
Didn't I mention something about a second job? Doesn't that imply a first job? Where did you get the idea about not working?

I don't know that the ever increasing sale of credit cards to people and therefore the ever increasing scale of debt is evidence that people aren't as poor as they claim to be.And we need a "Living Wage" to pay for their stupidity?
Would you consider someone who has children they can't afford to be responsible? If not, then it's safe to say they won't be living up to their responsibilities...so I ask again: why should the child be punished for this?So are you saying they are too irresponsible to have children, but not irresponsible enough that we can take the kids away?

Again, define "afford". I see an awful lot of Satellite dishes and cable TV over in the housing projects. And you can't keep paying that on credit cards for very long.

Ah, I see. Do you think everyone would be able to raise children with just one income earner?

Yes, that's how it should be, but you have to ask: what becomes of the children that have been born whose parents can't afford them? In other words, why should the children be punished for the mistakes of their parents?

How about instead of forcing all companies to provide the same wage, we cut all taxes so that only one person in a household has to work?

I just got what was supposed to be a $1500 bonus, which was only $853 by the time it got to me. If I could have received the $1500, more bills would have been paid, leaving more disposable income to prop up the economy...

Didn't I mention something about a second job? Doesn't that imply a first job? Where did you get the idea about not working?I assumed that you meant one of those things at a time would fill in the gaps as opposed to all of them at the same time...of course, I'm not sure where all these jobs are coming from (with regard to capitalism requiring unemployment)

And we need a "Living Wage" to pay for their stupidity?I should think it would be much simpler and less bureaucratic than having separate government bodies: a child daycare office, a welfare office, a children's healthcare office, etc.

So are you saying they are too irresponsible to have children, I wouldn't argue that people who can't afford children can't have them, but for the sake of argument I conceded the point.

but not irresponsible enough that we can take the kids away?So then instead of the defacto income discrimination that capitalism causes, you want to codify it?

Again, define "afford". I see an awful lot of Satellite dishes and cable TV over in the housing projects. And you can't keep paying that on credit cards for very long.Not on those same credit cards, but credit card companies will continue to offer credit cards with ever increasing interest rates on and on and on.

How about instead of forcing all companies to provide the same wage, we cut all taxes so that only one person in a household has to work?Low income people don't pay very many taxes, if any, so this approach would not work, even if you offered to pay their Social Security and State taxes, etc., for them.

I just got what was supposed to be a $1500 bonus, which was only $853 by the time it got to me. If I could have received the $1500, more bills would have been paid, leaving more disposable income to prop up the economy...Congrats on the bonus, but I don't see you as a low income earner.

I assumed that you meant one of those things at a time would fill in the gaps as opposed to all of them at the same time...of course, I'm not sure where all these jobs are coming from (with regard to capitalism requiring unemployment)

Things must be different in Pittsburgh, but here in Atlanta it's hard to avoid working. In fact, with the unemployment rate at around 4.8 percent, it's hard to imagine not finding a job, anywhere. I think you need to throw away those doom-and-gloom econ books and start looking at the want-ads instead if you want to get a real picture of capitalism.

I assumed that you meant one of those things at a time would fill in the gaps as opposed to all of them at the same time...of course, I'm not sure where all these jobs are coming from (with regard to capitalism requiring unemployment)Again, it requires only a limited, fluid amount of unemployment. As soon as someone becomes professionally unemployed, they no longer contribute to that "requirement".
I should think it would be much simpler and less bureaucratic than having separate government bodies: a child daycare office, a welfare office, a children's healthcare office, etc.But would it be less expensive? Would it keep stupid people from acting stupidly and continuing to overconsume?
I wouldn't argue that people who can't afford children can't have them, but for the sake of argument I conceded the point. So then instead of the defacto income discrimination that capitalism causes, you want to codify it? In neither case. I was wondering what you meant and was trying to restate it.
Not on those same credit cards, but credit card companies will continue to offer credit cards with ever increasing interest rates on and on and on.Again, when did it become my (Govt or Industry) responsibility to prop up the overconsumerisim and poor financial habits of others?

Things must be different in Pittsburgh, but here in Atlanta it's hard to avoid working. In fact, with the unemployment rate at around 4.8 percent, it's hard to imagine not finding a job, anywhere. I think you need to throw away those doom-and-gloom econ books and start looking at the want-ads instead if you want to get a real picture of capitalism.It's hard to imagine finding a job without having any job skills.

Again, it requires only a limited, fluid amount of unemployment. As soon as someone becomes professionally unemployed, they no longer contribute to that "requirement".I wouldn't say that someone being unemployed for a lengthy amount of time necessarily makes them professionally unemployed; merely just having bad luck.

But would it be less expensive? Would it keep stupid people from acting stupidly and continuing to overconsume?The only thing that will keep overconsumption from happening is the complete restructuring of the credit card system; I don't see that happening. Can you prove that 100% of people who don't make enough to live on are being wasteful?

Again, when did it become my (Govt or Industry) responsibility to prop up the overconsumerisim and poor financial habits of others?Well, when people have children they can't afford, that is one option. There are two other options: take these children away from people and codify this into law, or let the children starve to death. Is there another option?

It's hard to imagine finding a job without having any job skills.

And that brings us around to the living wage. This statement would carry far more truth if a living wage were law. The worker has to be hired to be paid, but why would an employer risk hiring the unexperienced when they are so costly? It's less risk to just expect more production from the already employed until a suitable new hire can be found. So the unexperienced remain unexperienced and unemployed.

It's hard to imagine finding a job without having any job skills.Who's fault?
I wouldn't say that someone being unemployed for a lengthy amount of time necessarily makes them professionally unemployed; merely just having bad luck.I temped for 3 years. I changed my luck. I still don't make a lot, but I make enough.
The only thing that will keep overconsumption from happening is the complete restructuring of the credit card system; I don't see that happening. Can you prove that 100% of people who don't make enough to live on are being wasteful? Can you prove they are not? I call having TV and going to McDonalds wasteful. If you could have a healthy home/personal life without it in 1950, why is it a necessity now?
Well, when people have children they can't afford, that is one option. There are two other options: take these children away from people and codify this into law, or let the children starve to death. Is there another option?How about, Familial Responsibility? How about Voluntary Social Association (Religious/Fraternal/whatever)?

I took home $18138.94 last year. My annual budget is $17,826 - including $480/yr as disposable income. I saved $312.94, and will add another $300 when I get my tax return back.

All "supplemental" spending I do (like my gun stuff) comes from freelance IT and Photo work. If I don't have cash for it, I don't buy it.

My definition of Wasteful has a pretty high bar.

And that brings us around to the living wage. This statement would carry far more truth if a living wage were law. The worker has to be hired to be paid, but why would an employer risk hiring the unexperienced when they are so costly? It's less risk to just expect more production from the already employed until a suitable new hire can be found. So the unexperienced remain unexperienced and unemployed.I don't know if this would necessarily be the case, but even if it is: 1 person making a living wage > 2 people making a minimum wage, because the person who isn't working could be on welfare and/or a government subsidized work training program.

Who's fault?Hard to say. It could be argued that the people who have access to skills are at fault for not acquiring them, but not everybody has access to skills.

I temped for 3 years. I changed my luck. I still don't make a lot, but I make enough.But as you said, you were underemployed, not unemployed. That's not great, but it's better than nothing; at least you had something to put on your resume.

Can you prove they are not? Well, there are homeless people, and the evidence that some of them became homeless simply from losing a job at a crucial time.

I call having TV and going to McDonalds wasteful. If you could have a healthy home/personal life without it in 1950, why is it a necessity now? Well, back in the 1950 there were one income earner families. (McDonald's wasn't invented until 1957, but that isn't your point, I know.) If there was fast food back then, there was less of a demand for it because the woman who was home could spend a lot of time cooking. Working women don't have as much time. People back then also went to the movies more as a form of entertainment; nowadays it's more economical to watch movies on TV.
I can't say positively from 1950, but inflation has risen higher than average wages since 1970 until today. In other words, people are poorer now than they were back then, so in many cases they literally can't afford to have a single income earner household.

How about, Familial Responsibility?Not every one has a large extended family that can afford to help out, or would want to.

How about Voluntary Social Association (Religious/Fraternal/whatever)? The evidence is against private charities being sufficient to meet demand, although this would be a much smaller demand.

I took home $18138.94 last year. My annual budget is $17,826 - including $480/yr as disposable income. I saved $312.94, and will add another $300 when I get my tax return back.

All "supplemental" spending I do (like my gun stuff) comes from freelance IT and Photo work. If I don't have cash for it, I don't buy it.

My definition of Wasteful has a pretty high bar.Well, it's pretty amazing to live on that much in Chicago, so kudos to you, but this doesn't answer the problem of families with children.

Who's fault?
I temped for 3 years. I changed my luck. I still don't make a lot, but I make enough.
Can you prove they are not? I call having TV and going to McDonalds wasteful. If you could have a healthy home/personal life without it in 1950, why is it a necessity now?
How about, Familial Responsibility? How about Voluntary Social Association (Religious/Fraternal/whatever)?

I took home $18138.94 last year. My annual budget is $17,826 - including $480/yr as disposable income. I saved $312.94, and will add another $300 when I get my tax return back.

All "supplemental" spending I do (like my gun stuff) comes from freelance IT and Photo work. If I don't have cash for it, I don't buy it.

My definition of Wasteful has a pretty high bar.


You're living high on the hog. I made a little over $22K last year and I have a mortgage w/ 2 kids. I'm also in the reserves to make some extra cash and have some heavy debt from when I was un/partially employed for nearly a year. I haven't missed a payment yet and the only gov't assistance we still recieve is healthcare. Everything else goes towards bills and paying off the debt.

We rarely eat out or go to the movies. When we do, the in-laws ussually pay. Don't have cable (TV w/ antenna) so the internet is the only luxury we have. I go w/ a cheap local landline service.

What constitutes a ‘living wage’?
I choose to work at a job which pays about half of what I could be making in the private sector because I think what I do for non-profits is more personally rewarding than to work in a cube farm. As such I cannot live in downtown. I live in a shitty 30 year old apartment building and have a little over an hour long commute (if I'm lucky and don’t hit traffic or the subway doesn’t break down – which happens often).

I do not have cable, I usually buy food on sale and cook it myself rather than ordering delivery or going out (which is a lot healthier anyway), do not buy lots of clothes or shoes – and when I do it’s usually generic crap from Walmart, drive a used car, do not go on vacation very often, and generally live frugally. Despite my low income, I actually live fairly comfortably without any government assistance, and go out partying with friends at least once a week. Were I trying to support a kid or someone, I would stop going out as much, and if I still couldn’t make ends meet there are many government programs in place already (though personally I am against most of them too). Government is highly inefficient and drastically needs to be reformed when it comes to welfare, but I will try to stick to this topic.

The problem is not with the need for a ‘living wage’, it is with people not living within their means. Cable is not a basic necessity, neither are the newest Nike shoes, powerful car stereos, going out all weekend, cigarettes, weed, or much of what my neighbors spend money on.

If the cost of living is too high for them in a certain area, then move. If workers become scarce in an area because the cost of living is too high, employers will increase the pay until they can attract workers. Simple free market solution, it will balance itself out.

If you keep raising the cost of hiring someone, you get the problem of it not being worth it to hire them. Many of the low paying jobs will simply disappear. Companies will need to raise prices to offset the higher payroll costs of the workers they do keep, which will drive up inflation. So surprise, you get higher inflation and higher unemployment.

Instead of complaining that people don’t make enough to live on, why not take a look at why they cant live on it. I don’t care who you are, you can find a job – even if its flipping burgers at burger king. If you cant live on that then something is wrong with the choices you are making, and why should I be forced to subsidize those bad choices?

You're living high on the hog. I made a little over $22K last year and I have a mortgage w/ 2 kids. I'm also in the reserves to make some extra cash and have some heavy debt from when I was un/partially employed for nearly a year. I haven't missed a payment yet and the only gov't assistance we still recieve is healthcare. Everything else goes towards bills and paying off the debt.

We rarely eat out or go to the movies. When we do, the in-laws ussually pay. Don't have cable (TV w/ antenna) so the internet is the only luxury we have. I go w/ a cheap local landline service.

Seperated at Birth were we? :p

And thus my point is made. A "Living wage" is entirely subjective, and therefore somthing the Government should not be involved in - like Religion.

....I don’t care who you are, you can find a job – even if its flipping burgers at burger king. If you cant live on that then something is wrong with the choices you are making, and why should I be forced to subsidize those bad choices?

someone could live off that?

someone could live off that?It's been claimed that it's possible, yes, but I don't see it.

It's been claimed that it's possible, yes, but I don't see it.
If it is a single minimum wage job, held by someone with dependents, who isn't sharing living quarters with another wage earner - probably not.

But then,

(A) depending on where you are Burgerking already pays more than minimum.

(B) More than one job is quite doable.

(C) Why are you living alone?

(D) If you are still making Minimum Wage after 3 months your problem is personal.

If it is a single minimum wage job, held by someone with dependents, who isn't sharing living quarters with another wage earner - probably not.

But then,

(A) depending on where you are Burgerking already pays more than minimum.

(B) More than one job is quite doable.

(C) Why are you living alone?

(D) If you are still making Minimum Wage after 3 months your problem is personal.(A) True, but those places also have higher costs of living.
(B) Not for everybody. This also doesn't take into account the lack of medical insurance that somebody would have, and the likelihood that the additional strain of working two jobs would cause a reduction in the immune system due to lack of sleep which would cause that person to need a doctor, which would have added expenses.
(C) If you can't find anyone else to live with, you'd live alone.
(D) True, the places that start at minimum wage do give token raises after a month or two.

The living wage is so they'll have more money to waste on more products and services they do not need.

You can live off of a minimum wage job even in an area with a high cost of living like Washington DC.

You cry ‘what about medical insurance?!’
Medicaid is a program that pays for medical care for those who earn low wages. As opposed to those of us who make slightly more, who cannot afford insurance and cannot get subsidized care.

Additionally, you can get food stamps to subsidize your food. It even comes on a little credit card thingie in my county. Makes it really easy.

No matter where you are, you can find somewhere to live. The Department of Health and Human Services can even help you with that. If they cannot provide you with a subsidized apartment (which around here is about $300 for a two bedroom apartment – in the identical one right next door I am paying $1200) because of a long waiting list, they can help you find cheap housing.

If, despite paying little for rent and getting free food, you cannot survive on a minimum wage job – you need to kick that meth habit.

When I had a few debts I had to pay off, I worked a full-time and two part-time jobs – all of which paid very little. I was able to pay my bills without government assistance (to which I am largely opposed and would not be hypocritical by getting it – even though it’s my taxes paying for it). Granted, I don’t have any dependents, but once again – there are plenty of ways you can support yourself and your dependents with a reasonable standard of living on current government programs. There is no need to further damage the economy with new ones. We need to drastically reform the ones we have, not just add more crap on top of them.

Even if, just as a hypothetical, I were to agree that you could not support yourself working on minimum wage – we should focus the effort into reforming the multitude of programs that are already in place to fix this exact situation.

Yes, you don’t get to live a life of luxury – but why should I have to bust my ass to provide someone too lazy or incompetent to work with a better standard of living than I have?

You can live off of a minimum wage job even in an area with a high cost of living like Washington DC.

You cry ‘what about medical insurance?!’
Medicaid is a program that pays for medical care for those who earn low wages. As opposed to those of us who make slightly more, who cannot afford insurance and cannot get subsidized care.

Additionally, you can get food stamps to subsidize your food. It even comes on a little credit card thingie in my county. Makes it really easy.

No matter where you are, you can find somewhere to live. The Department of Health and Human Services can even help you with that. If they cannot provide you with a subsidized apartment (which around here is about $300 for a two bedroom apartment – in the identical one right next door I am paying $1200) because of a long waiting list, they can help you find cheap housing.

If, despite paying little for rent and getting free food, you cannot survive on a minimum wage job – you need to kick that meth habit.

When I had a few debts I had to pay off, I worked a full-time and two part-time jobs – all of which paid very little. I was able to pay my bills without government assistance (to which I am largely opposed and would not be hypocritical by getting it – even though it’s my taxes paying for it). Granted, I don’t have any dependents, but once again – there are plenty of ways you can support yourself and your dependents with a reasonable standard of living on current government programs. There is no need to further damage the economy with new ones. We need to drastically reform the ones we have, not just add more crap on top of them.

Even if, just as a hypothetical, I were to agree that you could not support yourself working on minimum wage – we should focus the effort into reforming the multitude of programs that are already in place to fix this exact situation.

Yes, you don’t get to live a life of luxury – but why should I have to bust my ass to provide someone too lazy or incompetent to work with a better standard of living than I have?


The purpose of living wage is to make sure people don't have to go on welfare to survive. You'll still have to pay for it through taxes if many people go on welfare.

The purpose of living wage is to make sure people don't have to go on welfare to survive. You'll still have to pay for it through taxes if many people go on welfare.
But it's like most other liberal ideas, it sounds great on the surface, but there is always a problem that doesn't appear until later. In this case, the problem would be greater unemployment, as employers shun the idea of employing inexperienced workers at wages higher than they can earn.