NationStates Jolt Archive

A living wage would be the wage on which someone could exist in reasonable comfort, not a life of luxury but not a life of unmitigated hardship either. So, obviously, it would vary from place to place, depending on rent expenses and such, and would also vary based on how many kids they have. "Living wage" is really more of a rhetorical term than a fixed amount.

I often hear the people at the coffee shop clamoring about a "living wage" but they aren't quite articulate enough to explain to me what exactly that means, and they get pissy when I ask questions.....so

what do people mean when they say living wage?

how much is it?

does it change with your personal responsibility? I mean if I have 2 kids do I get paid more than someone with none? does someone with credit card debt make more than me since I don't have any debt? Is it a flat rate and a guess? If it's a flat rate then what's the difference between that and a minimum wage?

what kinds of jobs would pay a living wage? are there some that wouldn't?

are you for/against it? how would it work if you could implement it your way?

please answer my questions!

define reasonable comfort

That's the question I keep asking.

Does it involve a good computer, cell phones, cable, regular vacations, nice cars, etc.

What levels are we talking about here?

define reasonable comfort

Lower middle class. Decent furniture, eating out once in a while, not living in a crappy apartment in a crappy part of town, that kind of thing. Probably not too much.

I often hear the people at the coffee shop clamoring about a "living wage" but they aren't quite articulate enough to explain to me what exactly that means, and they get pissy when I ask questions.....so

what do people mean when they say living wage?

how much is it?

does it change with your personal responsibility? I mean if I have 2 kids do I get paid more than someone with none? does someone with credit card debt make more than me since I don't have any debt? Is it a flat rate and a guess? If it's a flat rate then what's the difference between that and a minimum wage?

what kinds of jobs would pay a living wage? are there some that wouldn't?

are you for/against it? how would it work if you could implement it your way?

please answer my questions!

Everyone who works hard should at least be entitled to decent shelter, food, water, and power. Whatever covers that is a decent wage.

define reasonable comfort

You might want to define that first.

I could work for minimum wage and get a studio apt. for my family of 4, pay for some food (mostly rice) and water and power.......does that mean minimum wage is a living wage?

It depends on the area. You could not exist on that where I live.....

I could work for minimum wage and get a studio apt. for my family of 4, pay for some food (mostly rice) and water and power.......does that mean minimum wage is a living wage?

Sometimes minimum wage isn't quite enough for those amenities, depending on area. It varies with circumstances.

A living wage would be the wage on which someone could exist in reasonable comfort, not a life of luxury but not a life of unmitigated hardship either. So, obviously, it would vary from place to place, depending on rent expenses and such, and would also vary based on how many kids they have. "Living wage" is really more of a rhetorical term than a fixed amount.

define reasonable comfort

Everyone who works hard should at least be entitled to decent shelter, food, water, and power. Whatever covers that is a decent wage.

I could work for minimum wage and get a studio apt. for my family of 4, pay for some food (mostly rice) and water and power.......does that mean minimum wage is a living wage?

why would I? I didn't bring it up.

I want to know what a living wage entails. I don't have any idea.

Because we have had similar discussions in the past. I doubt these people know your viewpoints on what is needed to exist. ;)

define reasonable comfort

Like a house/apartment of some sort. Enough food that they're not starving. Running water (doesn't have to be hot and cold). Power. Enough to provide for furniture, even if it is shitty. Maybe a bike or a car. I think $30,000 is around where the border for a decent wage is. Maybe $40,000, on the high end.

You might want to define that first.

why would I? I didn't bring it up.

I want to know what a living wage entails. I don't have any idea.

It depends on the area. You could not exist on that where I live.....

I live in a poor state, it's true. Do you think they should up the minimum wage to a livable amount for your area? how much do you think that would be?

Everyone who works hard should at least be entitled to decent shelter, food, water, and power. Whatever covers that is a decent wage.

For once, I agree with you.

I live in a poor state, it's true. Do you think they should up the minimum wage to a livable amount for your area? how much do you think that would be?

Without getting into the commie vs capitalism tangent.

There is merit to a living wage.

Right now there is a shortage of people for jobs that are taken for granted(ie Nurses, teachers). The standard of living of the area is higher then the wage offered as such, they are short staffed or they import people to do the job.

Problem is it would be a cyclical problem.

Wages go up and then businessmen would increase prices on everything.

Because we have had similar discussions in the past. I doubt these people know your viewpoints on what is needed to exist. ;)

I have been slowly changing my opinion. ;) I have found that most of the "living wage" people in my area are whining because they don't own a house or have a new car or an XBox (or whatever that thing is called)

I think people should have food and shelter and utilities and if they can't afford it someone should be willing to supplement that, I would hope for private charity , but failing that some sort of government intervention.

I think that it generally varies from place to place and when I hear it used it generally refers to being able to work full time and being able to afford housing, food and heating in some places where it is needed.
Currently where I live a single mother with a single child would have to work 90 hours a week to afford all these for herself and one child (high rent prices) in these situations I do think that a living wage is fair and that it should vary from family to family/individual to individual.

Without getting into the commie vs capitalism tangent.

There is merit to a living wage.

Right now there is a shortage of people for jobs that are taken for granted(ie Nurses, teachers). The standard of living of the area is higher then the wage offered as such, they are short staffed or they import people to do the job.

Problem is it would be a cyclical problem.

Wages go up and then businessmen would increase prices on everything.

It pains me to say it, but probably the government should supplement until people can get the education needed to get a job where a living wage is standard. I don't think you should get $30K a year for working at Mc Donald's but I don't have as much of a problem with govt. co. helping you survive while you work your way through college at Mc Donald's, you know provided you finish and get a job they don't have to supplement so you can pay taxes to supplement others.... don't know how to work it without it being a mess. (and it would leave basically part-timers and students working fast food, which may ruin the supposed service)

Living wage is dependant on circumstances. Countries, provinces/states, and cities have different costs of living. People with health problems that require costly medications to stay alive or healthy have a higher cost of living, and require a higher living wage. I'm sure Wiki can explain it better than me: Living Wage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage)

The "living wage" for a family of four in my town is $150,000.

A living wage is generally a wage that delivers enough income to lift workers and their families out of poverty.

I'd manage it by a combination of an increase in the minimum wage, the EITC, and universal services like childcare subsidies, family allowances,healthcare, ect.

I could work for minimum wage and get a studio apt. for my family of 4, pay for some food (mostly rice) and water and power.......does that mean minimum wage is a living wage?A living wage is the wage needed to live like that while not going into the red over the long term. If were you live, minimum wage can do it, then so be it.


While these are not going to be amazing estimates, I'll put some out for where I live (Vancouver). If you are in my municipality, you are looking at about $40,000 for a family of four. If you go in closer to the municipality of Vancouver, you are looking at the same $40,000 for a single person.

A living wage is generally a wage that delivers enough income to lift workers and their families out of poverty.

I'd manage it by a combination of an increase in the minimum wage, the EITC, and universal services like childcare subsidies, family allowances,healthcare, ect.

pfft, depending on how you define poverty, its fine in my opinion. Some jobs should pay a low wage. Anything that anyone could do after being trained for a couple hours and doesn't require much skill would count. Of course working conditions may drive that wage higher. I do believe everyone should be paid a living wage, to me that would be the wage necessary to provide for your family the bare necessities. Personally I doubt there are many places where the minimum wage couldn't supply that. Housing (even if its just an apartment), healthy food and heating (as necessary, its called a jacket people). We should also realize that children are not a necessity if someone can't afford 5 kids and every amenity they could dream of they're not poor, they're just not affluent. If people were more willing to give up luxuries that they've begun to think of as necessities, then I think many people would be happier and more financially secure.

Well said, Lackadaisical.

I can live fairly comfortably on minimum wage, $8/hour, working only 24 hours/week. Not much savings or luxuries apart from the internet, but I never went hungry. I knew how much I could afford to spend and treated myself accordingly.

I realized that this thread topic is vast and in need of true insight, and I determined to give it all the time it required to come to the proper answer for posting here, through much study and calculation, historical context and social study research, all needing to take place in less then thirty five seconds, I've come to the correct answer. ;)

A "living wage" is an annual wage of exactly 25% of the 'average' family home price in the same community the job is located in, and it must provide health care benefits including dental, and have a retirement plan/benefit...

A "Good Wage" is an annual salary of 50% of the price of the same average home in that community, with benefits and a Christmas bonus of approximately 10% of their annual salary.

Now everyone knows. :D

You should be able to afford to live in an apartment that is ok. Not great, but not exactly a roach motel either. You should have enough money to eat ok food, you're not going to dine on lobsters but you're not going to be spending all of your money on junk food and Mc. Donald's either. Also enough money for maintenance of a used car, and few bucks left over for a rainy day or whatever.

I live in a poor state, it's true. Do you think they should up the minimum wage to a livable amount for your area? how much do you think that would be?

You can't get a furnished room for less than $700 a month in my area, and you certainly won't find an apartment, even a studio, for less than $1400/mo. You won't afford much on minimum wage here, which is fine. You aren't supposed to live your entire life on minimum wage.

A living wage should be the lowest wage that allows one to improve his wage. For example, if my wage is low enough I am unable to pay off debt, move, or find a way to fulfill the requirements for a better paying job (education or job training), then I am stuck. It is "wage slavery," to use the term of 19th century progressives.
Of course, eventually one reaches a point where there is no salary that allows you to go higher. I'd consider this to be the GDP per capita (about $43,000 in the US), but that's just because it is a convenient way of getting a number. I don't know what the real one is.

I often hear the people at the coffee shop clamoring about a "living wage" but they aren't quite articulate enough to explain to me what exactly that means, and they get pissy when I ask questions.....so

what do people mean when they say living wage?

how much is it?

does it change with your personal responsibility? I mean if I have 2 kids do I get paid more than someone with none? does someone with credit card debt make more than me since I don't have any debt? Is it a flat rate and a guess? If it's a flat rate then what's the difference between that and a minimum wage?

what kinds of jobs would pay a living wage? are there some that wouldn't?

are you for/against it? how would it work if you could implement it your way?

please answer my questions!

A living wage varies from one location to another.

My personal definition - enough money to afford decent housing (defined as vermin-free and in a low-crime area. This would also include the utilities), moderately priced transportation (depending on the area that could be an economy car [including insurance, fuel and maintenance] or effective public transportation), ample and nourishing food, adequate health and dental care, appropriate clothing for the season and climate, an adequate education (that would include computers - you simply can't get through school or get a job without computer proficiency) and the occasional, modest luxury (dinner out once a month or a movie, a new book once in a while. In Southern California the living wage would be fairly high, not less than $3600/mo (and then only if health and dental insurance were included as part of the compensation). In the flyover states it would be considerably less.

what do people mean when they say living wage?


A step or two above a zero sum game. Sufficient wages to provide basic standards of living commensurate with the local region's standard of living adjusted for inflation with sufficient remainder to provide a 5-10% capitals saving per paycheck.

My personal opinion is that a living wage is what is enough for a person to purchase basic food, basic shelter, basic clothing and enable them the means of accessing employment (whether it be private transport, or public). To be honest, the minimum wages of most Western countries are far above what I would consider a living wage; I could quite easily survive on NZ$1000 a month in Auckland; if I were in other parts of the country, I could easily survive on less.

if a tramp in amsterdam can live with 15 euro's then 30 must be enough for a living wage!

I think people should have food and shelter and utilities and if they can't afford it someone should be willing to supplement that, I would hope for private charity , but failing that some sort of government intervention.

See, I would opt for government in that case. For the vey simple reason that the charity is something you can only hope for, nobody can rely on it when they need it. ;)

I've never heard the term "living wage" before, so I'm not really qualified to even speculate about the meaning, but I feel if you are working in full-time employment, the wage should be such as to allow you to afford travelling to and from work, rent a decent place with heating and warm and cold water as well as electricity and a phone line, and afford food. So it would naturally be more in some areas and less in others. But there are more qualified people than myself spending most of their time trying to figure out how much it ought to be precisely, so maybe they'll come up with something clever eventually...

I suppose "living wage" is equal to the break-even level of price and quantity that allows a firm (or an individual) to continue selling their product (or labour) without going into bancruptcy (or starving*).

So it does change with the commitments the firm or person made previously.

*Starving not being meant literally. I'm saying that if you can cover your fixed and variable costs, that's good enough, if you can't you can't continue providing the product in question.

I often hear the people at the coffee shop clamoring about a "living wage" but they aren't quite articulate enough to explain to me what exactly that means, and they get pissy when I ask questions.....so

what do people mean when they say living wage?

how much is it?

does it change with your personal responsibility? I mean if I have 2 kids do I get paid more than someone with none? does someone with credit card debt make more than me since I don't have any debt? Is it a flat rate and a guess? If it's a flat rate then what's the difference between that and a minimum wage?

what kinds of jobs would pay a living wage? are there some that wouldn't?

are you for/against it? how would it work if you could implement it your way?

please answer my questions!
There are way too many answers that are just hand-waving. Typical liberal trash...

Put some numbers to the answers! Let's try this. A reasonable proportion for housing cost to income is between 1:3 and 1:4. Since we're asking the government to force this condition, let's pick the higher ratio.

Some low cost, but acceptable housing around here costs about $500 for a nice, one bedroom apartment. That means a living wage should be about $1500 USD per month, in my corner of Georgia.

Calculated over a loser's work week of forty hours, that means an hourly wage of around $8.50. Actually, that's pretty close to what I see advertised for entry level hourly work.

Of course, your mileage may vary, depending on what part of the country you live in. But, it's a bad idea in general and shouldn't be adopted by any government, save for those that have so few workers that the market has already driven the average wage past a "living" wage threshold.

A living wage varies from one location to another.

My personal definition - enough money to afford decent housing (defined as vermin-free and in a low-crime area. This would also include the utilities), moderately priced transportation (depending on the area that could be an economy car [including insurance, fuel and maintenance] or effective public transportation), ample and nourishing food, adequate health and dental care, appropriate clothing for the season and climate, an adequate education (that would include computers - you simply can't get through school or get a job without computer proficiency) and the occasional, modest luxury (dinner out once a month or a movie, a new book once in a while. In Southern California the living wage would be fairly high, not less than $3600/mo (and then only if health and dental insurance were included as part of the compensation). In the flyover states it would be considerably less.
Who is going to hire unskilled, entry workers at $20 per hour? We're talking about a floor of $40,000 per year for any job and that's silly.

Typical liberal trash...


It always makes me giggle when I see anti liberal sentiments, as the alternative to liberal thought must be fascist thought?

I.E. No regard for personal liberties and freedoms, do as we say when we say.

It always makes me giggle to see people so caught up in a throw-away phrase. That's why I put them in -- just to see the reaction.

Heh then as long as we make each other giggle!

It always makes me giggle when I see anti liberal sentiments, as the alternative to liberal thought must be fascist thought?

I.E. No regard for personal liberties and freedoms, do as we say when we say.
It always makes me giggle to see people so caught up in a throw-away phrase. That's why I put them in -- just to see the reaction. I mean, I've seen whole discussions derailed because someone got so caught up in a similar thought.

Heh then as long as we make each other giggle!

It's a good thing to start out the day with a giggle. Depending on where you are, it's a good thing to end the day the same way.

"living wage" proponents seem to want a higher standard of living without actually working for it. They complain about how they are exploited, when all they want to do is exploit their employer and be paid far more than they are worth. Flipping burgers doesn't let you live a life of luxury; get a better job or live within your means.

Illegal immigrants have a lot to overcome to live and work in the US, yet millions of them manage it to the point where they send home significant sums of money every month. If someone is working without the benefit of any legal protection (including minimum wage), has difficulty finding housing, etc, and can still save a couple hundred a month, I have no sympathy for those bleating about how life is so unfair that they cannot live a slackers paradise while working 40 hours a week at walmart.

It is not pleasant working at menial jobs for 80 hours a week - I speak from personal experience. I stocked the freezer section of the local supermarket, worked the front desk of a hotel in the evening, and spent the weekends as a waiter. It was miserable, but I managed to save 4 thousand dollars over summer break - and that was years ago when 4k was actually a lot of money (no! I'm too young to be making old man comments... back in my day...)

Clamoring for a 'living wage' is no more than whining about wanting to force employers to pay more than an employee is worth, because somehow it is an employer's responsibility to ensure that an employee is free from financial concerns. This is nothing more than a recipe for unemployment. It makes no sense to pay Juan $20/hr to flip burgers. Mandate a 'living wage' and you will quickly find that no wages are paid at all. Businesses need to make a profit - doubling their payroll expenses is not a recipe for economic paradise.

Do you honestly think employers have unlimited budgets for payroll and the only thing keeping them from paying employees more is out of a sadistic desire to 'exploit' employees? I guess working hard is more difficult than just trying to extort more money from businesses.

"living wage" proponents seem to want a higher standard of living without actually working for it. They complain about how they are exploited, when all they want to do is exploit their employer and be paid far more than they are worth. Flipping burgers doesn't let you live a life of luxury; get a better job or live within your means.

Illegal immigrants have a lot to overcome to live and work in the US, yet millions of them manage it to the point where they send home significant sums of money every month. If someone is working without the benefit of any legal protection (including minimum wage), has difficulty finding housing, etc, and can still save a couple hundred a month, I have no sympathy for those bleating about how life is so unfair that they cannot live a slackers paradise while working 40 hours a week at walmart.

It is not pleasant working at menial jobs for 80 hours a week - I speak from personal experience. I stocked the freezer section of the local supermarket, worked the front desk of a hotel in the evening, and spent the weekends as a waiter. It was miserable, but I managed to save 4 thousand dollars over summer break - and that was years ago when 4k was actually a lot of money (no! I'm too young to be making old man comments... back in my day...)

Clamoring for a 'living wage' is no more than whining about wanting to force employers to pay more than an employee is worth, because somehow it is an employer's responsibility to ensure that an employee is free from financial concerns. This is nothing more than a recipe for unemployment. It makes no sense to pay Juan $20/hr to flip burgers. Mandate a 'living wage' and you will quickly find that no wages are paid at all. Businesses need to make a profit - doubling their payroll expenses is not a recipe for economic paradise.

Do you honestly think employers have unlimited budgets for payroll and the only thing keeping them from paying employees more is out of a sadistic desire to 'exploit' employees? I guess working hard is more difficult than just trying to extort more money from businesses.

I used to know an old man who spent forty years examining the back legs of cows. He didn't spend his entire working life complaining demanding a 'living wage', he was happy just to have a job and get the odd pat on the back.

theres the "living wage" that means a little bit more than i am making now so that i could afford a few more toys

and

the "living wage" that is the amount a person would have to earn per hour in a 40 hour week to meet the most basic of needs--a place to live that meets local codes, food good enough to survive on, clothes from walmart, basic utilities, whatever.

i dont think that includes government help like rent assistance (when my niece was a struggling single mother she had a govt subsidize apt at $25/month), second hand clothing, or food stamps. it probably should.

the thing that *I* dont like about the living wage idea is that it includes the notion that one persons wages should be able to support a family of 4 in some fashion. that is just unrealistic for a substitute for the minimum wage. it should be 2 persons wages for a 40 hour week (or one for an 80 hour week i suppose). thats a hard enough goal in many places in this country.

Who is going to hire unskilled, entry workers at $20 per hour? We're talking about a floor of $40,000 per year for any job and that's silly.

That was for parts of Southern California. An 1100 sq.ft house costs a minimum of $310,000 (so we're talking a PITI payment of @$2000+ a month). Rents on comparable apartments neighborhoods are only a couple of hundred less (a 900 sq.ft 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment is over a $1000/month). Electricity averages $300/month, public transportation sucks, so a car is a necessity - gas is @ $3.50/gallon and the average commute is @ 45-60 miles. When I sold my house (1100 sq.ft. and in a transitional neighborhood) it was to an immigrant family for $310,000 - generally, Mexican immigrants don't get the highest paying jobs in SoCal. In Georgia, I imagine, things are considerably less expensive. So, living wage depends on location.

Btw, I bought my house when it was $90,000. In the job I had when I sold it, I could not have afforded to buy it, or even to have rented an outhouse in a slum.

That was for parts of Southern California. An 1100 sq.ft house costs a minimum of $310,000 (so we're talking a PITI payment of @$2000+ a month). Rents on comparable apartments neighborhoods are only a couple of hundred less (a 900 sq.ft 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment is over a $1000/month). Electricity averages $300/month, public transportation sucks, so a car is a necessity - gas is @ $3.50/gallon and the average commute is @ 45-60 miles. When I sold my house (1100 sq.ft. and in a transitional neighborhood) it was to an immigrant family for $310,000 - generally, Mexican immigrants don't get the highest paying jobs in SoCal. In Georgia, I imagine, things are considerably less expensive. So, living wage depends on location.

Btw, I bought my house when it was $90,000. In the job I had when I sold it, I could not have afforded to buy it, or even to have rented an outhouse in a slum.
Fine, I understand how prices work. But if I own the local Safeway, do you think I have the resources to pay every single bagger, cashier, stocker, etc $20 an hour? Of course not. I can't even pay the semi-skilled labor that much. Grocery stores just aren't high profit enterprises.

I'd have to close. Who does that help?

Fine, I understand how prices work. But if I own the local Safeway, do you think I have the resources to pay every single bagger, cashier, stocker, etc $20 an hour? Of course not. I can't even pay the semi-skilled labor that much. Grocery stores just aren't high profit enterprises.

I'd have to close. Who does that help?

Yes, I do understand that. I also understand that we're talking about what a living wage should be as opposed to what actual wages are.

Southern California is essentially turning into a third world country, with a massive divide between rich and poor and an ever-shrinking middle class. The wealthy have 5,000 sq.ft. homes for three people, the poor have 1100 sq.ft. homes for three families. Of course, we could define a living wage a little closer to reality - enough to have shelter, however inadequate, food, however inadequate, enough cheap clothing to cover you and be grateful the climate isn't extreme, no medical or dental care - those become luxuries that only the wealthy can afford. And as for the occasional luxury, why bother, those people at the poor end of the spectrum are probably illiterate and wouldn't appreciate them anyway. Besides, keeping the wages low would discourage immigration.

I often hear the people at the coffee shop clamoring about a "living wage" but they aren't quite articulate enough to explain to me what exactly that means, and they get pissy when I ask questions.....so

what do people mean when they say living wage?

how much is it?

does it change with your personal responsibility? I mean if I have 2 kids do I get paid more than someone with none? does someone with credit card debt make more than me since I don't have any debt? Is it a flat rate and a guess? If it's a flat rate then what's the difference between that and a minimum wage?

what kinds of jobs would pay a living wage? are there some that wouldn't?

are you for/against it? how would it work if you could implement it your way?

please answer my questions!

I realize my earlier response didn't answer all your questions.

As far as personal responsibility, no, I don't think the pay should change if you have kids or an elderly parent you're caring for.

I think any job should pay at least a living wage, as far as I know not too many people are dying of starvation in the US, so I'd say we don't have to worry too much about it.

I am for a living wage, but that is something that must be worked out between an employer and an employee. I don't think too many people would work for very long on a wage that doesn't provide a living (cause they'd all die).

Finally, some people when they say living wage think of: electricity, nice housing, kids, cars, games, useless stuff etc. In other words the good life. It's my opinion that this level of living is called the middle class, and that people who are bad at managing money or have few job skills want this is good. All they have to do is run their lives properly, I don't think its the job of the nanny state to give everyone an XBOX for Christmas, at the expense of anyone. Increasing minimum wage does one thing, crunches those in the middle as prices rise and their salary stays the same.

Yes, I do understand that. I also understand that we're talking about what a living wage should be as opposed to what actual wages are.

Southern California is essentially turning into a third world country, with a massive divide between rich and poor and an ever-shrinking middle class. The wealthy have 5,000 sq.ft. homes for three people, the poor have 1100 sq.ft. homes for three families. Of course, we could define a living wage a little closer to reality - enough to have shelter, however inadequate, food, however inadequate, enough cheap clothing to cover you and be grateful the climate isn't extreme, no medical or dental care - those become luxuries that only the wealthy can afford. And as for the occasional luxury, why bother, those people at the poor end of the spectrum are probably illiterate and wouldn't appreciate them anyway. Besides, keeping the wages low would discourage immigration.
I think the conclusion that is supported by the facts is that a living wage is impractical in high cost of living areas.

I think the conclusion that is supported by the facts is that a living wage is impractical in high cost of living areas.

Well, that would be one way to clear those areas out. If the service workers (gardeners, maids, store clerks, waitpersons, etc) can't afford to live near their jobs, then they can't afford to have those jobs and will seek work in more affordable areas. The rich, having no gardeners, maids, etc., will have to do the work themselves - I can think of nothing that would encourage someone to pay their maid a living wage more than having to clean up after themselves. Store owners, unable to find employees, will have to close or raise the wages.

Interesting conundrum, isn't it. If you pay high wages, your profit margin disappears and you have to close. If you pay low wages, your employees disappear and you have to close.

Well, that would be one way to clear those areas out. If the service workers (gardeners, maids, store clerks, waitpersons, etc) can't afford to live near their jobs, then they can't afford to have those jobs and will seek work in more affordable areas. The rich, having no gardeners, maids, etc., will have to do the work themselves - I can think of nothing that would encourage someone to pay their maid a living wage more than having to clean up after themselves. Store owners, unable to find employees, will have to close or raise the wages.

Interesting conundrum, isn't it. If you pay high wages, your profit margin disappears and you have to close. If you pay low wages, your employees disappear and you have to close.
But in the more affordable areas, the need or desire for gardeners, maids, and such other personal employees is a lot lower. Around here, these services are paid by the job -- lawn care is a flat fee, house cleaning is per room. I don't see that changing. If someone wants to make more money, they take on more work.

The real problem comes in compensating direct employees. They must not only be paid the prevailing "Living Wage", but must also have their payroll taxes paid by the employer. That makes the total paid for a direct employee just about twice his wages.

No one is going to pay $80,000 for a burger flipper.

Like most things financial, the real answer is not to raise wages, but to fix something else.

Like most things financial, the real answer is not to raise wages, but to fix something else.I suppose healthcare could be socialized and housing could be subsidized to a significantly greater extent than it is.

Edit: Childcare also could be subsidized on a greater scale.

I suppose healthcare could be socialized and housing could be subsidized to a significantly greater extent than it is.

Edit: Childcare also could be subsidized on a greater scale.

I'm sure you know that wasn't the direction I was going to head...

My thoughts are more to the tune of eliminating illegal residents, abolishing the income tax, and ENDING government involvement in health care.

I'm sure you know that wasn't the direction I was going to head...

My thoughts are more to the tune of eliminating illegal residents, abolishing the income tax, and ENDING government involvement in health care.Eliminating illegal residents isn't possible and wouldn't work anyway. Eliminating all legal restrictions on immigration might. Abolishing the income tax is counter-productive, as many other forms of taxes that would be adopted in its place are worse for the poor. Ending government involvement in health care would raise healthcare prices as there would be increased demand for it.

Well, that would be one way to clear those areas out. If the service workers (gardeners, maids, store clerks, waitpersons, etc) can't afford to live near their jobs, then they can't afford to have those jobs and will seek work in more affordable areas. The rich, having no gardeners, maids, etc., will have to do the work themselves - I can think of nothing that would encourage someone to pay their maid a living wage more than having to clean up after themselves. Store owners, unable to find employees, will have to close or raise the wages.

Interesting conundrum, isn't it. If you pay high wages, your profit margin disappears and you have to close. If you pay low wages, your employees disappear and you have to close.

Unfortunately it doesn't quite work exactly like that.

Store owners in the US can go to temporary members who don't have a long term stake (the portion of 3rd world illegal who stay short term, work cheap, and send money home where it goes further...), as well as to technological means.

And sure, that may be economical for them in the short term.

However, the economy is a social construct that must be maintained. If the store owner short-circuits it too badly, we end up in a bad spot. We aren't close, but I do not like where the current "pay Paris Hilton/cut everyone else wages to the bone" model seems to be leading...

I suppose healthcare could be socialized and housing could be subsidized to a significantly greater extent than it is.

Edit: Childcare also could be subsidized on a greater scale.

In other words, inflate the cost of living even more, just tax the hell out of everyone to subsidize it, making the problem even worse. So long as it is taken in taxes and the true cost is not immediately visible, its all good? Not seeing the high costs is better than actually dealing with the cause?

I, for one, would rather address why the cost of living is so high - why markets are not functioning properly for health care (byzantine regulations, restricted labor pool, etc), high cost of food (import tariffs, distorting subsidies, etc), housing costs (zoning regulations restricting growth), excessive taxation (political pandering and politicians spending your money without much care because, hey, "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon youre talking about real money").

I support living wage laws and ordinances. In the states and cities that have them, the overall benefits of poverty reduction and increased worker productivity and cooperativeness have more than outweighed job losses, which have proven to be neglible at worst.

It is basic wisdom that the more you put into a system, the more you can expect to get out of it. Living wage laws have shown that the more employers invest in their employees -- the more they pay them, in other words -- the more their employees will give back and the more profitable the business will be in the long run, as a result. It also falls under the basic capitalist wisdom of "you have to spend money to make money."

Also, the vast majority of arguments against living wage laws tend to sound more like ideological arguments than economic ones. They often refer to what the arguer thinks other people need or deserve, based on the kind of work they do, which is an elitist "class system" way of thinking, imo. Otherwise, the anti arguments tend to be based on incorrect information or a lack of information about the actual effects of existing living wage laws.

That information is actually very easy to come by. Here are some results of my first google:

A living wage calculator that lets you figure out the living wage for your area, and also shows what goes into the calculation:
http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/

A very good list of articles and studies on the subject, all from credible sources, good for research:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_livingwage_livingwage

Another good research list, from UC Berkeley:
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/livingwage/

An interesting overview article from The Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0315/p01s02-usec.html

Quote from the article that gives a sense of what kind of money we're talking about here (emphasis added by me):
INGLEWOOD, CALIF.

Three years ago, Juana Zatarin couldn't make ends meet. The mother of three, a baggage handler at Los Angeles International Airport, was subsisting on an income about half that of the federal poverty rate of $17,028 for a family of four.

Today, thanks to a "living wage" law requiring city contractors to pay employees a minimum of $8.97 per hour, Ms. Zatarin earns more than $24,000 a year. Now life is good. "I can make my payments on time now and even have a chance to take some time off," she says.
$24k/year for a family of 4 doesn't sound like too much, does it?

By the way, although the actual numbers that constitute a "living wage" vary from place to place, I have read in many sources that the calculations are based on percentages of the costs of living, so that, for instance, housing should take up no more than 30% of income. I typically make decent wages on my dayjobs, but I have never yet had to pay less than 50% of my income just to keep a roof over my head (and not a very fancy roof at that). So, yes, a living wage is not easy to achieve, and I agree that raising wages is not the only solution. There is a lot of artificial puffing of costs -- such as boom-market real estate prices that tend to pump up rents as well, for instance -- that also need to be rooted out and regulated. Not to mention wasteful inefficiencies in shipping, packaging and other aspects of industry that have an unnecessarily bad effect on things like food prices. Cost of living can also be lowered by local and state ordinances requiring energy efficiency in housing, thus lowering utilities costs for heating and cooling, and by increased public investment in public transportation (lowering usage and thus cost of gasoline).

So, yes, increase wages, but lower costs caused by waste at the same time. I believe this is the best way to achieve the most fair wage rates for the most people.

Finally, there are TWO different calculations of living wage -- one for the statistical "family of four" and one for the "single earner." for instance, when I lived in Vermont about 7 years ago, the living wage was calculated as $9-10/hour for a family of four and $7/hour for a single earner. Very few people were actually earning that, though, leading to a high poverty rate.

In other words, inflate the cost of living even more, just tax the hell out of everyone to subsidize it, making the problem even worse. So long as it is taken in taxes and the true cost is not immediately visible, its all good? Not seeing the high costs is better than actually dealing with the cause?It's all good as long as people have access to the things they need.
Unfortunately, people aren't interested in overthrowing capitalism, so the cause will never be directly addressed.

I, for one, would rather address why the cost of living is so high - why markets are not functioning properly for health care (byzantine regulations, restricted labor pool, etc), high cost of food (import tariffs, distorting subsidies, etc), housing costs (zoning regulations restricting growth), excessive taxation (political pandering and politicians spending your money without much care because, hey, "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon youre talking about real money").I would rather remove the market and the state completely from those (and all) issues, but that isn't going to happen either.

I support living wage laws and ordinances. In the states and cities that have them, the overall benefits of poverty reduction and increased worker productivity and cooperativeness have more than outweighed job losses, which have proven to be neglible at worst.

It is basic wisdom that the more you put into a system, the more you can expect to get out of it. Living wage laws have shown that the more employers invest in their employees -- the more they pay them, in other words -- the more their employees will give back and the more profitable the business will be in the long run, as a result. It also falls under the basic capitalist wisdom of "you have to spend money to make money."

Also, the vast majority of arguments against living wage laws tend to sound more like ideological arguments than economic ones. They often refer to what the arguer thinks other people need or deserve, based on the kind of work they do, which is an elitist "class system" way of thinking, imo. Otherwise, the anti arguments tend to be based on incorrect information or a lack of information about the actual effects of existing living wage laws.

That information is actually very easy to come by. Here are some results of my first google:

A living wage calculator that lets you figure out the living wage for your area, and also shows what goes into the calculation:
http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/

A very good list of articles and studies on the subject, all from credible sources, good for research:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_livingwage_livingwage

Another good research list, from UC Berkeley:
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/livingwage/

An interesting overview article from The Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0315/p01s02-usec.html

[anecdotes deleted]

These laws are all targeted at companies that provide services to municipalities. There's a lot of gray in there. Do these companies also receive some sort of development subsidies? Not well documented. Do these companies receive tax breaks for their business with the city? Not well documented. How does a law with limited scope extrapolate to the general population? Again, not well documented.

This is a lot like other fringe economic ideas -- they work well in isolation, when combined with other economic incentives, but are completely unsuitable for large scale integration.

But mainly, it is just not the business of government to control the markets.

I could work for minimum wage and get a studio apt. for my family of 4, pay for some food (mostly rice) and water and power.......does that mean minimum wage is a living wage?

have you tried uk minimum wage would hardly pay for food for a family of 6

Eliminating illegal residents isn't possible and wouldn't work anyway. Eliminating all legal restrictions on immigration might. Abolishing the income tax is counter-productive, as many other forms of taxes that would be adopted in its place are worse for the poor. Ending government involvement in health care would raise healthcare prices as there would be increased demand for it.

it is indeed possible to eliminate illegal residents that want to work or to receive government services. If they just want to set up a tent in the forest and live on nuts and berries, it might be a little harder. They certainly do depress wages, though.

Eliminating income tax would save business a bunch on compliance costs and it wouldn't hurt one single poor person.

Eliminating the government mandates on group health insurance would certainly reduce the price. Especially if the insurance were used as insurance against catastrophe and not as an employer-funded health care plan. People should be able to choose what they want to be insured against.

-snip-

the calculator was interesting, thanks!

have you tried uk minimum wage would hardly pay for food for a family of 6
Why should ANY family - two or more be living on a single minimum wage? No one should start a family if they can't support them. Only having enough skill to earn minimum wage is NOT equal to the ability to support a family.

it is indeed possible to eliminate illegal residents that want to work or to receive government services. If they just want to set up a tent in the forest and live on nuts and berries, it might be a little harder. They certainly do depress wages, though.Not really. It would require amongst other things, a government agent in every workplace ensuring that nobody is being paid under the table, and surveillance cameras installed to the point that nobody can go around mowing lawns or other similar jobs without paying taxes on their income.

Eliminating income tax would save business a bunch on compliance costs and it wouldn't hurt one single poor person.Yes, in and of itself. It would hurt poor people because it would be replaced with some other type of tax.

Eliminating the government mandates on group health insurance would certainly reduce the price. Especially if the insurance were used as insurance against catastrophe and not as an employer-funded health care plan. People should be able to choose what they want to be insured against.Preventative healthcare is at least as valuable (if not more so) as emergency healthcare. A healthcare system should focus on both.

These laws are all targeted at companies that provide services to municipalities. There's a lot of gray in there. Do these companies also receive some sort of development subsidies? Not well documented. Do these companies receive tax breaks for their business with the city? Not well documented. How does a law with limited scope extrapolate to the general population? Again, not well documented.

This is a lot like other fringe economic ideas -- they work well in isolation, when combined with other economic incentives, but are completely unsuitable for large scale integration.

But mainly, it is just not the business of government to control the markets.
Nonsense. All that stuff is well documented. The law requires it to be minutely documented. Your objections are based on an erroneous assumption.

Also, the concept is obvious to anyone who bothers to read the research materials. The government has the greatest power to impose and enforce wage standards, so it is muicipal service providers who are affected first by living wage laws/ordinances. But the effect of the laws is to create a base -- almost like sourdough starter -- of people earning living wages who will be above the poverty line and thus have more disposible income. This frees up money for housing improvements or upgrade, durable goods purchases, etc., which -- let's take a guess together -- improves busines profits in the general community, thus making it possible for more employers to increase wages, thus making more people be more active participants in the economy, rather than drains on public services.

But I don't expect you to understand the simple process of moving money through the economic system, because you are one of those people I talked about, whose arguments tend to boil down to elitist attitudes against certain kinds of people.

Nonsense. All that stuff is well documented. The law requires it to be minutely documented. Your objections are based on an erroneous assumption.

Also, the concept is obvious to anyone who bothers to read the research materials. The government has the greatest power to impose and enforce wage standards, so it is muicipal service providers who are affected first by living wage laws/ordinances. But the effect of the laws is to create a base -- almost like sourdough starter -- of people earning living wages who will be above the poverty line and thus have more disposible income. This frees up money for housing improvements or upgrade, durable goods purchases, etc., which -- let's take a guess together -- improves busines profits in the general community, thus making it possible for more employers to increase wages, thus making more people be more active participants in the economy, rather than drains on public services.

But I don't expect you to understand the simple process of moving money through the economic system, because you are one of those people I talked about, whose arguments tend to boil down to elitist attitudes against certain kinds of people.

You are only looking at one side of it - that money has to come from somewhere. Raising the wages of government workers does not push the economy into an ever rising cycle of bountifulness, otherwise we would all be campaigning for massive pay raises for all government workers. That extra money has to come from somewhere - either by expanding the money supply (which would cause stagflation) or by raising taxes (which causes a massive distortion in the economy resulting in a substantial dead weight loss far in excess of any gain by simply giving people raises).

Basic economics is not elitist, and there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Nonsense. All that stuff is well documented. The law requires it to be minutely documented. Your objections are based on an erroneous assumption.

Also, the concept is obvious to anyone who bothers to read the research materials. The government has the greatest power to impose and enforce wage standards, so it is muicipal service providers who are affected first by living wage laws/ordinances. But the effect of the laws is to create a base -- almost like sourdough starter -- of people earning living wages who will be above the poverty line and thus have more disposible income. This frees up money for housing improvements or upgrade, durable goods purchases, etc., which -- let's take a guess together -- improves busines profits in the general community, thus making it possible for more employers to increase wages, thus making more people be more active participants in the economy, rather than drains on public services.

But I don't expect you to understand the simple process of moving money through the economic system, because you are one of those people I talked about, whose arguments tend to boil down to elitist attitudes against certain kinds of people.
You paint a pretty picture, but your whole scheme is based on hope, not logic. There is not a shred of evidence, logical or factual, that supports a picture of both high employment and mandatory living wages. The only way it works is when the companies that are required to provide a living wage are compensated for that extra expense via extra incentives.

Now I could go on about elitist attitudes, but I think it's quite clear that you are both ignorant of economic reality and in possession of those elitist attitudes that you project onto others...

Everyone who works hard should at least be entitled to decent shelter, food, water, and power. Whatever covers that is a decent wage.

no one is entitled to anything. People shouldn't expect things.

no one is entitled to anything. People shouldn't expect things.

So you are saying that someone in the street who has been without food for three weeks and has no means of obtaining employment isn't entitled to food? That is a new low, especially for a Communist like yourself.

no one is entitled to anything. People shouldn't expect things.

Not entitled as in a socialist welfare state. I don't mean that people should be entitled to not work and still recieve pay. What I mean is that people who work hard should get decent living wages. People in the past worked ferociously hard in sweatshops for a few dimes an hour. That is unjustified.

Part of the founding philosophy of the United States was the idea that wages was an agreed price on the worth of a man's labor. With the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, that changed to corporations ramming meagre, barely livable wages down the throats of otherwise hard working individuals who worked 12-14 hour days, with the only alternative being to starve to death. I am against that. People should recieve just compensation for their labor. And if they don't want to work, then they can starve to death.

This is good for the economy too. The Great Depression was caused by bad wages and too much wealth being concentrated in the hands of too few.

So you are saying that someone in the street who has been without food for three weeks and has no means of obtaining employment isn't entitled to food? That is a new low, especially for a Communist like yourself.

Communist? I'm as Capitalist as they come. but no there not in entitled to food, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice for someone to give them some, like a shelter.