EricK
Senior Member
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.