What's Wrong With A Living Wage?

[Ford]

In my never ending quest to argue with folks on the internet, I came across this gem tonight on Reddit while discussing the idea of a "living wage:"

You aren't supposed to be able to make a living off of literally any job.

I'm fairly certain that the entire idea of a "job" is "something that you're able to make a living doing," but apparently it turns out I'm wrong.


Is that what we've come to? You can have a job, but you shouldn't expect to make a living from that job?

 

[none]

those jobs where you can make living are for robots, they are automated.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What's wrong with a living wage?

Nothing.

 

[Ford]

What's wrong with a living wage?

Nothing.

And yet we've devalued labor to the point where it is taken as gospel that if you labor for a living, you should not be paid enough to live.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

There's the argument that it would simply eliminate any reason to work, and people would become lazier. I haven't seen any evidence for that though.

 

[DBT]

Given a civilized society, set up for the benefit of all its members, the question of a living wage shouldn't even come up. It should be a universally accepted condition. Perhaps, given genetic diversity, with only a small percentage of 'deviants' howling their outrage at the fairness of it all....

 

[Mumbles]

I've got a good reason - I'm sick of these leeches.

No, not the workers, the places like McDonald's telling their workers how to apply for food stamps and the like. I got no problem with the people themselves, I have family on food stamps. Seems it's hard to get a job when you're 88 , a survivor of several strokes, and can barely talk or leave the house. But there's really no reason for workers to be on food stamps when corporate is raking in record profits. Pay your people.

 

[EricK]

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?

 

[Ford]

What is a "living wage"?

At a bare minimum, it should be enough to keep an individual working a 40 hour week above the poverty line.

Personally, I think it should be enough to keep a family of 3 or perhaps 4 with one breadwinner working a 40 hour week above the poverty line.

Implicit in the phrase "living wage" is the idea that the wage is enough to live on. Not "live on with government assistance" or "live on in subsidized housing" or "live on depending upon food banks to put dinner on the table."

A living wage is not a guarantee of a job. Nor is it or should it be a guarantee that one can keep a job if they don't perform. But if a person gets a full time job and manages to keep it, they should in short order be making enough money that they don't have to depend on charity or subsidies to make it through the week.


They should be able to make a living. Maybe they take that money and squander it. Maybe they squirrel it away. What they do with their just-above-poverty largesse isn't the issue. The issue is that if someone works full time they shouldn't be forced (due to institutionally low wages) to depend on assistance in order to keep living.

 

[EricK]

What is a "living wage"?

At a bare minimum, it should be enough to keep an individual working a 40 hour week above the poverty line.

Personally, I think it should be enough to keep a family of 3 or perhaps 4 with one breadwinner working a 40 hour week above the poverty line.

So someone, living by themselves, should, whatever they do, earn enough to keep a family of 4 above the poverty line. As should their future spouse, I suppose. 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?

 

[Ford]

So someone, living by themselves, should, whatever they do, earn enough to keep a family of 4 above the poverty line.

Again, allow me to quote...me:

At a bare minimum, it should be enough to keep an individual working a 40 hour week above the poverty line.

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.

 

[EricK]

Again, allow me to quote...me:

At a bare minimum, it should be enough to keep an individual working a 40 hour week above the poverty line.

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.

 

[arkirk]

Timothy Leary brought this up in the 60's. 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. Distribution of the necessities of life to all members of society should be a goal. Those who continually invent ways to interfere with fair distribution of wealth are a drag on society. It matters not whether they are Madoffs or lay-abouts. Both types of people place unnecessary burdens on the productive capabilities of society and on the environment.

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

 

[dx713]

Why not distribute that living wage through a "citizen revenue" directly from the state?
Those who want more can work. Of, course, they'd earn less with all the taxes needed to feed the citizen revenue system, but because what they earn is on top of the "citizen revenue", it would balance out.
And it would also remove the problem of the indirect subsidies of places like MacDo or Wallmart: once people are not forced into menial jobs to eat, I suspect they will have more negotiating power to be more properly compensated for said menial job (and anyway, they're already above poverty, no additional state support needed)
I also believe it would actually support job-creation, despite the higher taxes: it's easier to try some new business idea when you know you'll still be eating no matter the outcome.

The only losers would be the high wages because the citizen revenue, being probably less than a tenth of their wages, probably won't compensate the extra-taxation. But, cry me a river with a tiny violin:
- If you're so good and necessary to your company, you have leverage to negotiate a raise, and probably not their main salary cost anyway, being so few
- If you want to leave for another "less socialist" country, be my guest, I don't believe in the hurt of the flight of the top managers, plenty of smart younger people lower on the ladder ready to take your place.

But, of course, it's not going to happen, because taxes are evil, and all poor are lazy wouldn't work at all, and God says you're on earth to toil so it would go against Her Word to have people enjoy something without having had to toil, and...

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

 

[Rhea]

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).

Your math is wrong. A wage that supports a family of four is not 4x the wage that supports a family of one.

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've got a person working for you full time, they will give you full time.

However, my opinion on this start-up conundrum is as follows:
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. 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.

Go ahead and have your start-up. As long as you are struggling, you can ask your employees to struggle with you. As soon as you are no longer struggling, your exploitation period ends.

A living wage raises all boats.

 

[Rhea]

I want to expand on the math of this:

Your math is wrong. A wage that supports a family of four is not 4x the wage that supports a family of one.

There is economy in sharing, and living wage calculations take this into account.

Four people can share a bathroom, while a single person would probably each need their own. Four people can buy bulk food, while a single person cannot. Four people can share bedrooms, 4 single people would not.

Some examples using MIT's living wage calculator"

In Omaha a single person needs $8.70 an hour to make ends meet; a family of four requires $18.46.

Minimum cost of housing for a single person in Miami runs about $878 or $1,206 for a family, but in Manhattan those numbers are $1,129 and $1,359, respectively.

These examples show that it is from 1.2 times when looking at the housing alone, up to 2.3 times when looking at it all together.



So not 4 to 5 times what they need, by any stretch at all.
Although, the enterprising teen could certainly get some roommates and help herself get a start on savings if she wants to.

 

[Derec]

Timothy Leary brought this up in the 60's.

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.

 

[EricK]

I want to expand on the math of this:


There is economy in sharing, and living wage calculations take this into account.

Four people can share a bathroom, while a single person would probably each need their own. Four people can buy bulk food, while a single person cannot. Four people can share bedrooms, 4 single people would not.

Some examples using MIT's living wage calculator"

In Omaha a single person needs $8.70 an hour to make ends meet; a family of four requires $18.46.

Minimum cost of housing for a single person in Miami runs about $878 or $1,206 for a family, but in Manhattan those numbers are $1,129 and $1,359, respectively.

These examples show that it is from 1.2 times when looking at the housing alone, up to 2.3 times when looking at it all together.



So not 4 to 5 times what they need, by any stretch at all.
Although, the enterprising teen could certainly get some roommates and help herself get a start on savings if she wants to.

So under the proposal in the OP, the lowest wage being paid to anybody would be $18.46 per hour (in Omaha, but probably more elsewhere). I don't know how many businesses could actually afford this, and I doubt the OP does either. But the benefit of putting forward pie-in-the-sky ideas is that you never have to justify them in terms of hard figures, or worry about the knock on effects of businesses closing, or people not getting employed.

 

[Derec]

In my never ending quest to argue with folks on the internet, I came across this gem tonight on Reddit while discussing the idea of a "living wage:"

You aren't supposed to be able to make a living off of literally any job.

I'm fairly certain that the entire idea of a "job" is "something that you're able to make a living doing," but apparently it turns out I'm wrong.


Is that what we've come to? You can have a job, but you shouldn't expect to make a living from that job?

Not everybody who works is supposed to make a living out of it. Teenagers working their first job that have neither a high school diploma or any marketable skills or experience take on jobs that pay little but they are not expected to earn a living exactly. Another example would be a spouse who is not the main breadwinner or maybe a retired person (think Walmart greeters) supplementing their retirement. If Walmart was forced to pay their greeters a "living wage" they would simply cut the positions and go without greeters. How would things be helped in that case?