What's Wrong With A Living Wage?

[dockeen]

It looks like that number would be somewhere between $30K and $40K for a family of 6 to 8.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's impossible to measure the true value of work because there's no way to resolve what share goes to each input when you are dealing with a synergy situation (and you almost always are.)

Your notion that the worker gets 100% is obviously flawed--it doesn't pay for the equipment, thus there will be no new equipment.

If worker justice was any part of capitalism, by now we would have all kinds of methods of trying to determine the value of labor.

But capitalists don't give a shit about worker justice. They pay workers a market wage with is nothing but theft.

The problem is that it is inherently something for which no universally acceptable answer exists.

The whole point of most business is synergy--the output is greater than the sum of the inputs. What is responsible for creating that extra? You can't conclusively point to it's source.

 

[untermensche]

If worker justice was any part of capitalism, by now we would have all kinds of methods of trying to determine the value of labor.

But capitalists don't give a shit about worker justice. They pay workers a market wage with is nothing but theft.

The problem is that it is inherently something for which no universally acceptable answer exists.

The whole point of most business is synergy--the output is greater than the sum of the inputs. What is responsible for creating that extra? You can't conclusively point to it's source.

A real world economy doesn't need the perfect solution.

The fact is, worker justice is not a part of capitalism. That is why when workers rose up for justice they were attacked and killed.

An economic system without even a mention of worker justice is a slave/master system.

 

[Canard DuJour]

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?

Depends what people hiring me to do tasks for them pay me.

See how that works?

 

[Ford]

If people were just paid the true value of their work we would have a much smaller problem.

But most people don't get paid in any relation to their work. They get paid a market wage. Which is just another way of saying lowest possible wage.

So most are paid the lowest possible wage. That is the worst way to create a vibrant economy. The way you create the most vibrant economy is to pay workers as much as possible.

But who really gives a shit about the economy. Things are working out so well for those at the top even without much of one.

It's impossible to measure the true value of work because there's no way to resolve what share goes to each input when you are dealing with a synergy situation (and you almost always are.)

Your notion that the worker gets 100% is obviously flawed--it doesn't pay for the equipment, thus there will be no new equipment.

It is impossible to value work? Bollocks. We do it all the time. At issue is by what measure we value the labor. As untermensche said, often the measure is "what's the lowest amount we can legally get away with paying?"

In some sectors of the economy, even that isn't low enough, so companies will break the law in order to pad their bottom line by hiring illegal immigrants. Those immigrants become an even greater strain on the economy. Due to their sub-poverty wages, they soak up more social services. And because they'll work cheap out of desperation, wages for legal workers are depressed even further,,,which makes earning a living wage even harder, which in turn drags everything else down.

As it stands now - by valuing work at the lowest possible number - we've managed to create an economy with millions of illegal immigrants working jobs and soaking up social services, millions of Americans unable to support themselves and soaking up social services, and people dropping out of the middle class and into that realm where they, too, will have to hit up the food banks and apply for government assistance in order to feed the family.

In the long term, paying people based upon the bare minimum that a company wants to pay isn't going to work out. Earning power will continue to fall (minimum wage hasn't gone up in 7 years but the cost of living continues to rise unabated), and the number of people unable to make a living will grow. Instead of valuing labor at the least the employers are willing to cough up, we should start by valuing labor at the least an employee needs to make a living. Because at the end of the day, no amount will ever be low enough for the employer, and the amount it costs to make a living will always rise.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It's impossible to measure the true value of work because there's no way to resolve what share goes to each input when you are dealing with a synergy situation (and you almost always are.)

Your notion that the worker gets 100% is obviously flawed--it doesn't pay for the equipment, thus there will be no new equipment.

It is impossible to value work? Bollocks. We do it all the time. At issue is by what measure we value the labor. As untermensche said, often the measure is "what's the lowest amount we can legally get away with paying?"

In some sectors of the economy, even that isn't low enough, so companies will break the law in order to pad their bottom line by hiring illegal immigrants. Those immigrants become an even greater strain on the economy. Due to their sub-poverty wages, they soak up more social services. And because they'll work cheap out of desperation, wages for legal workers are depressed even further,,,which makes earning a living wage even harder, which in turn drags everything else down.

As it stands now - by valuing work at the lowest possible number - we've managed to create an economy with millions of illegal immigrants working jobs and soaking up social services, millions of Americans unable to support themselves and soaking up social services, and people dropping out of the middle class and into that realm where they, too, will have to hit up the food banks and apply for government assistance in order to feed the family.

In the long term, paying people based upon the bare minimum that a company wants to pay isn't going to work out. Earning power will continue to fall (minimum wage hasn't gone up in 7 years but the cost of living continues to rise unabated), and the number of people unable to make a living will grow. Instead of valuing labor at the least the employers are willing to cough up, we should start by valuing labor at the least an employee needs to make a living. Because at the end of the day, no amount will ever be low enough for the employer, and the amount it costs to make a living will always rise.

Well it's the plantation mentality, isn't it? The idea that owners can justify the mistreatment of workers by saying the only way to get them to work is by threat and violence. Uncertainty, insecurity, and deprivation are what workers understand and only fear will drive them. Give them more and they will want more and get ideas above their station.

 

[Jayjay]

Why is that a terrible idea?

Yes there are outliers already mentioned (the ever-present 17 year old working their first job, retirees greeting people at Wal Mart, part time coffee shop workers, etc.) but for the vast majority - people working a full time hourly job - what is the thinking behind the implied assertion that those people should not be paid enough to live on their own without charity or assistance?

I mean if you are going to argue against a living wage, make the case. Explain why a person putting in 40 hours a week should not be able to make a living doing so.

Because it's a logical fallacy. A person putting in 40 hours a week has absolutely nothing to do with whether he should be be able to make a living doing so. These outliers you mentioned exist, and presumably they should be able to have decent living standards as well, but even if we were to just look at normal, able-bodied people, hours are not a measure of productivity or usefulness.

The statement that 40 hours of working should for vast majority always be worth a living wage seems to be more an article of faith than a fact-based claim. I tend to believe that this might be the case for a majority of people, but as simple manual labor gets more automated and the remainign jobs require non-trivial skills and experience, at some point, the productive members of society will be in the minority. We as a society need to figure out how to deal with that.

As a society, we're expecting people to get by in 2014 'Merica on 1994 wages. How is that sustainable? Or perhaps a better question is...if not a living wage, then what?

A wage set by market forces. And that includes strong enough unions and worker protections to balance out the collective bargaining power of employers. If after that, some jobs still aren't worth a living wage, then some form of welfare is pretty much the only option.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's impossible to measure the true value of work because there's no way to resolve what share goes to each input when you are dealing with a synergy situation (and you almost always are.)

Your notion that the worker gets 100% is obviously flawed--it doesn't pay for the equipment, thus there will be no new equipment.

It is impossible to value work? Bollocks. We do it all the time. At issue is by what measure we value the labor. As untermensche said, often the measure is "what's the lowest amount we can legally get away with paying?"

We value work based on what it costs to hire the worker. He's saying to value it based on the value of the output.

1) How do you define the value of the output? The very same market forces he objects to.

2) The real problem is when you have multiple inputs how do you decide how much of the output is due to each input? This is what I'm saying is inherently impossible to resolve.

In the long term, paying people based upon the bare minimum that a company wants to pay isn't going to work out. Earning power will continue to fall (minimum wage hasn't gone up in 7 years but the cost of living continues to rise unabated), and the number of people unable to make a living will grow. Instead of valuing labor at the least the employers are willing to cough up, we should start by valuing labor at the least an employee needs to make a living. Because at the end of the day, no amount will ever be low enough for the employer, and the amount it costs to make a living will always rise.

Welfare is the job of the government, not the business community.

And lets consider your idea on valuing labor. Both my wife and I are self employed at this point. How do you propose to mandate a minimum wage for either of us?

 

[untermensche]

We value work based on what it costs to hire the worker. He's saying to value it based on the value of the output.

That is not how work is valued. It is valued on how little people will accept. Ultimately the worker does make the decision, but it is a limited decision not a free decision.

So guess what? Times are tough and there are a lot of people out of work. The value of work just dropped. How fortunate for some.

1) How do you define the value of the output? The very same market forces he objects to.

If it was something we cared to value people with a lot more imagination than you would figure out methods to make accurate estimates of the value of labor.

 

[Ford]

Welfare is the job of the government, not the business community.

If the business community ("the market") was as effective as it is made out to be, there wouldn't be a need for welfare. Why is it that taxpayers are expected to take up the slack for what "the market" fails to provide?

And lets consider your idea on valuing labor. Both my wife and I are self employed at this point. How do you propose to mandate a minimum wage for either of us?

You've taken the risk to become entrepreneurs. I don't propose a mandated wage for either of you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because it's a logical fallacy. A person putting in 40 hours a week has absolutely nothing to do with whether he should be be able to make a living doing so. These outliers you mentioned exist, and presumably they should be able to have decent living standards as well, but even if we were to just look at normal, able-bodied people, hours are not a measure of productivity or usefulness.

Sounds like a variation on the participation medals--the idea that showing up at work should award a living wage.

As a society, we're expecting people to get by in 2014 'Merica on 1994 wages. How is that sustainable? Or perhaps a better question is...if not a living wage, then what?

A wage set by market forces. And that includes strong enough unions and worker protections to balance out the collective bargaining power of employers. If after that, some jobs still aren't worth a living wage, then some form of welfare is pretty much the only option.

Wages have been rising.

What is going on is they are also spreading out as skill is becoming increasingly important. Those without useful job skills are falling behind.

In the long run I think some form of welfare (I'm inclined towards the negative income tax) is going to be needed but I don't believe we are there yet. Under normal economic conditions the jobs are there. Apply yourself, work your way up.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should workers be paid based on PITY for them instead of on their performance/output?

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.

So now we're dictating to others what they "should" or "shouldn't" be? What if a poor person wants to start a business -- you're dictating that they "should" not do that, they're not fit to be an employer? What if some desperate chronically-unemployed job-seeker wants to work for that poor person and will accept a low wage rather than remain unemployed? These are bad people who "should" not do this and should be arrested and put in jail for undermining the morals or the "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" that are dictated by self-righteous left-wingers and labor union ideologues?

This "you shouldn't be an employer" platitude makes it clear what the "living wage" ideology is all about: Punish employers more and more, shame them, guilt-trip all of them who are in it for profit or self-gain and who hire workers in order to get their production done rather than out of pity for those workers. I.e., the function of "jobs" is to provide incomes to the employees and not to get needed work from them to serve consumers.

And that desperate job-seeker is also guilty and fit for punishment too -- right? You also have to smack him down, don't you: "you shouldn't be a worker!" has to be your response if he complains that he can't find a high-paying job and can only get hired at a low wage.

But if instead the function of work is to serve consumers, then we need employers even if they pay less than a "living wage" because they are serving consumers rather than babysitting their workers and are cutting costs in order to better serve the consumers.

These cost-cutting employers are competing with other producers, to the benefit of consumers, and this competition will produce the best outcome for consumers, with the wage level going up only as needed to attract better workers who perform at a higher level, and not as an entitlement to whining employees that the consumers have to pay for in the form of higher prices with no improvement in service to them.

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

The "hypothetical" was: "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?"

What is so "extreme" about this example? The proposed "living wage" scheme under discussion would pay couples like these, and many more workers far more than necessary for their survival. A household of 3 or 4 in which more than one is working would be paid enough to raise a family of 9 or 12 or 16, under this scheme. Why should a household having 3 or 4 people in it need to receive an income large enough to raise a family of 12 or 16?

Why not just let employers pay workers what they're worth instead of the extra welfare pity payments?

What is "extreme"? There are many cases of households where there are wage-earners and conditions which lie outside the "norm" assumed in the proposed "living wage" scheme.

Why should ALL wage-earners have to be paid enough to raise a family of 3 or 4 when there are plenty where the need for this does not exist? These are not "extreme hypotheticals" but common real examples of households which would have to be paid more than necessary for survival, even twice what is necessary, only because of this twisted "living wage" scheme that would be imposed onto all employers and which we would all have to pay for in higher prices. Why is it a good thing to impose this cost and inefficiency onto society which would largely be unneeded?

This "living wage" scheme still would not solve the poverty problem -- not even come close. There still has to be welfare schemes to take care of all the families larger than 4, because an income sufficient to raise a family of 4 is not enough for them, and their children will suffer unless the welfare state steps in to save them.

So, since you still have to have a welfare system in place to deal with all these cases, why not just let that welfare system take care of all the cases of poor families of 3 or 4? Why make the employer the welfare provider and babysitter of the workers, instead of just letting the state do ALL the welfare cases?

Why have a 2-tier welfare system -- one for families of 3 or 4, which also gives unnecessary welfare payments to all the other workers who don't need it because they don't fit the "norm" of 3 or 4 and only one working, and a second welfare system for all the large families who have a similar need as the 3-4 category? The same system can't handle all of them?

Why should we have 2 different welfare systems like this which are both serving the same purpose? Why punish the employers by forcing them to provide these excessive welfare payments which are not necessary for many of the workers? Why impose this extra unnecessary cost onto employers, which penalizes them for being employers? Why not instead let the employers do what they are best at, which is to serve their customers or offer a good product/service?

Every additional cost you impose onto them is just one more disincentive to companies to hire workers or to stay in business or to start up in the first place. Why is this the best way to provide welfare to the needy? Especially since you must still have the state perform this function anyway for all the larger families that the employers don't have to provide for?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is not how work is valued. It is valued on how little people will accept. Ultimately the worker does make the decision, but it is a limited decision not a free decision.

It didn't take a week, we were done in only 7 days!

1) How do you define the value of the output? The very same market forces he objects to.

If it was something we cared to value people with a lot more imagination than you would figure out methods to make accurate estimates of the value of labor.

In other words you don't have an answer, just a fantasy of how you want things to be.

- - - Updated - - -

If the business community ("the market") was as effective as it is made out to be, there wouldn't be a need for welfare. Why is it that taxpayers are expected to take up the slack for what "the market" fails to provide?

The market doesn't provide for those who don't produce.

And lets consider your idea on valuing labor. Both my wife and I are self employed at this point. How do you propose to mandate a minimum wage for either of us?

You've taken the risk to become entrepreneurs. I don't propose a mandated wage for either of you.

Neither of us chose the situation, we did what we could when our employers collapsed.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's wrong with companies shopping for cheaper labor, just as consumers shop for bargains?

Why should a company making "record profits" have to pay its workers any more than a company barely surviving?

What is your time worth? Time as a substantial portion of your life, time you'll never get to live again?

The question was why we should expect a company making record profits to pay a higher wage for the same work as a company barely surviving. I.e., why should that time be worth more if the company you're working for is making "record profits"? Obviously anyone is free to quit -- so why isn't that freedom to quit sufficient for workers who think their time is worth more?

Employers are usually in a position of power, . . .

If this is true, it is because all the laws, like labor laws, are an impossible burden on a very small business struggling to survive, whereas large mega-giant companies can afford the costs of compliance with all these laws.

Those who have enacted all these burdensome labor laws and obstacles to small companies cannot complain that most employers are "in a position of power" after having driven out of business or turned away so many thousands of small start-ups who gave up out of despair of being able to afford the costs.

. . . especially if there is pool of unemployed to draw from, . . .

Just like consumers benefit if there are more companies offering something they want and are competing with each other so consumers can shop around for lower prices and also for better quality and convenience and so on.

And so companies also shop around for better workers or lower price (wage) just as consumers do. What's wrong with that? Why do we resent employers shopping around for a bargain any more than we resent consumers shopping for a lower price?

Why is this shopping around for a better deal any reason to crack down on employers and demonize them and punish them as if they were criminals?

And why is this any excuse why a company enjoying "record profits" should be condemned for paying the same low wage as a company that is barely surviving? Why should they have to pay more for the same work? for the same performance?

. . . and with the central business interest in mind (maximizing profit) . . .

Isn't the wage-earner also trying to maximize profit essentially? Won't the worker demand more if s/he can get it? Isn't the only reason they often can't get more simply because they're not worth it? because the competition is too great? too much supply of other job-seekers? i.e., the same reason why a store often cannot increase its prices (too much competition)?

. . . and with the central business interest in mind (maximizing profit) tend to value their own time and interests above and beyond the real value and contribution of their employees, . . .

The one who pays them is best qualified to say what their "real value and contribution" is. Just as the consumer/customer is best qualified to say what is the "real value and contribution" of the product or service in question.

No outsider, especially not a left-wing busy-body labor activist ideologue, has any business dictating to a buyer what is the "real value and contribution" of the item being bought. Let them limit their opinion of what the "real value and contribution" is to something they are paying for themselves instead of pretending to make such a judgment for someone else. When you do your own hiring and need the work done right and within budget and have to pay the cost for anything that goes wrong, then you'll be in a position to pronounce what the "real value and contribution" of the employee (or whoever is being paid) is.

. . . of their employees, who make running the business and its profits a possibility.

No they don't -- that's silly. The vast majority of employees are easily replaceable without any threat to the company's survival. With dozens of qualified job-seekers waiting in the wings, eager and willing to take that position, what real dependence does the business truly have on any of those employees? Virtually none. But where a particular employee is really valuable and essential to the company, that company knows it better than anyone else, and does whatever necessary to keep that valuable worker.

The only workers who are paid low are the ones who are so unessential and of marginal value that they could easily be replaced, and that company's on-going operation and profit is in no danger from that worker's absence. If that worker get's run over by a car, the company will continue on business-as-usual the next day without batting an eyelash.

Often no matter what the profit margins, Firms do not want to pay more than they need to.

Of course not. And neither do you. Neither does any consumer want to pay more than necessary. Why should they? Why should Firms pay any more than they need to? Why should we impose some moral obligation on them to do so?

Nothing here answers the question why companies enjoying "record profits" should have to pay the same worker more than a small company struggling to survive.

The question is: why should any employee, doing essential work for a company, expend a large portion of their own time and effort for substandard pay?

None of them do. If their pay goes below the proper level for that work's value, that employee will quit that company and be hired by another that will pay his/her real value. if they can't find another company that will pay them more, then guess what --- It's because they're not worth any more.

And the real question is: Why should companies have to pay a worker any more than that worker's real value, as minimum wage and other labor laws force them to do?

Their value is whatever benefit they produce for consumers, which is measured by how much more business they gain for the company serving those consumers, and which could not be produced by replacement workers. Their value is NOT some touchy-feely self-esteem cosmic Essence pablum cooked up by Left-wing Econo-babblers preaching to a mob of hysterical striking hamburger-flippers.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why do we insist on making employers be babysitters?

Business owners can have "austerity" periods where they are trying to start up and need to pay a lower wage. As long as there are no dividends paid to any shareholder, and no employee makes more than 2x the living wage, then you can pay workers less than the living wage.

This would drive many start-ups to hire independent contractors instead of wage-earners for any higher-paid work above 2x the "living wage."

There would also be arrangements where a highly-needed worker is paid "under the table" in one form or another. There are many ways to circumvent a requirement like this.

It would be better to just do away with the idea that the employer has to be the babysitter of the workers who pays them out of pity instead of only to get the work done. We shouldn't impose this onto employers anymore than onto consumers, who shop for lower prices. Consumers are not obligated to pay higher prices in order to provide a "living" income to the store-owner. And neither should employers be obligated to pay labor any more than what is necessary to get the needed work done.

As soon as the owner or any other employees takes in more than 2X the living wage, the wages of all persons in the company will start to ramp up. If more than 4 people make more than 2x, then ALL employees must be getting at least living wage. If anyone in the company makes more than 3x living wage, then ALL employees must be getting at least living wage.

No, this could hamper a company that needs certain special workers that have much higher value. It would prevent that company from getting the help it needs for specialized work. It might be able to afford to pay higher for the specialized work, which it needs in order to make a profit, but cannot afford to pay high "living wage" level.

Why can't we just let companies do their business, i.e., serve consumers, and stop imposing all these unnecessary babysitting costs onto them?

Go ahead and have your start-up. As long as you are struggling, you can ask your employees to struggle with you.

But part of the struggling is the need to hire some high-skilled expensive workers too. Why should these higher-value workers settle for only half what they're worth? Why should they work out of pity for the company?

Pity is wrong as a reason for paying a higher price (wage) for something, and also for accepting a LOWER price than the real value you offer (as a seller or wage-earner). It's just as wrong to expect workers to serve a company out of pity, and be paid less than their real value, as it is to ask companies to pay workers more than their value out of pity for them.

As soon as you are no longer struggling, your exploitation period ends.

But what if the company is still struggling and cannot afford to pay all the workers a "living wage" but also needs a few high-skilled workers?

A living wage raises all boats.

No it doesn't -- it raises all PRICES. And those higher prices mean lots of boats will sink. When you increase the cost of living, the higher wages to some do not increase the general living standard, but actually reduce it because the higher cost of production results in less wealth produced and lower value of every dollar spent.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

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?

In the real world it means unnecessary costs are imposed onto employers to provide supposed welfare benefits to someone when the reality is that a large number of those welfare benefits are not necessary, because those employees are not really welfare cases, and yet they are paid this higher-than-their-value welfare income by the employer.

Only those in households of 3 or 4 and with only one of them working are the welfare cases, while all the other employees being paid the extra welfare benefit out of pity to them are not really welfare cases and don't need this extra benefit via their employer. There is a significant number here who are affected, not just the 17-year-old couple example.

. . . hard working people who have contributed to rising productivity level for decade are on food stamps and . . .

No, this is a falsehood -- it is not true that these workers have contributed to rising productivity. That higher "worker productivity" is not due to anything the workers did but rather to the better machines they operate.

Just because you give a worker a better machine to operate which produces better output than the earlier machines does not mean that this worker is contributing to the higher "worker productivity." In fact, the new machine often requires LESS skill to operate and a lower-value worker.

All the workers have done to improve the productivity is price themselves so high that it is better to invent machines to replace them.

They are not hypothetical. what about them? Lets discuss the people who are not the ones we make up.

The example of the two 17-year-olds was not made up but a real example. There are plenty of examples of workers not in the 3- or 4-member-household-with-one-working category. While the OP "living wage" scheme is presented as a welfare scheme to take care of only workers in this category, who might have difficulty surviving on a low wage, this higher welfare wage paid to them out of pity by the employer is also paid to all the other workers who are NOT in this welfare-case category.

These would be anyone living alone, any 2-member household, and most groups/households in which there are 2 or more working. All these do not need the welfare pity pay from the employer and yet the employer is forced by the "living wage" scheme to pay this same pity pay to these workers who are not welfare cases. These are not made-up hypothetical people but real people being paid welfare charity income they don't need, which is an unnecessary penalty on employers and which drives up the cost of business and the prices consumers have to pay.

 

[DBT]

What is your time worth? Time as a substantial portion of your life, time you'll never get to live again?

The question was why we should expect a company making record profits to pay a higher wage for the same work as a company barely surviving. I.e., why should that time be worth more if the company you're working for is making "record profits"? Obviously anyone is free to quit -- so why isn't that freedom to quit sufficient for workers who think their time is worth more?

Many reasons, some may be stuck in their lowly paid jobs because they are living from hand to mouth and can't afford to lose a single days pay by quitting. They may be able to look for a another job while still working, but if they are working long hours, time may be a factor. Their position probably does not allow them sufficient free time. They may not be qualified for anything other than the line of work they happen to be in, so there is no point in quitting only to get the same pay and conditions in their next workplace.

A lack of spare time and money makes study difficult. Maybe the aptitude is not there. Maybe they are worn down by the hopelessness of working for a pittance.

As for the struggling companies, they are expected to meet their obligations in terms of running cost in every aspect, the price of stock, utilities, rent, etc, etc, which the supplier expects to be paid in full...but when it comes to human labour, the people that provide their time an skill to help run the business...well let's save money and pay them fuck all for their effort?

Is that how it works?

Do suppliers care about a struggling business enough to provide their stock under cost? Do Landlords cut their rents to below market value? Do electricity companies care? Who does? Just shaft the workers? Plenty more where they come from?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The more we make employers the babysitters, the more the workers will whine and whine and whine . . .

The question was why we should expect a company making record profits to pay a higher wage for the same work as a company barely surviving. I.e., why should that time be worth more if the company you're working for is making "record profits"? Obviously anyone is free to quit -- so why isn't that freedom to quit sufficient for workers who think their time is worth more?

Many reasons, some may be stuck in their lowly paid jobs because they are living from hand to mouth and can't afford to lose a single days pay by quitting.

Then this choice they're making is the best use of their time, and their greatest value is realized by making this choice and being paid this low wage which is the most that they are worth. Any other choice would pay them LESS and leave them worse off and so would be a LESS vauable use of their time.

How does this hardship make the workers more valuable? Obviously their time is NOT worth more. Obviously their best place is in this job which gets them a better outcome than any other use of their time, and that's why they choose to do this work. Any other choice would produce a WORSE outcome. How can the worse outcome be more valuable than the better outcome?

They may be able to look for another job while still working, but if they are working long hours, time may be a factor. Their position probably does not allow them sufficient free time. They may not be qualified for anything other than the line of work they happen to be in, so there is no point in quitting only to get the same pay and conditions in their next workplace.

A lack of spare time and money makes study difficult. Maybe the aptitude is not there. Maybe they are worn down by the hopelessness of working for a pittance.

All these whining complaints are no reason why the employer should have to pay them more than they're worth, in terms of serving the consumers, which is what a business is supposed to do. If the worker's situation is not appropriate to the demands of the particular job, it is that worker's choice what to do about it -- not the employer's obligation to set aside the needs of the business and make sacrifices in order to humor this disgruntled worker and solve his problems for him.

Why should this employer have to pay this worker any more than the lowest possible and still get the needed work done?

As for the struggling companies, they are expected to meet their obligations in terms of running cost in every aspect, the price of stock, utilities, rent, etc, etc, which the supplier expects to be paid in full . . . but when it comes to human labour, the people that provide their time and skill to help run the business . . . well let's save money and pay them fuck all for their effort?

Is that how it works?

No, the company tries to find bargain prices on all its costs, including from all its suppliers, and they shop for lower prices on everything, as long as it's the same quality. Why should the company give special pity to the workers and not demand the same performance at lowest possible cost from them just as it does from all the other providers it relies on?

Do suppliers care about a struggling business enough to provide their stock under cost? Do Landlords cut their rents to below market value? Do electricity companies care? Who does?

No, they all squeeze the buyer for every penny they can get, just like the workers squeeze the employers. The only difference is that the workers, or at least the whining ones you're talking about, have very little clout because their value is so low, and so they have little bargaining power. Whereas some landlords and suppliers etc. may be in a better bargaining position due to their greater value. What's wrong with that?

There are plenty of workers who have high bargaining power, like night-time talk-show hosts and professional athletes and maybe some scientists and so on. It's the higher value that gives them the higher bargaining power.

But those with low bargaining power are the ones with low value and thus whose time is low in value.

Just shaft the workers? Plenty more where they come from?

All those low-value whining ones, yes. And if we artificially increase their incomes out of pity for them, it only "shafts" everyone else who has to pay for it one way or another.

 

[DBT]

Many reasons, some may be stuck in their lowly paid jobs because they are living from hand to mouth and can't afford to lose a single days pay by quitting.

Then this choice they're making is the best use of their time, and their greatest value is realized by making this choice and being paid this low wage which is the most that they are worth. Any other choice would pay them LESS and leave them worse off and so would be a LESS vauable use of their time.

How does this hardship make the workers more valuable? Obviously their time is NOT worth more. Obviously their best place is in this job which gets them a better outcome than any other use of their time, and that's why they choose to do this work. Any other choice would produce a WORSE outcome. How can the worse outcome be more valuable than the better outcome?

They may be able to look for another job while still working, but if they are working long hours, time may be a factor. Their position probably does not allow them sufficient free time. They may not be qualified for anything other than the line of work they happen to be in, so there is no point in quitting only to get the same pay and conditions in their next workplace.

A lack of spare time and money makes study difficult. Maybe the aptitude is not there. Maybe they are worn down by the hopelessness of working for a pittance.

All these whining complaints are no reason why the employer should have to pay them more than they're worth, in terms of serving the consumers, which is what a business is supposed to do. If the worker's situation is not appropriate to the demands of the particular job, it is that worker's choice what to do about it -- not the employer's obligation to set aside the needs of the business and make sacrifices in order to humor this disgruntled worker and solve his problems for him.

Why should this employer have to pay this worker any more than the lowest possible and still get the needed work done?

As for the struggling companies, they are expected to meet their obligations in terms of running cost in every aspect, the price of stock, utilities, rent, etc, etc, which the supplier expects to be paid in full . . . but when it comes to human labour, the people that provide their time and skill to help run the business . . . well let's save money and pay them fuck all for their effort?

Is that how it works?

No, the company tries to find bargain prices on all its costs, including from all its suppliers, and they shop for lower prices on everything, as long as it's the same quality. Why should the company give special pity to the workers and not demand the same performance at lowest possible cost from them just as it does from all the other providers it relies on?

Do suppliers care about a struggling business enough to provide their stock under cost? Do Landlords cut their rents to below market value? Do electricity companies care? Who does?

No, they all squeeze the buyer for every penny they can get, just like the workers squeeze the employers. The only difference is that the workers, or at least the whining ones you're talking about, have very little clout because their value is so low, and so they have little bargaining power. Whereas some landlords and suppliers etc. may be in a better bargaining position due to their greater value. What's wrong with that?

There are plenty of workers who have high bargaining power, like night-time talk-show hosts and professional athletes and maybe some scientists and so on. It's the higher value that gives them the higher bargaining power.

But those with low bargaining power are the ones with low value and thus whose time is low in value.

Just shaft the workers? Plenty more where they come from?

All those low-value whining ones, yes. And if we artificially increase their incomes out of pity for them, it only "shafts" everyone else who has to pay for it one way or another.

It's not a matter of 'whining complaints' - a substandard income simply does not allow MW workers much leeway to improve their position. That's just the fact of it.

If the labour market was tight (low unemployment levels), low income earners would be in a better position to negotiate higher pay and better conditions. As they most probably would if they joined a Union: collective enterprise bargaining.

As for ''why should employers be forced to pay more'' - the question is: why should a worker have to provide the company with their own time and skill for a substandard remuneration?

What is 'worth' in terms of human lives? Especially if you yourself are not in that position?

If a 'market' economy cannot provide a reasonable income for all of its productive members, I'd say there's something seriously wrong with that economy. Most likely in its wealth distribution structures. No limit in scale for some, millions of dollars per annum, but those in lower end of the scale need to tighten their belts because the 'economy' only allows them a few lousy dollars....and 'why should a company be forced to pay more,' eh?

 

[ksen]

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

The idea that usefulness to business is somehow a yardstick as to whether or not you are worthy enough to be able to earn enough to live is kind of disgusting.

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

How about not work while learning new skills? Have you ever tried to learn a new skill while the foremost worry in your life is where your next meal is going to come from or if the electricity is going to get shut off?

That's why I support a basic income guarantee.