What's Wrong With A Living Wage?

[EricK]

Again, allow me to quote...me:



So that's the bare minimum. Ideally, though (and this is my own opinion), a person working a 40 hour week should be able to support a spouse and one or possibly two kids at just above the poverty line. Yes.

What's wrong with that, again?

So every couple, eg a pair of 17 year olds in their first jobs, who both want to work, should earn enough between them to keep a family of 6 to 8 above the poverty line?

Well I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a 17 year old couple with 8 kids, but if such a thing were to happen? Both of them working full time and able to keep those kids off of government assistance and out of poverty? Yes. I think they should earn that much.

Again, what's the problem?


The alternative is two 17 year old parents of 8 kids who live in subsidized housing, cash a shitload of food stamps every week, and the brats grow up not seeing their parents work hard, but learn to become dependent upon the state.


Ah, but let's say those savvy teenagers don't have 8 kids...or even one! Then what you've got there is a young couple who aren't just making ends meet, but are making more than poverty wages. Ideally, they're saving some of that money. Or using it to buy a house. Or investing in their education so they can make even more money.


This is apparently quite a disturbing prospect for some people. Why...young people making a living wage? Next thing you know they'll be running the world!


A living wage is a floor. Something that people can stand upon. Right now we're expecting people to start in the basement and hope that they work their way up to the point where they're standing on the floor. That makes no sense.

Well obviously I wasn't implying those 17 year olds have 8 children. I was pointing out that by your definition of living wage, most people, doing the most basic of jobs, would be earning 4 or 5 times what they need to live (and so presumably those more qualified would be earning even more, and so on).

Now put yourself in the role of employer just starting a business. Do you really think you can afford to pay a 17 year-old school leaver with no experience enough that he could support a family of four, if all he is doing is eg photocopying, stuffing letters in envelopes and other such tasks - bearing in mind that you will need to pay people with more demanding tasks a commensuratedly higher wage? If so, I suggest you go and start a business right now, as in the current climate, with the current employment and wage laws, you could be a multi-millionaire in a few short years.

if you are an employer and you can't pay a living wage, you shouldn't be an employer.

And you also shouldn't set labor policy based on extreme hypotheticals.

An unqualified 17 year old in a job is only an extreme hypothetical in the sense that if the policy were implemented, no employer would be able to afford to employ such a 17 year old.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Again, allow me to quote...me:



So that's the bare minimum. Ideally, though (and this is my own opinion), a person working a 40 hour week should be able to support a spouse and one or possibly two kids at just above the poverty line. Yes.

What's wrong with that, again?

So every couple, eg a pair of 17 year olds in their first jobs, who both want to work, should earn enough between them to keep a family of 6 to 8 above the poverty line?

Well I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a 17 year old couple with 8 kids, but if such a thing were to happen? Both of them working full time and able to keep those kids off of government assistance and out of poverty? Yes. I think they should earn that much.

Again, what's the problem?


The alternative is two 17 year old parents of 8 kids who live in subsidized housing, cash a shitload of food stamps every week, and the brats grow up not seeing their parents work hard, but learn to become dependent upon the state.


Ah, but let's say those savvy teenagers don't have 8 kids...or even one! Then what you've got there is a young couple who aren't just making ends meet, but are making more than poverty wages. Ideally, they're saving some of that money. Or using it to buy a house. Or investing in their education so they can make even more money.


This is apparently quite a disturbing prospect for some people. Why...young people making a living wage? Next thing you know they'll be running the world!


A living wage is a floor. Something that people can stand upon. Right now we're expecting people to start in the basement and hope that they work their way up to the point where they're standing on the floor. That makes no sense.

Well obviously I wasn't implying those 17 year olds have 8 children. I was pointing out that by your definition of living wage, most people, doing the most basic of jobs, would be earning 4 or 5 times what they need to live (and so presumably those more qualified would be earning even more, and so on).

Now put yourself in the role of employer just starting a business. Do you really think you can afford to pay a 17 year-old school leaver with no experience enough that he could support a family of four, if all he is doing is eg photocopying, stuffing letters in envelopes and other such tasks - bearing in mind that you will need to pay people with more demanding tasks a commensuratedly higher wage? If so, I suggest you go and start a business right now, as in the current climate, with the current employment and wage laws, you could be a multi-millionaire in a few short years.

if you are an employer and you can't pay a living wage, you shouldn't be an employer.

And you also shouldn't set labor policy based on extreme hypotheticals.

An unqualified 17 year old in a job is only an extreme hypothetical in the sense that if the policy were implemented, no employer would be able to afford to employ such a 17 year old.

and in the real world this effect how many people and what does it have to do with paying highly qualified non 17 year olds $7.25 an hour? hard working people who have contributed to rising productivity level for decade are on food stamps and living is subsidized housing trying to make a life and raise a family. They are not hypothetical. what about them? Lets discuss the people who are not the ones we make up.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Again, allow me to quote...me:



So that's the bare minimum. Ideally, though (and this is my own opinion), a person working a 40 hour week should be able to support a spouse and one or possibly two kids at just above the poverty line. Yes.

What's wrong with that, again?

So every couple, eg a pair of 17 year olds in their first jobs, who both want to work, should earn enough between them to keep a family of 6 to 8 above the poverty line?

Well I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a 17 year old couple with 8 kids, but if such a thing were to happen? Both of them working full time and able to keep those kids off of government assistance and out of poverty? Yes. I think they should earn that much.

Again, what's the problem?


The alternative is two 17 year old parents of 8 kids who live in subsidized housing, cash a shitload of food stamps every week, and the brats grow up not seeing their parents work hard, but learn to become dependent upon the state.


Ah, but let's say those savvy teenagers don't have 8 kids...or even one! Then what you've got there is a young couple who aren't just making ends meet, but are making more than poverty wages. Ideally, they're saving some of that money. Or using it to buy a house. Or investing in their education so they can make even more money.


This is apparently quite a disturbing prospect for some people. Why...young people making a living wage? Next thing you know they'll be running the world!


A living wage is a floor. Something that people can stand upon. Right now we're expecting people to start in the basement and hope that they work their way up to the point where they're standing on the floor. That makes no sense.

Well obviously I wasn't implying those 17 year olds have 8 children. I was pointing out that by your definition of living wage, most people, doing the most basic of jobs, would be earning 4 or 5 times what they need to live (and so presumably those more qualified would be earning even more, and so on).

Now put yourself in the role of employer just starting a business. Do you really think you can afford to pay a 17 year-old school leaver with no experience enough that he could support a family of four, if all he is doing is eg photocopying, stuffing letters in envelopes and other such tasks - bearing in mind that you will need to pay people with more demanding tasks a commensuratedly higher wage? If so, I suggest you go and start a business right now, as in the current climate, with the current employment and wage laws, you could be a multi-millionaire in a few short years.

if you are an employer and you can't pay a living wage, you shouldn't be an employer.

And you also shouldn't set labor policy based on extreme hypotheticals.

An unqualified 17 year old in a job is only an extreme hypothetical in the sense that if the policy were implemented, no employer would be able to afford to employ such a 17 year old.

and in the real world this effect how many people and what does it have to do with paying highly qualified non 17 year olds $7.25 an hour? hard working people who have contributed to rising productivity level for decade are on food stamps and living is subsidized housing trying to make a life and raise a family. They are not hypothetical. what about them? Lets discuss the people who are not the ones we make up.

And what happens in that case where they don't have the skills to justify that living wage? Is it better for them to work and try and learn some new skills or not to work?

 

[laughing dog]

Again, allow me to quote...me:



So that's the bare minimum. Ideally, though (and this is my own opinion), a person working a 40 hour week should be able to support a spouse and one or possibly two kids at just above the poverty line. Yes.

What's wrong with that, again?

So every couple, eg a pair of 17 year olds in their first jobs, who both want to work, should earn enough between them to keep a family of 6 to 8 above the poverty line?

Well I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a 17 year old couple with 8 kids, but if such a thing were to happen? Both of them working full time and able to keep those kids off of government assistance and out of poverty? Yes. I think they should earn that much.

Again, what's the problem?


The alternative is two 17 year old parents of 8 kids who live in subsidized housing, cash a shitload of food stamps every week, and the brats grow up not seeing their parents work hard, but learn to become dependent upon the state.


Ah, but let's say those savvy teenagers don't have 8 kids...or even one! Then what you've got there is a young couple who aren't just making ends meet, but are making more than poverty wages. Ideally, they're saving some of that money. Or using it to buy a house. Or investing in their education so they can make even more money.


This is apparently quite a disturbing prospect for some people. Why...young people making a living wage? Next thing you know they'll be running the world!


A living wage is a floor. Something that people can stand upon. Right now we're expecting people to start in the basement and hope that they work their way up to the point where they're standing on the floor. That makes no sense.

Well obviously I wasn't implying those 17 year olds have 8 children. I was pointing out that by your definition of living wage, most people, doing the most basic of jobs, would be earning 4 or 5 times what they need to live (and so presumably those more qualified would be earning even more, and so on).

Now put yourself in the role of employer just starting a business. Do you really think you can afford to pay a 17 year-old school leaver with no experience enough that he could support a family of four, if all he is doing is eg photocopying, stuffing letters in envelopes and other such tasks - bearing in mind that you will need to pay people with more demanding tasks a commensuratedly higher wage? If so, I suggest you go and start a business right now, as in the current climate, with the current employment and wage laws, you could be a multi-millionaire in a few short years.

if you are an employer and you can't pay a living wage, you shouldn't be an employer.

And you also shouldn't set labor policy based on extreme hypotheticals.

An unqualified 17 year old in a job is only an extreme hypothetical in the sense that if the policy were implemented, no employer would be able to afford to employ such a 17 year old.

and in the real world this effect how many people and what does it have to do with paying highly qualified non 17 year olds $7.25 an hour? hard working people who have contributed to rising productivity level for decade are on food stamps and living is subsidized housing trying to make a life and raise a family. They are not hypothetical. what about them? Lets discuss the people who are not the ones we make up.

And what happens in that case where they don't have the skills to justify that living wage? Is it better for them to work and try and learn some new skills or not to work?

I believe the implicit assumption is that being alive is the skill to justify the living wage. It is a social not economic argument.

 

[EricK]

and in the real world this effect how many people and what does it have to do with paying highly qualified non 17 year olds $7.25 an hour? hard working people who have contributed to rising productivity level for decade are on food stamps and living is subsidized housing trying to make a life and raise a family. They are not hypothetical. what about them? Lets discuss the people who are not the ones we make up.

Somebody comes up with an idea, and I talk about the idea they come up with. If they are concerned about a specific set of people, then they should come up with a policy about them. If an idea to help those people is quite unworkable because of its wider effects then it is a bad policy.

If I said all citizens should pay at least 30% income tax, then you would be quite justified in querying whether I really meant everybody - even those earning the very minimum. So if somebody says that every job should pay a living wage I query what he means by living wage, and whether he really means every job for everybody.

If we don't talk about the wider effects of proposals then all we are doing here is throwing around feelgood phrases, and saying I think we need justice, fairness, and candy for everybody.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Again, allow me to quote...me:



So that's the bare minimum. Ideally, though (and this is my own opinion), a person working a 40 hour week should be able to support a spouse and one or possibly two kids at just above the poverty line. Yes.

What's wrong with that, again?

So every couple, eg a pair of 17 year olds in their first jobs, who both want to work, should earn enough between them to keep a family of 6 to 8 above the poverty line?

Well I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a 17 year old couple with 8 kids, but if such a thing were to happen? Both of them working full time and able to keep those kids off of government assistance and out of poverty? Yes. I think they should earn that much.

Again, what's the problem?


The alternative is two 17 year old parents of 8 kids who live in subsidized housing, cash a shitload of food stamps every week, and the brats grow up not seeing their parents work hard, but learn to become dependent upon the state.


Ah, but let's say those savvy teenagers don't have 8 kids...or even one! Then what you've got there is a young couple who aren't just making ends meet, but are making more than poverty wages. Ideally, they're saving some of that money. Or using it to buy a house. Or investing in their education so they can make even more money.


This is apparently quite a disturbing prospect for some people. Why...young people making a living wage? Next thing you know they'll be running the world!


A living wage is a floor. Something that people can stand upon. Right now we're expecting people to start in the basement and hope that they work their way up to the point where they're standing on the floor. That makes no sense.

Well obviously I wasn't implying those 17 year olds have 8 children. I was pointing out that by your definition of living wage, most people, doing the most basic of jobs, would be earning 4 or 5 times what they need to live (and so presumably those more qualified would be earning even more, and so on).

Now put yourself in the role of employer just starting a business. Do you really think you can afford to pay a 17 year-old school leaver with no experience enough that he could support a family of four, if all he is doing is eg photocopying, stuffing letters in envelopes and other such tasks - bearing in mind that you will need to pay people with more demanding tasks a commensuratedly higher wage? If so, I suggest you go and start a business right now, as in the current climate, with the current employment and wage laws, you could be a multi-millionaire in a few short years.

if you are an employer and you can't pay a living wage, you shouldn't be an employer.

And you also shouldn't set labor policy based on extreme hypotheticals.

An unqualified 17 year old in a job is only an extreme hypothetical in the sense that if the policy were implemented, no employer would be able to afford to employ such a 17 year old.

and in the real world this effect how many people and what does it have to do with paying highly qualified non 17 year olds $7.25 an hour? hard working people who have contributed to rising productivity level for decade are on food stamps and living is subsidized housing trying to make a life and raise a family. They are not hypothetical. what about them? Lets discuss the people who are not the ones we make up.

And what happens in that case where they don't have the skills to justify that living wage?

FLAG ON THE PLAY!

not playing whataboutism. The question is

And in the real world this effects how many people and what does it have to do with paying highly qualified non 17 year olds $7.25 an hour?

Is it better for them to work and try and learn some new skills or not to work?

answer my question please.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I believe the implicit assumption is that being alive is the skill to justify the living wage. It is a social not economic argument.

Then the argument is who pays for it and how and what the ramifications are. You are hoping an employer would pay $15/hr even though that person in that job is only worth $7.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

and in the real world this effect how many people and what does it have to do with paying highly qualified non 17 year olds $7.25 an hour? hard working people who have contributed to rising productivity level for decade are on food stamps and living is subsidized housing trying to make a life and raise a family. They are not hypothetical. what about them? Lets discuss the people who are not the ones we make up.

Somebody comes up with an idea, and I talk about the idea they come up with. If they are concerned about a specific set of people, then they should come up with a policy about them. If an idea to help those people is quite unworkable because of its wider effects then it is a bad policy.

If I said all citizens should pay at least 30% income tax, then you would be quite justified in querying whether I really meant everybody - even those earning the very minimum. So if somebody says that every job should pay a living wage I query what he means by living wage, and whether he really means every job for everybody.

If we don't talk about the wider effects of proposals then all we are doing here is throwing around feelgood phrases, and saying I think we need justice, fairness, and candy for everybody.

wider effects are one thing. Not answering the problem at hand is something else. People can do both and when they don't and they only speak interms of hypotheticals or extremes, that's not a discussion, that's evading a discussion.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Again, allow me to quote...me:



So that's the bare minimum. Ideally, though (and this is my own opinion), a person working a 40 hour week should be able to support a spouse and one or possibly two kids at just above the poverty line. Yes.

What's wrong with that, again?

So every couple, eg a pair of 17 year olds in their first jobs, who both want to work, should earn enough between them to keep a family of 6 to 8 above the poverty line?

Well I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a 17 year old couple with 8 kids, but if such a thing were to happen? Both of them working full time and able to keep those kids off of government assistance and out of poverty? Yes. I think they should earn that much.

Again, what's the problem?


The alternative is two 17 year old parents of 8 kids who live in subsidized housing, cash a shitload of food stamps every week, and the brats grow up not seeing their parents work hard, but learn to become dependent upon the state.


Ah, but let's say those savvy teenagers don't have 8 kids...or even one! Then what you've got there is a young couple who aren't just making ends meet, but are making more than poverty wages. Ideally, they're saving some of that money. Or using it to buy a house. Or investing in their education so they can make even more money.


This is apparently quite a disturbing prospect for some people. Why...young people making a living wage? Next thing you know they'll be running the world!


A living wage is a floor. Something that people can stand upon. Right now we're expecting people to start in the basement and hope that they work their way up to the point where they're standing on the floor. That makes no sense.

Well obviously I wasn't implying those 17 year olds have 8 children. I was pointing out that by your definition of living wage, most people, doing the most basic of jobs, would be earning 4 or 5 times what they need to live (and so presumably those more qualified would be earning even more, and so on).

Now put yourself in the role of employer just starting a business. Do you really think you can afford to pay a 17 year-old school leaver with no experience enough that he could support a family of four, if all he is doing is eg photocopying, stuffing letters in envelopes and other such tasks - bearing in mind that you will need to pay people with more demanding tasks a commensuratedly higher wage? If so, I suggest you go and start a business right now, as in the current climate, with the current employment and wage laws, you could be a multi-millionaire in a few short years.

if you are an employer and you can't pay a living wage, you shouldn't be an employer.

And you also shouldn't set labor policy based on extreme hypotheticals.

An unqualified 17 year old in a job is only an extreme hypothetical in the sense that if the policy were implemented, no employer would be able to afford to employ such a 17 year old.

and in the real world this effect how many people and what does it have to do with paying highly qualified non 17 year olds $7.25 an hour? hard working people who have contributed to rising productivity level for decade are on food stamps and living is subsidized housing trying to make a life and raise a family. They are not hypothetical. what about them? Lets discuss the people who are not the ones we make up.

And what happens in that case where they don't have the skills to justify that living wage?

FLAG ON THE PLAY!

not playing whataboutism. The question is

And in the real world this effects how many people and what does it have to do with paying highly qualified non 17 year olds $7.25 an hour?

Is it better for them to work and try and learn some new skills or not to work?

answer my question please.

And if they are adults and making $7.25 are they highly qualified? Should they be able to find work elsewhere at a higher rate if they are qualified? So I asked you, is it better for them to work or not work?

 

[EricK]

Somebody comes up with an idea, and I talk about the idea they come up with. If they are concerned about a specific set of people, then they should come up with a policy about them. If an idea to help those people is quite unworkable because of its wider effects then it is a bad policy.

If I said all citizens should pay at least 30% income tax, then you would be quite justified in querying whether I really meant everybody - even those earning the very minimum. So if somebody says that every job should pay a living wage I query what he means by living wage, and whether he really means every job for everybody.

If we don't talk about the wider effects of proposals then all we are doing here is throwing around feelgood phrases, and saying I think we need justice, fairness, and candy for everybody.

wider effects are one thing. Not answering the problem at hand is something else. People can do both and when they don't and they only speak interms of hypotheticals or extremes, that's not a discussion, that's evading a discussion.

How are my posts in this thread not a direct reply to the OP?

 

[Factinista]

I want to expand on the math of this:


There is economy in sharing, and living wage calculations take this into account.

Four people can share a bathroom, while a single person would probably each need their own. Four people can buy bulk food, while a single person cannot. Four people can share bedrooms, 4 single people would not.

Some examples using MIT's living wage calculator"


These examples show that it is from 1.2 times when looking at the housing alone, up to 2.3 times when looking at it all together.



So not 4 to 5 times what they need, by any stretch at all.
Although, the enterprising teen could certainly get some roommates and help herself get a start on savings if she wants to.

So under the proposal in the OP, the lowest wage being paid to anybody would be $18.46 per hour (in Omaha, but probably more elsewhere). I don't know how many businesses could actually afford this, and I doubt the OP does either. But the benefit of putting forward pie-in-the-sky ideas is that you never have to justify them in terms of hard figures, or worry about the knock on effects of businesses closing, or people not getting employed.

False, stop exaggerating. The OP argues for a Living Wage for a single person, quote "At a bare minimum, it should be enough to keep an individual working a 40 hour week above the poverty line."

That means in Omaha the minimum wage should be $8.70 based on the OP's argument. This is actually a conservative estimate for the majority of the US as many are arguing for a $12 or $15 Minimum Wage.

 

[Trausti]

So under the proposal in the OP, the lowest wage being paid to anybody would be $18.46 per hour (in Omaha, but probably more elsewhere). I don't know how many businesses could actually afford this, and I doubt the OP does either. But the benefit of putting forward pie-in-the-sky ideas is that you never have to justify them in terms of hard figures, or worry about the knock on effects of businesses closing, or people not getting employed.

False, stop exaggerating. The OP argues for a Living Wage for a single person, quote "At a bare minimum, it should be enough to keep an individual working a 40 hour week above the poverty line."

That means in Omaha the minimum wage should be $8.70 based on the OP's argument. This is actually a conservative estimate for the majority of the US as many are arguing for a $12 or $15 Minimum Wage.

Then don't we have that already?

012 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in
family/household Poverty guideline
1 $11,170
2 15,130
3 19,090
4 23,050
5 27,010
6 30,970
7 34,930
8 38,890
For families/households with more than 8 persons,
add $3,960 for each additional person.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml

 

[Factinista]

Personally, I would argue that minimum wage should be tied to the salary of congress. This should appease the "less government waste" crowd as well as forces those who actually make the laws feel the true cost of labor. I could go either way as to how much of congresses salary minimum wage should be... Certainly not the same because otherwise how will congress attract quality workers? But not half, as that would be demeaning to the average worker. Perhaps a compromise, 3/5ths maybe, to represent the true value of the American worker. We could call it the 3/5ths compromise!

afterall, we all know that Congressmen will simply cash out with whatever lobby group wants to pay them millions of dollars once their term is up.

 

[laughing dog]

I believe the implicit assumption is that being alive is the skill to justify the living wage. It is a social not economic argument.

Then the argument is who pays for it and how and what the ramifications are.

No it isn't. The "worth" of a job depends the social valuation of the output.

You are hoping an employer would pay $15/hr even though that person in that job is only worth $7.

The only thing I am hoping is that you understand the problem with this discussion. You are using traditional economic theory which makes assumptions about the factors determining the market wage. The argument for a living wage is not based on the assumptions you are using. The living wage argument has, at least, one additional assumption: that a living wage ought to be included in the factors determining the market wage.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Then the argument is who pays for it and how and what the ramifications are.

No it isn't. The "worth" of a job depends the social valuation of the output.

You are hoping an employer would pay $15/hr even though that person in that job is only worth $7.

The only thing I am hoping is that you understand the problem with this discussion. You are using traditional economic theory which makes assumptions about the factors determining the market wage. The argument for a living wage is not based on the assumptions you are using. The living wage argument has, at least, one additional assumption: that a living wage ought to be included in the factors determining the market wage.

It isn't theory, it's what a business does. It takes in money and pays it's employees. If it doesn't take in enough money to cover the cost of paying someone, they won't.

 

[Jayjay]

And what happens in that case where they don't have the skills to justify that living wage? Is it better for them to work and try and learn some new skills or not to work?

I believe the implicit assumption is that being alive is the skill to justify the living wage. It is a social not economic argument.

So, merely "being alive" 40 hours a week should warrant a living wage? If everyone is guaranteed a job that requires doing nothing except basic metabolism, can that really be called a "wage" rather than welfare? Not saying that welfare is a bad thing but there's no need to pretend that a person earns it via his own labor if being alive is all it takes.

 

[Trausti]

I believe the implicit assumption is that being alive is the skill to justify the living wage. It is a social not economic argument.

So, merely "being alive" 40 hours a week should warrant a living wage? If everyone is guaranteed a job that requires doing nothing except basic metabolism, can that really be called a "wage" rather than welfare? Not saying that welfare is a bad thing but there's no need to pretend that a person earns it via his own labor if being alive is all it takes.

The Soviet Union tried that. Everyone was guaranteed a job, regardless of qualification or performance. The result was high absenteeism, shortages, and overall poor quality goods and services.

 

[prideandfall]

You are hoping an employer would pay $15/hr even though that person in that job is only worth $7.

no, the argument here is "that job" is worth 15 dollars an hour, and any implication that it's worth less than that is wrong.

IMO a "living wage" is enough per month for 1 person to afford the median average cost of lodging (rent + utilities), food, general life expenses (gas, phone, internet, car and health insurance), quality of life expenses (spending money for a night out here and there or the occasional trinket), and approximately 15-20% on top of whatever that total ends up being, with the intention being savings or optional extra expenses.

that is the minimum of what every full time work week is worth, and if an employer can't afford to pay their employees that much, they need to not be an employer - period.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't theory, it's what a business does. It takes in money and pays it's employees. If it doesn't take in enough money to cover the cost of paying someone, they won't.

and if it doesn't take in enough to pay its employees a living wage, it shouldn't exist as a business.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The problem with a living wage is that it is undefined, except insofar as it is defined as "more".

Give me a number and we can run calculations based on the provided number. Tell me "more" and I cannot do that.

Undefined terms are useless terms.

 

[prideandfall]

So, merely "being alive" 40 hours a week should warrant a living wage? If everyone is guaranteed a job that requires doing nothing except basic metabolism, can that really be called a "wage" rather than welfare? Not saying that welfare is a bad thing but there's no need to pretend that a person earns it via his own labor if being alive is all it takes.

The Soviet Union tried that. Everyone was guaranteed a job, regardless of qualification or performance. The result was high absenteeism, shortages, and overall poor quality goods and services.

there's a very big difference between guaranteeing a job and guaranteeing that working a socially standardized 40 hours a week will provide enough income to minimally survive and prosper in your geographic region.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with a living wage is that it is undefined, except insofar as it is defined as "more".

Give me a number and we can run calculations based on the provided number. Tell me "more" and I cannot do that.

Undefined terms are useless terms.

enough per month for 1 person to afford the median average cost of lodging (rent + utilities), food, general life expenses (gas, phone, internet, car and health insurance), quality of life expenses (spending money for a night out here and there or the occasional trinket), and approximately 15-20% on top of whatever that total ends up being (based on geographic region and local economic factors.)

so for example, living in Denver for most of my life and having spent most of my 20s and early 30s making about 15/hour, i've managed to live fairly comfortably and always have enough money for stuff like car repairs and other various emergency expenses, because i live alone and play MMOs with all my free time (it is astonishing how little money you spend when you're neither materialistic nor social - seriously, anyone with money trouble, take up an MMO habit if you want to start raking in savings.)
based on my own personal experience i'd say i'm abnormally efficient, so i think a bit more than 15/hr for the Denver metro area would be reasonable - say 15/hr minimum wage, 18/hr living wage.