What's Wrong With A Living Wage?

[Trausti]

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.

What if I don't need you 40 hours a week? I have a deli and serve the downtown lunch crowd. Open 10a to 2p. How would the "living wage" calculation work?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

I think people in this thread have defined it quite well. You have numbers and can run them.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

What if I don't need you 40 hours a week? I have a deli and serve the downtown lunch crowd. Open 10a to 2p. How would the "living wage" calculation work?

Funny, the coffee shop I worked at in Downtown Minneapolis provided me with $15/hr in the 1990s. I worked 4 hours a day.

 

[prideandfall]

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.

What if I don't need you 40 hours a week? I have a deli and serve the downtown lunch crowd. Open 10a to 2p. How would the "living wage" calculation work?

then you can hire them part time, but "part time" shouldn't equate to "shit pay hourly" - if you only need them for 4 hours a day, that's fine, but you still pay them at least 15/hr for the time you have them.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

My hope is waning. What business "does" is a social phenomena. What business takes in or pays out depends on the valuation the relevant people place on those activities. You are making assumptions about those valuations that are different than the valuations those who argue for a living wage are making.

 

[Trausti]

What if I don't need you 40 hours a week? I have a deli and serve the downtown lunch crowd. Open 10a to 2p. How would the "living wage" calculation work?

Funny, the coffee shop I worked at in Downtown Minneapolis provided me with $15/hr in the 1990s. I worked 4 hours a day.

Well, you lucked out. Doesn't answer the question though.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Funny, the coffee shop I worked at in Downtown Minneapolis provided me with $15/hr in the 1990s. I worked 4 hours a day.

Well, you lucked out. Doesn't answer the question though.

to plagiarize prideandfall: then you can hire them part time, but "part time" shouldn't equate to "shit pay hourly" - if you only need them for 4 hours a day, that's fine, but you still pay them at least 15/hr for the time you have them.

 

[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.

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.

You are making an assumption about the value of the earnings from labor. Whether or not one agrees with the concept of a living wage is independent of the argument that those arguing for a living wage are not making the same claims or assumptions about the social value of labor than those who argue against it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

My hope is waning. What business "does" is a social phenomena. What business takes in or pays out depends on the valuation the relevant people place on those activities. You are making assumptions about those valuations that are different than the valuations those who argue for a living wage are making.

Except the issue is that there is always competing interests and sides view the economy in different ways. One side sees the economy as providing jobs, and one sees the economy as providing the good and services for the end consumer. And they are different.

 

[Trausti]

Well, you lucked out. Doesn't answer the question though.

to plagiarize prideandfall: then you can hire them part time, but "part time" shouldn't equate to "shit pay hourly" - if you only need them for 4 hours a day, that's fine, but you still pay them at least 15/hr for the time you have them.

Where does this $15 come from? It is based on the US government poverty threshold, or just pulled out of thin air?

 

[prideandfall]

to plagiarize prideandfall: then you can hire them part time, but "part time" shouldn't equate to "shit pay hourly" - if you only need them for 4 hours a day, that's fine, but you still pay them at least 15/hr for the time you have them.

Where does this $15 come from? It is based on the US government poverty threshold, or just pulled out of thin air?

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...th-A-Living-Wage&p=58684&viewfull=1#post58684

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.

though that would fluctuate based on regional economies - i don't think that "living wage" should be a nation wide federally mandated flat amount.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is a "living wage"? Is it the same for everybody, or does it depend on the particular circumstances of the worker? Eg Someone who already owns a house can live off a much smaller wage than someone who also needs to pay for accommodation. If there is a job which pays an amount sufficient for the former to live, and they are happy to do it, should that job be outlawed just because the latter person wouldn't be able to live off what the employer can afford to offer?

Should a wage be tied to just the job anyway, or should it depend on how well the employee does that job? Eg if someone did your job to exactly the same level of skill as you but twice as slowly, should they be paid the same you? Half as much? A 'living wage' regardless? Or if your wage was close enough to the 'living wage' should they not be allowed to do that job at all?

Yeah, "Living wage" is a codeword for "more" rather than being willing to admit how much they're asking for.

 

[prideandfall]

Yeah, "Living wage" is a codeword for "more" rather than being willing to admit how much they're asking for.

except for when "living wage" is clearly and explicitly defined in a way that several proponents of the idea agree with, in which case all you reactionary right-wing "invisible hand of the free market" worshipers simply ignore the given definition so you can continue masturbating to your fantasy about dystopian communism you imagine lurks around every corner.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Exactly. That's a big part of the problem. High minimum wages price the poor workers out of the market--cutting off the bottom of the ladder to success. The rich would still make it, the poor would be trapped.

It's amazing how many worker "protection" measures really are about keeping inferior workers out of the labor market in the first place.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

Exactly. That's a big part of the problem. High minimum wages price the poor workers out of the market--cutting off the bottom of the ladder to success.

Huh? So what you are saying is that workers will not accept a higher wage?

 

[Trausti]

Exactly. That's a big part of the problem. High minimum wages price the poor workers out of the market--cutting off the bottom of the ladder to success.

Huh? So what you are saying is that workers will not accept a higher wage?

Labor is a business cost. The more costs per employee the less number of employees hired; making it harder for the an inexperienced person to get employment.

 

[prideandfall]

Huh? So what you are saying is that workers will not accept a higher wage?

Labor is a business cost. The more costs per employee the less number of employees hired; making it harder for the an inexperienced person to get employment.

hiring less employees is a choice made by the owner/manager - it is not an inherent and immutable truth of the universe.

just because you worship at the alter of maximal profit driven greed to the detriment of society and the species on the whole doesn't mean this is a law of nature.

 

[Trausti]

Labor is a business cost. The more costs per employee the less number of employees hired; making it harder for the an inexperienced person to get employment.

hiring less employees is a choice made by the owner/manager - it is not an inherent and immutable truth of the universe.

just because you worship at the alter of maximal profit driven greed to the detriment of society and the species on the whole doesn't mean this is a law of nature.

One of the options a business has to cut costs is to let go of employees. I suppose that is a choice; but if the business wants to survive, it's a choice that should surprise no one.

 

[EricK]

Labor is a business cost. The more costs per employee the less number of employees hired; making it harder for the an inexperienced person to get employment.

hiring less employees is a choice made by the owner/manager - it is not an inherent and immutable truth of the universe.

just because you worship at the alter of maximal profit driven greed to the detriment of society and the species on the whole doesn't mean this is a law of nature.

Do you ever hire people (electricians, plumbers, barbers, take-away chefs etc) to do tasks for you? If the cost of these things go up, do you hire fewer of them?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

A word on why raising the wages of workers works

higher minimum wage doesn’t necessarily increase business costs. It draws more job applicants into the labor market, giving employers more choice of whom to hire. As a result, employers often get more reliable workers who remain longer – thereby saving employers at least as much money as they spend on higher wages.

A higher wage can also help build employee morale, resulting in better performance. Gap, America’s largest clothing retailer, recently announced it would boost its hourly wage to $10. Wall Street approved. “You treat people well, they’ll treat your customers well,” said Dorothy Lakner, a Wall Street analyst. “Gap had a strong year last year compared to a lot of their peers. That sends a pretty strong message to employees that, ‘we had a good year, but you’re going to be rewarded too.’”

Even when raising the minimum wage — or bargaining for higher wages and better working conditions, or requiring businesses to provide safer workplaces or a cleaner environment — increases the cost of business, this doesn’t necessarily kill jobs.

Most companies today can easily absorb such costs without reducing payrolls. Corporate profits now account for the largest percentage of the economy on record. Large companies are sitting on more than $1.5 trillion in cash they don’t even know what to do with. Many are using their cash to buy back their own shares of stock – artificially increasing share value by reducing the number of shares traded on the market.

Walmart spent $7.6 billion last year buying back shares of its own stock — a move that papered over its falling profits. Had it used that money on wages instead, it could have given its workers a raise from around $9 an hour to almost $15. Arguably, that would have been a better use of the money over the long-term – not only improving worker loyalty and morale but also giving workers enough to buy more goods from Walmart (reminiscent of Henry Ford’s pay strategy a century ago).

There’s also a deeper issue here. Even assuming some of these measures might cause some job losses, does that mean we shouldn’t proceed with them?

Americans need jobs, but we also need minimally decent jobs. The nation could create millions of jobs tomorrow if we eliminated the minimum wage altogether and allowed employers to pay workers $1 an hour or less. But do we really want to do that?

Likewise, America could create lots of jobs if all health and safety regulations were repealed, but that would subject millions of workers to severe illness and injury.

Lots of jobs could be added if all environmental rules were eliminated, but that would result in the kind of air and water pollution that many people in poor nations have to contend with daily.

If the Affordable Care Act were repealed, hundreds of thousands of Americans would have to go back to working at jobs they don’t want but feel compelled to do in order to get health insurance.

We’d create jobs, but not progress. Progress requires creating more jobs that pay well, are safe, sustain the environment, and provide a modicum of security. If seeking to achieve a minimum level of decency ends up “killing” some jobs, then maybe those aren’t the kind of jobs we ought to try to preserve in the first place.

Finally, it’s important to remember the real source of job creation. Businesses hire more workers only when they have more customers. When they have fewer customers, they lay off workers. So the real job creators are consumers with enough money to buy.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/7-r...-jobs-bunk?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

 

[arkirk]

"Newmanism"

Isn't that the guy who fried his brains with LSD?

The idea of a wage need not be associated with any particular amount of production. As long as the production needs of society are being met, it should not matter that much that some produce more and some produce less.

It has been tried under "actually existing socialism". Those that have been producing more realize they don't get their Trabants any faster than the slackers and almost everybody settles on a low level. As the Germans say "Leistung muss sich lohnen" (Performance must pay off).

Distribution of the necessities of life to all members of society should be a goal.

"To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities", Tovarish Arkirk?

A lot of emphasis has been placed lately on automation replacing labor. This seems at first blush to be a possibility, but it actually may be a kind of chimera and not possible in the long term. Automatic devices require power to run them. Production merely for the sake of increased output burdens our environment unnecessarily...with pollution, destruction of living systems that provide ecological services, and depletion of resources.

Power is cheap compared to labor. And "human machines" require energy as well to function - work (in the physical sense) is not free in either case.

Anecdotal stories about individuals and salient exemplars actually have no place in this consideration.

Because it's all about the collective.

If we are ever to mature as a species and form a stable relationship to our environment, something like a living wage must eventually come to be...the sooner the better. The portion of society that feels it is its place to sequester large portions of the country's resources for personal purposes simply is misguided. Our social organization and government should not accept direction from these people....like the Koch Bros. etc.

No the only billionaires that must be allowed to be be involved in politics are guys like Soros or Steyer. Not creeps like the Kochs.

You are totally missing the point of my post, Derek, like always. I was not cutting and pasting my post from the Communist handbook. I don't speak Russian or Chinese. As far as I am concerned Soros, Steyer and Buffet are right in there with the Koch Bros. You seem to prefer the COLLECTORS to the COLLECTIVE. You seem unaware of the fact that these billionaires all have gross effects on society and the environment. You never address ecological services in any of your posts. It is always some sort of character flaw you seem concerned about in evil socialists.

It never seems to dawn on you that we have a COLLECTIVE effect on our environment as a species on this planet. You seem to advocate absolute freedom for the extremely wealthy in the service of a so called free market which is in fact, in no way free. You assign people in our society to the care and keeping of people who have no concern for their well being. Your arguments reify salient exemplars who actually do not exist in significant numbers in our society.

Your arguments consign large segments of society to a life of misery in a world at the whim of rich and powerful people who fortify themselves against the consequences of their own arbitrary actions. You ignore the fact that the existing economic system is what has created a great deal of poverty, ignorance, pollution, and death due to conditions a fair economic system could prevent. Your answer to all of our social and economic problems is..."There's no problem...things are just fine." That is the famous Alfred E. Newman philosophy.