What is minimally acceptable?

[DBT]

I think that developed nations have a cost of living index, which may be used to determine a poverty line and a minimum wage rate that allows workers stay above the poverty line, ideally, significantly above the threat of poverty. Which is probably only achievable through unity. Individuals don't have bargaining power unless their particular skill is in high demand.

 

[Malintent]

I think that developed nations have a cost of living index, which may be used to determine a poverty line and a minimum wage rate that allows workers stay above the poverty line, ideally, significantly above the threat of poverty. Which is probably only achievable through unity. Individuals don't have bargaining power unless their particular skill is in high demand.

The CPI is a ratio expressing the change in cost of various goods. It is good for measuring trends of cost over time. I am not sure how this can be used to find values of the actual cost of living, rather than relative ratios of cost of living between regions. but there is an interesting bit to this... the relative weight of various consumer goods in the calculation of CPI. It is as follows:

Housing: 41.4%
Food and Beverage: 17.4%
Transport: 17.0%
Medical Care: 6.9%
Apparel: 6.0%
Entertainment: 4.4%
Other: 6.9%

So, this lays out what economists believe the distribution of household expenses "should" be. This is helpful, in that it can provide a method for calculation. But we first need to understand what a "minimal" rent or mortgage would be, or what a "minimal" amount of healthcare is... etc..

 

[fromderinside]

So why did you write

"Reflecting that in a minimum wage would just be some math... whatever that amount is divided by 35 or 40 hours per week... as I see it."

?

I apologize, but I fail to see the incongruity between my statements that you quoted.

You left two points open which you could have addressed by; 1. adding the link to adequacy of minimum income and calculated minimum wage and 2. suggesting one should not be expected to be employed to receive the minimum amount.

See. It is not another conversation. You just formed your answer sloppily.

You may be misunderstanding the topic, and therefore the context of my statements... I am in no way implying that minimum wage PROVIDES minimally acceptable living, nor am I debating the necessity (or not) of employment being a prerequisite to minimal standards of living.

The point of this thread is to explore how one would calculate a minimum wage, IF minimum wage was is supposed to provide that (and what "that" is). If you want to discuss capitalism in general, then I am sure it will be an interesting conversation, somewhere else

I simply pointed out two glitches in your conversation. They have nothing to do with economy, capitalistic or otherwise. If you really want to get picky when you mentioned wage you opened the door to economy which I only used to note two logical flaws in your argument.

If there is wage then there is work and if there is work some may not participate voluntarily or involuntarily which you must account for when you talk about implemtnation of adequacy.

 

[DBT]

I think that developed nations have a cost of living index, which may be used to determine a poverty line and a minimum wage rate that allows workers stay above the poverty line, ideally, significantly above the threat of poverty. Which is probably only achievable through unity. Individuals don't have bargaining power unless their particular skill is in high demand.

The CPI is a ratio expressing the change in cost of various goods. It is good for measuring trends of cost over time. I am not sure how this can be used to find values of the actual cost of living, rather than relative ratios of cost of living between regions. but there is an interesting bit to this... the relative weight of various consumer goods in the calculation of CPI. It is as follows:

Housing: 41.4%
Food and Beverage: 17.4%
Transport: 17.0%
Medical Care: 6.9%
Apparel: 6.0%
Entertainment: 4.4%
Other: 6.9%

So, this lays out what economists believe the distribution of household expenses "should" be. This is helpful, in that it can provide a method for calculation. But we first need to understand what a "minimal" rent or mortgage would be, or what a "minimal" amount of healthcare is... etc..

Why bother with stingy minimums where people have to scrape out a miserable existence while the other half live in Mansions and have Yachts in the Harbor? A wealthy nation should have the means to provide a decent standard of living for all its citizens, especially anyone who is workingfuck full time, doing productive work. That this isn't happening is shameful. As it stands, the problem is that our economic systems are set up by the very rich to benefit the rich and fuck the rest.

 

[Malintent]

So why did you write

"Reflecting that in a minimum wage would just be some math... whatever that amount is divided by 35 or 40 hours per week... as I see it."

?

I apologize, but I fail to see the incongruity between my statements that you quoted.

You left two points open which you could have addressed by; 1. adding the link to adequacy of minimum income and calculated minimum wage and 2. suggesting one should not be expected to be employed to receive the minimum amount.

See. It is not another conversation. You just formed your answer sloppily.

You may be misunderstanding the topic, and therefore the context of my statements... I am in no way implying that minimum wage PROVIDES minimally acceptable living, nor am I debating the necessity (or not) of employment being a prerequisite to minimal standards of living.

The point of this thread is to explore how one would calculate a minimum wage, IF minimum wage was is supposed to provide that (and what "that" is). If you want to discuss capitalism in general, then I am sure it will be an interesting conversation, somewhere else

I simply pointed out two glitches in your conversation. They have nothing to do with economy, capitalistic or otherwise. If you really want to get picky when you mentioned wage you opened the door to economy which I only used to note two logical flaws in your argument.

If there is wage then there is work and if there is work some may not participate voluntarily or involuntarily which you must account for when you talk about implemtnation of adequacy.

ah, i see... then i understand our disconnect.. 'implementation' is not the focus of the topic. 'definition' is. implementation is secondary (the 'simple' calculation). it is confusing...

 

[Malintent]

The CPI is a ratio expressing the change in cost of various goods. It is good for measuring trends of cost over time. I am not sure how this can be used to find values of the actual cost of living, rather than relative ratios of cost of living between regions. but there is an interesting bit to this... the relative weight of various consumer goods in the calculation of CPI. It is as follows:

Housing: 41.4%
Food and Beverage: 17.4%
Transport: 17.0%
Medical Care: 6.9%
Apparel: 6.0%
Entertainment: 4.4%
Other: 6.9%

So, this lays out what economists believe the distribution of household expenses "should" be. This is helpful, in that it can provide a method for calculation. But we first need to understand what a "minimal" rent or mortgage would be, or what a "minimal" amount of healthcare is... etc..

Why bother with stingy minimums where people have to scrape out a miserable existence while the other half live in Mansions and have Yachts in the Harbor? A wealthy nation should have the means to provide a decent standard of living for all its citizens, especially anyone who is workingfuck full time, doing productive work. That this isn't happening is shameful. As it stands, the problem is that our economic systems are set up by the very rich to benefit the rich and fuck the rest.

ok. what is a 'decent standard of living'?.... because that is synonymous with the question in the OP

 

[DBT]

Why bother with stingy minimums where people have to scrape out a miserable existence while the other half live in Mansions and have Yachts in the Harbor? A wealthy nation should have the means to provide a decent standard of living for all its citizens, especially anyone who is workingfuck full time, doing productive work. That this isn't happening is shameful. As it stands, the problem is that our economic systems are set up by the very rich to benefit the rich and fuck the rest.

ok. what is a 'decent standard of living'?.... because that is synonymous with the question in the OP

Anything significantly above the poverty line for any given nation or state. If I remember correctly, Menzies set a living wage in Australia that was calculated to allow a working man to support his family, raise children, buy a house, run a car, take an annual holiday, etc, on what he earned in a 40 hour working week. In those days wives generally stayed home and took care of domestic work.

 

[fromderinside]

ah, i see... then i understand our disconnect.. 'implementation' is not the focus of the topic. 'definition' is. implementation is secondary (the 'simple' calculation). it is confusing...

ah, I see ---- then while definition does reflect meaning that is not all the OP is about. It is about meaning of minimally acceptable resources re: wage. So it's not implementation either. The 'simple' meaning what is minimally acceptable wage does include economic and political value as part of valid calculation and therefore discussion. That means 'from each ...to each' though to incentive and cost reward. Ergo one not working at all is an option in the mix as is 30 to 35 hours and incentive and cost benefit and all the rest are factors needing definition and explanation. I see no space between definition and conditions for implementation of definition without the hours thing except as as an example in a given well defined system.

I'd be open to something like an acceptability decision model based on existing economic and social conditions against value of necessary resources and individual sustenance demands.

 

[BH]

OK I have a mechanism;  Decision Theory. Its well formed and it makes verifiable predictions given the presumptions of unknowns are sound. However, so far anyone in the economic realm who has used it has twisted those beyond recognition - not that correcting that would make everything all warm and cuddly again -I suspect the same would be here too since what you ask is personal and subjective, in other words unpredictable..

Unfortunately:

A general criticism of decision theory based on a fixed universe of possibilities is that it considers the "known unknowns", not the "unknown unknowns": it focuses on expected variations, not on unforeseen events, which some argue (as in black swan theory) have outsized impact and must be considered – significant events may be "outside model". This line of argument, called the ludic fallacy, is that there are inevitable imperfections in modeling the real world by particular models, and that unquestioning reliance on models blinds one to their limits.

So even if we proposed living wage that was strongly tied to existing metrics with good future predictive structure it would ultimately become another case of the butterfly effect causing havoc somewhere else. Remember, multiple well defined linear variables combined lead to chaos.

But the way we are doing things now may very well have a butterfly effect too, leading to some horrible disaster in the future no one now can see.

 

[fromderinside]

Since chaotic systems are bound it should be fairly easy to see which bounds we could tolerate.