I get food stamps, and I’m not ashamed — I’m angry

[AthenaAwakened]

Remunerations that amount to starvation wages, lessen the social value of work and worker alike.

Are you calling yourself not patriotic? You appear to be valuing citizens by the size of their paychecks.

Where did I say that? If you would like clarification, I will humbly submit it. But I don't think that's what you want.

 

[ksen]

Conservatism: Trying to make the US more and more like Vietnam

Progressivism: when inconsistent use of terminology is pointed out, deflect and evade

Wasn't it you who said employees would starve if they aren't paid a living wage?

Do Vietnam workers earn a living wage ($150/month)? Are they starving?

Stop deflecting and evading and try engaging instead by answering the two above questions directly.

I'm guessing you mean something entirely else by the use of the term "living wage", and yet you sneak in the "starvation" definition whenever it suits your purposes.

No, no please keep unironically holding up countries like Vietnam as examples to aspire to.

 

[Playball40]

Vietnam has gdp per capita of $1,911

It has a population of 90 million people

Workers in the cities have an average monthly salary of under $150

Life expectancy is 76 years, just 3 years behind the United States, and well past retirement age

Government social safety net is minimal, the government doesn't receive much revenue per capita.

How do these people manage to live given that they are paid so far below a "living wage"?

Why don't we see bodies piling up on the streets? Why don't we see every worker in these cities out on the streets and homeless?

Or, by "living wage", do we really mean not the wage needed to survive and live well into retirement, but rather a "living well" wage?

And the cost of living likely correlates. Believe it or not Vietnam has less income inequality than the US.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Where did I say that? If you would like clarification, I will humbly submit it. But I don't think that's what you want.

You said you don't find it patriotic to value people according to their pay check, and then you said paying people at a particular wage devalues them. Hence you calling yourself unpatriotic.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should the taxes I pay subsidize people who make irresponsible choices to have children they can't afford any more than I already do through all the various tax breaks people with children already receive? I am talking deductions, EITC and the child tax credit, the latter two being "refundable" (i.e. they can result in refund being higher than withholding resulting in negative effective tax rate). All those tax breaks is something the writer of the OP article didn't mention.

I do see a point here. Should we increase the EITC and child care credit as part of our taxes or should we push that expense on to employers? I think it's a fair question as to who has the responsibility. If we are saying it's a societal responsibility then isn't the fair thing that our taxes should increase?

Exactly. That's what I am saying. Putting the weight on employers lets the idle rich and companies that are not labour intensive walk away.

 

[Axulus]

Progressivism: when inconsistent use of terminology is pointed out, deflect and evade

Wasn't it you who said employees would starve if they aren't paid a living wage?

Do Vietnam workers earn a living wage ($150/month)? Are they starving?

Stop deflecting and evading and try engaging instead by answering the two above questions directly.

I'm guessing you mean something entirely else by the use of the term "living wage", and yet you sneak in the "starvation" definition whenever it suits your purposes.

No, no please keep unironically holding up countries like Vietnam as examples to aspire to.

Evading the question again I see.

Do the workers in Vietnam's largest cities, who earn $150 month on average, and who are expected to live past age 76, get paid a living wage? Yes or No?

- - - Updated - - -

Vietnam has gdp per capita of $1,911

It has a population of 90 million people

Workers in the cities have an average monthly salary of under $150

Life expectancy is 76 years, just 3 years behind the United States, and well past retirement age

Government social safety net is minimal, the government doesn't receive much revenue per capita.

How do these people manage to live given that they are paid so far below a "living wage"?

Why don't we see bodies piling up on the streets? Why don't we see every worker in these cities out on the streets and homeless?

Or, by "living wage", do we really mean not the wage needed to survive and live well into retirement, but rather a "living well" wage?

And the cost of living likely correlates. Believe it or not Vietnam has less income inequality than the US.

Ok, so $150/month average in Vietnam's largest cities is equal to how much in comparative terms in a US city?

 

[Playball40]

You said you don't find it patriotic to value people according to their pay check, and then you said paying people at a particular wage devalues them. Hence you calling yourself unpatriotic.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should the taxes I pay subsidize people who make irresponsible choices to have children they can't afford any more than I already do through all the various tax breaks people with children already receive? I am talking deductions, EITC and the child tax credit, the latter two being "refundable" (i.e. they can result in refund being higher than withholding resulting in negative effective tax rate). All those tax breaks is something the writer of the OP article didn't mention.

I do see a point here. Should we increase the EITC and child care credit as part of our taxes or should we push that expense on to employers? I think it's a fair question as to who has the responsibility. If we are saying it's a societal responsibility then isn't the fair thing that our taxes should increase?

Exactly. That's what I am saying. Putting the weight on employers lets the idle rich and companies that are not labour intensive walk away.

It also puts a serious burden on small employers that operate on a shoe string. They don't have the luxury of adjusting prices to account for the increase in expenses.

 

[prideandfall]

How do these people manage to live given that they are paid so far below a "living wage"?

1. cost of living index being radically different.
2. standard of living being substantially different.
3. shitting out 9 kids per family and having a powerful cultural emphasis on herds living together and pooling resources.

wait... do you honestly think a "living wage" is some fixed and universal number? you can't possibly be serious with that idiocy, can you?

Why don't we see bodies piling up on the streets? Why don't we see every worker in these cities out on the streets and homeless?

see above.
also, because they pack like sardines into every available living space.

Or, by "living wage", do we really mean not the wage needed to survive and live well into retirement, but rather a "living well" wage?

how do you define "living well"?

if nobody else will go out on a limb, i'll define what i think a reasonable "living wage" consists of:
an amount of money necessary to cover standard costs of all basic 1st world US standard of living expenses (a reasonable short term payment on an economical city car, insurance and gas for the car, apartment rent, groceries, utilities, a phone, internet access, health insurance including dental and eyecare) as well as +10% on top of that for "entertainment" however you want to define that, and another +10% for savings and personal safety net.
working 40 hours a week, i don't believe anyone should ever make less than that.

 

[Playball40]

No, no please keep unironically holding up countries like Vietnam as examples to aspire to.

Evading the question again I see.

Do the workers in Vietnam's largest cities, who earn $150 month on average, and who are expected to live past age 76, get paid a living wage? Yes or No?

- - - Updated - - -

Vietnam has gdp per capita of $1,911

It has a population of 90 million people

Workers in the cities have an average monthly salary of under $150

Life expectancy is 76 years, just 3 years behind the United States, and well past retirement age

Government social safety net is minimal, the government doesn't receive much revenue per capita.

How do these people manage to live given that they are paid so far below a "living wage"?

Why don't we see bodies piling up on the streets? Why don't we see every worker in these cities out on the streets and homeless?

Or, by "living wage", do we really mean not the wage needed to survive and live well into retirement, but rather a "living well" wage?

And the cost of living likely correlates. Believe it or not Vietnam has less income inequality than the US.

Ok, so $150/month average in Vietnam's largest cities is equal to how much in comparative terms in a US city?

United States Vietnam Difference
Restaurants [Edit] [Edit]
Meal, Inexpensive Restaurant 12.00 $
(269,880.00 ₫) 1.78 $
(40,000.00 ₫) -85.18 %
Meal for 2 People, Mid-range Restaurant, Three-course 50.00 $
(1,124,500.00 ₫) 13.34 $
(300,000.00 ₫) -73.32 %
McMeal at McDonalds (or Equivalent Combo Meal) 6.76 $
(151,919.95 ₫) 4.00 $
(90,000.00 ₫) -40.76 %
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter draught) 3.50 $
(78,715.00 ₫) 0.73 $
(16,500.00 ₫) -79.04 %
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle) 5.00 $
(112,450.00 ₫) 1.33 $
(30,000.00 ₫) -73.32 %
Cappuccino (regular) 3.74 $
(84,132.06 ₫) 1.70 $
(38,226.70 ₫) -54.56 %
Coke/Pepsi (0.33 liter bottle) 1.65 $
(37,127.21 ₫) 0.43 $
(9,714.29 ₫) -73.84 %
Water (0.33 liter bottle) 1.34 $
(30,116.32 ₫) 0.27 $
(6,108.33 ₫) -79.72 %

Markets [Edit] [Edit]
Milk (regular), (1 gallon) 3.74 $
(84,093.54 ₫) 5.16 $
(115,967.39 ₫) +37.90 %
Loaf of Fresh White Bread (1 lb) 2.27 $
(50,965.96 ₫) 0.67 $
(15,169.83 ₫) -70.24 %
Rice (white), (1 lb) 1.50 $
(33,802.04 ₫) 0.34 $
(7,620.36 ₫) -77.46 %
Eggs (12) 2.51 $
(56,411.87 ₫) 1.34 $
(30,194.13 ₫) -46.48 %
Local Cheese (1 lb) 4.52 $
(101,744.54 ₫) 4.21 $
(94,787.45 ₫) -6.84 %
Chicken Breasts (Boneless, Skinless), (1 lb) 3.84 $
(86,295.42 ₫) 1.69 $
(38,119.25 ₫) -55.83 %
Apples (1 lb) 1.85 $
(41,688.84 ₫) 1.08 $
(24,216.57 ₫) -41.91 %
Oranges (1 lb) 1.82 $
(40,997.37 ₫) 0.87 $
(19,636.79 ₫) -52.10 %
Tomato (1 lb) 1.79 $
(40,196.09 ₫) 0.32 $
(7,218.93 ₫) -82.04 %
Potato (1 lb) 1.18 $
(26,634.56 ₫) 0.38 $
(8,457.43 ₫) -68.25 %
Lettuce (1 head) 1.58 $
(35,525.16 ₫) 0.53 $
(12,000.00 ₫) -66.22 %
Water (1.5 liter bottle) 1.77 $
(39,749.17 ₫) 0.49 $
(11,000.00 ₫) -72.33 %
Bottle of Wine (Mid-Range) 12.00 $
(269,880.00 ₫) 9.34 $
(210,000.00 ₫) -22.19 %
Domestic Beer (0.5 liter bottle) 1.78 $
(40,076.90 ₫) 0.67 $
(15,000.00 ₫) -62.57 %
Imported Beer (0.33 liter bottle) 2.39 $
(53,797.60 ₫) 1.24 $
(27,916.11 ₫) -48.11 %
Pack of Cigarettes (Marlboro) 6.14 $
(138,201.05 ₫) 1.07 $
(24,000.00 ₫) -82.63 %

Transportation [Edit] [Edit]
One-way Ticket (Local Transport) 2.00 $
(44,980.00 ₫) 0.31 $
(7,000.00 ₫) -84.44 %
Monthly Pass (Regular Price) 65.00 $
(1,461,850.00 ₫) 6.67 $
(150,000.00 ₫) -89.74 %
Taxi Start (Normal Tariff) 3.00 $
(67,470.00 ₫) 0.53 $
(12,000.00 ₫) -82.21 %
Taxi 1 mile (Normal Tariff) 2.50 $
(56,225.02 ₫) 0.86 $
(19,312.13 ₫) -65.65 %
Taxi 1hour Waiting (Normal Tariff) 30.00 $
(674,700.00 ₫) 1.33 $
(30,000.00 ₫) -95.55 %
Gasoline (1 gallon) 2.82 $
(63,400.30 ₫) 3.58 $
(80,452.15 ₫) +26.90 %
Volkswagen Golf 1.4 90 KW Trendline (Or Equivalent New Car) 21,000.00 $
(472,290,000.00 ₫) 46,465.10 $
(1,045,000,000.00 ₫) +121.26 %

Utilities (Monthly) [Edit] [Edit]
Basic (Electricity, Heating, Water, Garbage) for 915 sq ft Apartment 156.64 $
(3,522,887.15 ₫) 55.43 $
(1,246,533.02 ₫) -64.62 %
1 min. of Prepaid Mobile Tariff Local (No Discounts or Plans) 0.16 $
(3,558.56 ₫) 0.07 $
(1,661.23 ₫) -53.32 %
Internet (10 Mbps, Unlimited Data, Cable/ADSL) 48.15 $
(1,082,856.10 ₫) 11.03 $
(248,062.50 ₫) -77.09 %

Sports And Leisure [Edit] [Edit]
Fitness Club, Monthly Fee for 1 Adult 37.20 $
(836,710.70 ₫) 28.23 $
(634,803.57 ₫) -24.13 %
Tennis Court Rent (1 Hour on Weekend) 18.09 $
(406,945.55 ₫) 6.34 $
(142,500.00 ₫) -64.98 %
Cinema, International Release, 1 Seat 10.00 $
(224,900.00 ₫) 3.56 $
(80,000.00 ₫) -64.43 %

Clothing And Shoes [Edit] [Edit]
1 Pair of Jeans (Levis 501 Or Similar) 41.25 $
(927,665.03 ₫) 33.72 $
(758,461.54 ₫) -18.24 %
1 Summer Dress in a Chain Store (Zara, H&M, ...) 35.73 $
(803,457.75 ₫) 22.10 $
(497,115.65 ₫) -38.13 %
1 Pair of Nike Running Shoes (Mid-Range) 76.59 $
(1,722,560.07 ₫) 69.02 $
(1,552,200.00 ₫) -9.89 %
1 Pair of Men Leather Business Shoes 87.65 $
(1,971,164.77 ₫) 49.44 $
(1,111,904.76 ₫) -43.59 %

Rent Per Month [Edit] [Edit]
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 1,023.90 $
(23,027,504.89 ₫) 308.24 $
(6,932,390.62 ₫) -69.90 %
Apartment (1 bedroom) Outside of Centre 797.47 $
(17,935,160.86 ₫) 205.36 $
(4,618,481.51 ₫) -74.25 %
Apartment (3 bedrooms) in City Centre 1,734.02 $
(38,998,143.28 ₫) 798.67 $
(17,962,000.00 ₫) -53.94 %
Apartment (3 bedrooms) Outside of Centre 1,349.71 $
(30,355,081.39 ₫) 469.84 $
(10,566,730.77 ₫) -65.19 %

Buy Apartment Price [Edit] [Edit]
Price per Square Feet to Buy Apartment in City Centre 208.71 $
(4,693,949.88 ₫) 174.19 $
(3,917,563.53 ₫) -16.54 %
Price per Square Feet to Buy Apartment Outside of Centre 135.09 $
(3,038,106.74 ₫) 72.53 $
(1,631,248.11 ₫) -46.31 %

Salaries And Financing [Edit] [Edit]
Average Monthly Disposable Salary (After Tax) 2,700.03 $
(60,723,587.34 ₫) 244.55 $
(5,500,000.00 ₫) -90.94 %
Mortgage Interest Rate in Percentages (%), Yearly 4.18 9.45 +126.07 %

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...t.jsp?country1=United+States&country2=Vietnam

 

[Jayjay]

if nobody else will go out on a limb, i'll define what i think a reasonable "living wage" consists of:
an amount of money necessary to cover standard costs of all basic 1st world US standard of living expenses (a reasonable short term payment on an economical city car, insurance and gas for the car, apartment rent, groceries, utilities, a phone, internet access, health insurance including dental and eyecare) as well as +10% on top of that for "entertainment" however you want to define that, and another +10% for savings and personal safety net.
working 40 hours a week, i don't believe anyone should ever make less than that.

And if someone doesn't work for 40 hours a week, for whatever reason, which of those things that you listed should he not be entitled to?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You said you don't find it patriotic to value people according to their pay check, and then you said paying people at a particular wage devalues them. Hence you calling yourself unpatriotic.

Except, of course, I didn't. One was a personal statement, the other an observation of a general behavior.

But you already knew that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why should businesses be able to get away with paying below a living wage?

Good question.

Maybe eventually someone will answer it with an answer and not questions designed to avoid it.

Because they can get away with it. Is a worker on a substandard wage going to pay a lawyer for arbitration. If someone does go to arbitration they can simply be fired.

In Hong Kong during the British rule a law made it illegal to fire a worker (even on contract) if he had a legal dispute with his employer). This law was quite rigidly enforced.

 

[prideandfall]

And if someone doesn't work for 40 hours a week, for whatever reason, which of those things that you listed should he not be entitled to?

entertainment money and savings first, a car and its related expenses second - though that's predicated on the area and whether public transit is a viable option.
it's easily and painlessly within our means in the US to supply every single resident of this country with a basic minimal standard of living that is commensurate with a reasonable expectation for a 1st world country, though as a capitalism-driven country where the economy is a powerful part of our daily life i would say that a "free ride" should only be handed to those who can't maintain self-sufficiency, for either physical or mental reasons.

but, that's getting rather far off track... because the conversation isn't about part-time working, it's about what's reasonable to expect a single full time worker to receive in compensation for their labor.
in both the impact of their position and the amount of pressure put on them because of it, not to mention the drudgery of the work while also having a fairly high expectation of near perfect execution at all times, i don't think it's unreasonable to classify low-skill drone work to be deserving of a livable salary.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Good question.

Maybe eventually someone will answer it with an answer and not questions designed to avoid it.

Because they can get away with it. Is a worker on a substandard wage going to pay a lawyer for arbitration. If someone does go to arbitration they can simply be fired.

In Hong Kong during the British rule a law made it illegal to fire a worker (even on contract) if he had a legal dispute with his employer). This law was quite rigidly enforced.

Yes, this is why they do it. Why should be allowed to do it?

If the answer is they should not be allowed, we need to change the paradigm.

 

[braces_for_impact]

One question. Are people that make bad choices in life still people worthy of being alive and involved in society?

Is society worthy enough to make that call? Will society ever be worthy enough to make that call?

Sure. Some societies have. Maybe I should rephrase the question, Are people that make bad choices in life still people worthy of being alive and involved in our society?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You said you don't find it patriotic to value people according to their pay check, and then you said paying people at a particular wage devalues them. Hence you calling yourself unpatriotic.

Except, of course, I didn't. One was a personal statement, the other an observation of a general behavior.

But you already knew that.

Saying that paying people at a particular wage devalues them is not an observation of a general behavior. It is a value judgment you made. Anyway, you don't seem to want to own up to your own contradiction, and I'm not really interested in nitpicking further, so I'll move on.

 

[KeepTalking]

if nobody else will go out on a limb, i'll define what i think a reasonable "living wage" consists of:
an amount of money necessary to cover standard costs of all basic 1st world US standard of living expenses (a reasonable short term payment on an economical city car, insurance and gas for the car, apartment rent, groceries, utilities, a phone, internet access, health insurance including dental and eyecare) as well as +10% on top of that for "entertainment" however you want to define that, and another +10% for savings and personal safety net.
working 40 hours a week, i don't believe anyone should ever make less than that.

And if someone doesn't work for 40 hours a week, for whatever reason, which of those things that you listed should he not be entitled to?

It doesn't matter, they should be paid, at a minimum, the same hourly rate that a person who works 40 hours a week is paid to make it a living wage, thus keeping employers from only offering part-time work to avoid paying a living wage.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why should the taxes I pay subsidize people who make irresponsible choices to have children they can't afford any more than I already do through all the various tax breaks people with children already receive? I am talking deductions, EITC and the child tax credit, the latter two being "refundable" (i.e. they can result in refund being higher than withholding resulting in negative effective tax rate). All those tax breaks is something the writer of the OP article didn't mention.

I do see a point here. Should we increase the EITC and child care credit as part of our taxes or should we push that expense on to employers? I think it's a fair question as to who has the responsibility. If we are saying it's a societal responsibility then isn't the fair thing that our taxes should increase?

Exactly. That's what I am saying. Putting the weight on employers lets the idle rich and companies that are not labour intensive walk away.

It also puts a serious burden on small employers that operate on a shoe string. They don't have the luxury of adjusting prices to account for the increase in expenses.

Indeed. This may even put very small employers under before they can get a firm footing in the marketplace. So why do the people in the US want to push these things on employers? Why are employers considered the go to place for social supports there? And is there any outcry by employers to get proper government social support in place?

I agree that you have more than enough money in the US to keep every citizen afloat, but I don't see why that needs to be so firmly attached to employment. Those part time workers and those who can't find jobs despite great effort should not simply be left out to die. That is what will happen if you tie all this to employment instead of doing it through a proper social welfare system or universal basic income.

It doesn't matter, they should be paid, at a minimum, the same hourly rate that a person who works 40 hours a week is paid to make it a living wage, thus keeping employers from only offering part-time work to avoid paying a living wage.

You make it sound like employers are nefariously plotting and twirling their mustaches, out to ensure that people don't get a "living wage" and are kept in perpetual poverty.

 

[KeepTalking]

Why should the taxes I pay subsidize people who make irresponsible choices to have children they can't afford any more than I already do through all the various tax breaks people with children already receive? I am talking deductions, EITC and the child tax credit, the latter two being "refundable" (i.e. they can result in refund being higher than withholding resulting in negative effective tax rate). All those tax breaks is something the writer of the OP article didn't mention.

I do see a point here. Should we increase the EITC and child care credit as part of our taxes or should we push that expense on to employers? I think it's a fair question as to who has the responsibility. If we are saying it's a societal responsibility then isn't the fair thing that our taxes should increase?

Exactly. That's what I am saying. Putting the weight on employers lets the idle rich and companies that are not labour intensive walk away.

It also puts a serious burden on small employers that operate on a shoe string. They don't have the luxury of adjusting prices to account for the increase in expenses.

Indeed. So why do the people in the US want to push these things on employers?

I think it comes down to politics. There is no way that we can get the current federal legislature to even consider UBI, but mandating a minimum wage is a thing we already do, so politically, it makes more sense to try to turn that into a living wage. In my opinion, however, UBI would definitely be better for everyone.

And is there any outcry by employers to get proper government social support in place?

Because they benefit from the current status quo. They don't don't have to pay a living wage now, and they are afraid that instituting UBI would mean that they have to pay more taxes.

 

[laughing dog]

Indeed. So why do the people in the US want to push these things on employers? Why are employers considered the go to place for social supports there? And is there any outcry by employers to get proper government social support in place?

I suppose people think employers ought to pay a living wage. Equating a living wage = social support is a logical mistake, since a wage is earned with the work providing some self-satisfaction and self-worth while a person on social support may be viewed as some sort of parasite (that view frequently appears in threads like these) in the USA. To answer your last question, the answer is NO.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Because they benefit from the current status quo. They don't don't have to pay a living wage now, and they are afraid that instituting UBI would mean that they have to pay more taxes.

Good point, but something's gotta give, and they risk having to pay an increased minimum wage and shoulder all of the increase instead of just part of it were taxes increased. I guess they are just dumdums