"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
I'd say the one Highroller provided.
But to be honest, like with the atheism thread (even more so because that one at least addresses a clear controversy), I don't think this is a particularly substantive debate. I mean, this is basically a question we can arbitrarily answer. What are we supposed to dispute? 'Living wage' is just a signifier for a specific notion, like any term. What that notion is is whatever we want it to be, that's how language works. The only matter we could discuss is what is a useful definition of living wage with regards to the existing set of terms and uses, and I don't think that's ever going to be a very rewarding debate because the connection to any real world consequences is tenuous.
Whether people should be given a living wage is a much better topic, I think, because it actually has a deeply meaningful relation to the material state of affairs- something which is inherently meaningful. We can there talk about values on what an ideal world is in relation to the idea, the facts about how the world is in relation to the idea, and how we can use those facts to support those values.
I'll bet if this thread sticks around it will either be on tangents or people stone-walling and refusing to acknowledge alternative definitions.
I remember a Colbert Report, where he was discussing the relevance of findings that 99.8% of people underneath the federal poverty level had access to a refrigerator, and the majority had access to a microwave.
So evidently for some people, this is a discussion we need to have. The conservative study was held out on Fox News in support of the asinine narrative that people on public assistance programs were freeloaders, and getting a comfortable lifestyle while refusing to work.
My opinion, I think minimum wage should put someone right about where they need 1-2 roommates to split rent with at a 2-bedroom apartment, with 40% of disposable income going to housing. The federal guideline for lending on income to expense ratio is 28%. The other 60%-72% can and should go to other living expenses like food, utilities, appliances, and investing in the betterment of a person’s ability to earn. It’s not reasonable to expect 70%+ of someone’s income to go to housing, and them living on uncooked beans, rice, etc.
Right now where I live, a 2 bedroom apartment rents for $1500/mo and the minimum wage is $9.50/hr. That means that about 45% of someone’s income who works 40 hrs and splits rent goes to housing. I’d say it needs to be improved.
Also opinion mine, living conditions of being barely above water at this 40% while splitting rent and working 40hrs a week should mainly be understood as pertaining to single people under age 30. If people who are getting more experience and taking on more life responsibilities are still not able to make ends meet, that’s also a problem. Also, it’s a problem if capable people are strictly unable to find work, even at minimum wage. Furthermore, those unable to work due to documented conditions should not be turned out on the street like animals.
But as to the Living Wage, I think 40% income to housing expense ratio is not overly generous at all, and would probably put me on the more austere end of the political spectrum.
"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Seems a good place to start.
That's cool. Do you know what FDR meant with "decent living"?
I'd say the one Highroller provided.
But to be honest, like with the atheism thread (even more so because that one at least addresses a clear controversy), I don't think this is a particularly substantive debate. I mean, this is basically a question we can arbitrarily answer. What are we supposed to dispute? 'Living wage' is just a signifier for a specific notion, like any term. What that notion is is whatever we want it to be, that's how language works. The only matter we could discuss is what is a useful definition of living wage with regards to the existing set of terms and uses, and I don't think that's ever going to be a very rewarding debate because the connection to any real world consequences is tenuous.
-------------------------------------
I'll bet if this thread sticks around it will either be on tangents or people stone-walling and refusing to acknowledge alternative definitions.
Well, people across the U.S. have clearly taken up "$15 an hour" as a good signifier of a living wage. Would you consider $15 an hour a living wage?
My opinion, I think minimum wage should put someone right about where they need 1-2 roommates to split rent with at a 2-bedroom apartment, with 40% of disposable income going to housing. The federal guideline for lending on income to expense ratio is 28%. The other 60%-72% can and should go to other living expenses like food, utilities, appliances, and investing in the betterment of a person’s ability to earn. It’s not reasonable to expect 70%+ of someone’s income to go to housing, and them living on uncooked beans, rice, etc.
Right now where I live, a 2 bedroom apartment rents for $1500/mo and the minimum wage is $9.50/hr. That means that about 45% of someone’s income who works 40 hrs and splits rent goes to housing. I’d say it needs to be improved.
Also opinion mine, living conditions of being barely above water at this 40% while splitting rent and working 40hrs a week should mainly be understood as pertaining to single people under age 30. If people who are getting more experience and taking on more life responsibilities are still not able to make ends meet, that’s also a problem. Also, it’s a problem if capable people are strictly unable to find work, even at minimum wage. Furthermore, those unable to work due to documented conditions should not be turned out on the street like animals.
But as to the Living Wage, I think 40% income to housing expense ratio is not overly generous at all, and would probably put me on the more austere end of the political spectrum.
Where I live, a 2 bed apartment is anywhere from 2600-3k a month for the LOW-END.
Supposing 2 people in the apartment and 2600 for the apartment, you'd be paying 1300 a month for housing. If we stick to your 40% income to housing expense ratio, then you'd have to be making 3250 (clearly post-tax) a month.
Min wage would have to be in the avenue of $25/hour for you to be making close to that post-tax in San Jose.
Just that, afaik, the min. wage in San Jose is currently ~$10 an hour...
But you bring up a good point. Is earning enough just to have a roof above your head and having access to refrigeration the hallmark of earning a living wage?
I feel living wage is relative to the society around you. A living wage means that you can do what most people in that society can do, or what can reasonably expected from the average person in that society. I think living wage is more something to express financial equality than a hard number.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
That's cool. Do you know what FDR meant with "decent living"?
You get the general gist from that sentence. A decent living as opposed to a starvation wage.
Well, people across the U.S. have clearly taken up "$15 an hour" as a good signifier of a living wage. Would you consider $15 an hour a living wage?
It's a good place to start. What is very clear is that anyone who claims we don't have to increase the minimum wage does not understand what the minimum wage is for.
I feel that a decent living wage should be defined as something where a single person, who is working 40 hours a week should be able to field essentials (housing, transportation, utilities, food, health care) and still have something left over that they could use to contribute to the economy in a recreational sense (or use for education/etc). People earning a decent living wage should not be working 60+ hours a week to afford these things (providing they're not overspending on lavish/extravagant versions). People should not be stuck in a rut where they can only spin their wheels while struggling to survive. Full time employees should be able to participate in the economy no matter what.
What each of those values means varies wildly from region to region though. My rent on my two bedroom apartment is $690/mo. I went out of my way to find the cheapest place I could in all of NE Ohio (without fear for safety). In NEO you pretty much are required to have a car. The bus lines are few and far between. If you work downtown, you could get a rapid pass but you still need to get to a rapid station (of which there are maybe 5 on the entire east side and none in the northeast). A person should be able to have a car out here. Someone in more urban areas may be able to roll with subway, train, etc. expenses, just like someone on the west side of CLE could too. As for recreational spending, this is necessary for morale. A person who is working full time should be able to treat themselves to a meal at a restaurant, movie, card night, bowling, something recreational to realize that they're not just working to live.
I also feel that maybe I live in a dream world where this could never happen, so I guess something as close to that as possible would be ideal.
Shouldn't the term 'living wage' be defined first?
is it meant for a single person, a married couple, a 5 person family, etc....?
is it the wage for someone with a bachelor's degree, a masters degree, a high-school dropout, etc....?
obviously a college graduate is deserving of a higher income than someone who is lacking the degree.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Shouldn't the term 'living wage' be defined first?
is it meant for a single person, a married couple, a 5 person family, etc....?
is it the wage for someone with a bachelor's degree, a masters degree, a high-school dropout, etc....?
obviously a college graduate is deserving of a higher income than someone who is lacking the degree.
When the term was coined by FDR, the most common family was a married couple, two children, and one parent was working.
I highly doubt that situation is sustainable any more.
Regardless, 'living wage' would need to be tiered according to my criteria.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Shouldn't the term 'living wage' be defined first?
is it meant for a single person, a married couple, a 5 person family, etc....?
is it the wage for someone with a bachelor's degree, a masters degree, a high-school dropout, etc....?
obviously a college graduate is deserving of a higher income than someone who is lacking the degree.
When the term was coined by FDR, the most common family was a married couple, two children, and one parent was working.
I highly doubt that situation is sustainable any more.
Regardless, 'living wage' would need to be tiered according to my criteria.
Well, you are more than welcome to do the research if you are trying to do a debate. Each state can have a radically difference cost of living. Like, 10 seconds on Google got me this:
"The average cost of raising a child born in 2013 up until age 18 for a middle-income family in the U.S. is approximately $245,340" (Divide that by 18 gets you about $13,630)
"Annual Cost for a Single Adult with No Children: $28,474"
So, for a married couple with a single child, the minimum they would need to make for a living wage would be $70,578 so support that family. That assumes the child is moderately health, and a decent, but not grand house. Now, I do agree that that amount is not sustainable for a single income, unless that person is doing really well, but so in a two working parent household, each person would have to make about $35,289. Increase that number by 14,287 or decrease it for each kid beyond the first, or if the couple decides to not have kids.
For a single parent family, that parent would have to make $42,104 to support a single kid.
So, unless there is a different metric you want to use: do you think it is unreasonable for the cheapest non-intern job to guarantee at least $28,474 a year, including benefits?
"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Seems a good place to start.
When FDR said this, the average person worked 50-60 hours a week. I think we base way to much of this debate off a 40 hour work week. There's no reason why anyone can't work multiple jobs or overtime.
"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Seems a good place to start.
When FDR said this, the average person worked 50-60 hours a week. I think we base way to much of this debate off a 40 hour work week. There's no reason why anyone can't work multiple jobs or overtime.
Multiple jobs a week is not out of the realm of possibilities, but it is unreasonable to expect people to have to work multiple jobs if they are willing to put in 40 hours a week.
As far as overtimes is concerned, I think you would surprised to know that most people would work overtime, but in my experience (anecdotal, I know) businesses don't normally want to give employees overtime. They would rather have someone work part time for 20 hours a week, than pay two people 50 hours, 10 being overtime. Not even mentioning that one of the factors that lead to a reduced workweek was that many studies showed working longer was not more prodcutive.
And if we are going to be really technical, most families during the FDR time had 50-60 hours with a single income. Two income takers to meet that work hour expectation would mean 25-30 hours for each adult.
Shouldn't the term 'living wage' be defined first?
is it meant for a single person, a married couple, a 5 person family, etc....?
is it the wage for someone with a bachelor's degree, a masters degree, a high-school dropout, etc....?
obviously a college graduate is deserving of a higher income than someone who is lacking the degree.
When the term was coined by FDR, the most common family was a married couple, two children, and one parent was working.
I highly doubt that situation is sustainable any more.
Regardless, 'living wage' would need to be tiered according to my criteria.
Well, you are more than welcome to do the research if you are trying to do a debate. Each state can have a radically difference cost of living. Like, 10 seconds on Google got me this:
"The average cost of raising a child born in 2013 up until age 18 for a middle-income family in the U.S. is approximately $245,340" (Divide that by 18 gets you about $13,630)
"Annual Cost for a Single Adult with No Children: $28,474"
So, for a married couple with a single child, the minimum they would need to make for a living wage would be $70,578 so support that family. That assumes the child is moderately health, and a decent, but not grand house. Now, I do agree that that amount is not sustainable for a single income, unless that person is doing really well, but so in a two working parent household, each person would have to make about $35,289. Increase that number by 14,287 or decrease it for each kid beyond the first, or if the couple decides to not have kids.
For a single parent family, that parent would have to make $42,104 to support a single kid.
So, unless there is a different metric you want to use: do you think it is unreasonable for the cheapest non-intern job to guarantee at least $28,474 a year, including benefits?
I think roughly $30,000 is fair for a college graduate.
If someone has an advanced degree (CPA, Law degree), it should certainly be worth closer to $60,000.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Shouldn't the term 'living wage' be defined first?
is it meant for a single person, a married couple, a 5 person family, etc....?
is it the wage for someone with a bachelor's degree, a masters degree, a high-school dropout, etc....?
obviously a college graduate is deserving of a higher income than someone who is lacking the degree.
When the term was coined by FDR, the most common family was a married couple, two children, and one parent was working.
I highly doubt that situation is sustainable any more.
Regardless, 'living wage' would need to be tiered according to my criteria.
Well, you are more than welcome to do the research if you are trying to do a debate. Each state can have a radically difference cost of living. Like, 10 seconds on Google got me this:
"The average cost of raising a child born in 2013 up until age 18 for a middle-income family in the U.S. is approximately $245,340" (Divide that by 18 gets you about $13,630)
"Annual Cost for a Single Adult with No Children: $28,474"
So, for a married couple with a single child, the minimum they would need to make for a living wage would be $70,578 so support that family. That assumes the child is moderately health, and a decent, but not grand house. Now, I do agree that that amount is not sustainable for a single income, unless that person is doing really well, but so in a two working parent household, each person would have to make about $35,289. Increase that number by 14,287 or decrease it for each kid beyond the first, or if the couple decides to not have kids.
For a single parent family, that parent would have to make $42,104 to support a single kid.
So, unless there is a different metric you want to use: do you think it is unreasonable for the cheapest non-intern job to guarantee at least $28,474 a year, including benefits?
I think roughly $30,000 is fair for a college graduate.
If someone has an advanced degree (CPA, Law degree), it should certainly be worth closer to $60,000.
While I agree advanced should be 60k +, I think two adults who have college degrees should be able to afford to have at least one kid if they are willing to work full time, don't you? IF both parents made 30k (which I admit is your minimum, but you yourself said it would be fair) that would barely enough to sustain themselves, let alone a single child (and when I asked if 28k was reasonable, we are assuming that person is working full time 35-40 hours a week. I am not suggesting Parry Part time gets that for working 20 hours a week).
This doesn't really account for human existence (model assumes we're all identical machines that don't fall out of trees or run into ***** while drunk) but it's a start.
When the term was coined by FDR, the most common family was a married couple, two children, and one parent was working.
I highly doubt that situation is sustainable any more.
Regardless, 'living wage' would need to be tiered according to my criteria.
Well, you are more than welcome to do the research if you are trying to do a debate. Each state can have a radically difference cost of living. Like, 10 seconds on Google got me this:
"The average cost of raising a child born in 2013 up until age 18 for a middle-income family in the U.S. is approximately $245,340" (Divide that by 18 gets you about $13,630)
"Annual Cost for a Single Adult with No Children: $28,474"
So, for a married couple with a single child, the minimum they would need to make for a living wage would be $70,578 so support that family. That assumes the child is moderately health, and a decent, but not grand house. Now, I do agree that that amount is not sustainable for a single income, unless that person is doing really well, but so in a two working parent household, each person would have to make about $35,289. Increase that number by 14,287 or decrease it for each kid beyond the first, or if the couple decides to not have kids.
For a single parent family, that parent would have to make $42,104 to support a single kid.
So, unless there is a different metric you want to use: do you think it is unreasonable for the cheapest non-intern job to guarantee at least $28,474 a year, including benefits?
I think roughly $30,000 is fair for a college graduate.
If someone has an advanced degree (CPA, Law degree), it should certainly be worth closer to $60,000.
While I agree advanced should be 60k +, I think two adults who have college degrees should be able to afford to have at least one kid if they are willing to work full time, don't you? IF both parents made 30k (which I admit is your minimum, but you yourself said it would be fair) that would barely enough to sustain themselves, let alone a single child (and when I asked if 28k was reasonable, we are assuming that person is working full time 35-40 hours a week. I am not suggesting Parry Part time gets that for working 20 hours a week).
i agree with that, however we have to consider other factors.
2 adults making 60k aren't entitled to live in manhattan, NY for example.
This is a reason why i think a straight $15 minimum wage is ridiculous.
There is a reason a lawyer makes $100 per hour, since he is skilled and earned it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Seems a good place to start.
When FDR said this, the average person worked 50-60 hours a week. I think we base way to much of this debate off a 40 hour work week. There's no reason why anyone can't work multiple jobs or overtime.
Working two jobs is sometimes worse than working only one. There were several times in my life I pulled 80 hour weeks. As a single with no kids, the state of CA automatically puts you in a higher tax bracket than I would working a single job earning the same as the two jobs together. This is ontop of all the other associated costs such as insurance and fuel for the car. This is outright unfair IMHO, why am I punished for making ends meet or trying to get ahead in life? I learned later that this tax structure was designed to "spread the available" jobs amongst more people. If I take two jobs that means someone else isn't working. That was the logic as I understood it anyways.
The taxes on pulling overtime is far more favorable than two jobs, even if that overtime equates to two jobs.
When FDR said this, the average person worked 50-60 hours a week. I think we base way to much of this debate off a 40 hour work week. There's no reason why anyone can't work multiple jobs or overtime.
But that's the point, isn't it? 40 hours is full-time employment. If you are working a full-time job, shouldn't you be able to afford such things without having to work another job according to principle behind a minimum wage? Is that not the point of the thing?
When FDR said this, the average person worked 50-60 hours a week. I think we base way to much of this debate off a 40 hour work week. There's no reason why anyone can't work multiple jobs or overtime.
But that's the point, isn't it? 40 hours is full-time employment. If you are working a full-time job, shouldn't you be able to afford such things without having to work another job according to principle behind a minimum wage? Is that not the point of the thing?
This is a reason why i think a straight $15 minimum wage is ridiculous.
Why? $15/hour x 40 hours/week x 52 weeks/year = $31,200/year. It doesn't seem ridiculous to me.
Maybe i was a little unclear.
i have no problem if a salary for a college graduate is 30k, obviously this may be adjusted based on location/demographic, etc....
I do think $15 is way too high for someone flipping burgers at McDonalds, Toll collectors at bridges/subways, and other assorted unskilled positions.
Does that clarify my point?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
I do think $15 is way too high for someone flipping burgers at McDonalds, Toll collectors at bridges/subways, and other assorted unskilled positions.
To which I again ask, why?
Once again I'll quote FDR: 'By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.'
The minimum wage law does not state that it is only for those with college degrees, it applies to all workers. And if the intent of the minimum wage laws is to provide, not bare-bones subsistence, but a decent living, then the burger flipper at McDonalds should, if he works full time, be able to afford a decent living. That is what the minimum wage law is for.
I highly doubt that situation is sustainable any more.
Regardless, 'living wage' would need to be tiered according to my criteria.
Well, you are more than welcome to do the research if you are trying to do a debate. Each state can have a radically difference cost of living. Like, 10 seconds on Google got me this:
"The average cost of raising a child born in 2013 up until age 18 for a middle-income family in the U.S. is approximately $245,340" (Divide that by 18 gets you about $13,630)
"Annual Cost for a Single Adult with No Children: $28,474"
So, for a married couple with a single child, the minimum they would need to make for a living wage would be $70,578 so support that family. That assumes the child is moderately health, and a decent, but not grand house. Now, I do agree that that amount is not sustainable for a single income, unless that person is doing really well, but so in a two working parent household, each person would have to make about $35,289. Increase that number by 14,287 or decrease it for each kid beyond the first, or if the couple decides to not have kids.
For a single parent family, that parent would have to make $42,104 to support a single kid.
So, unless there is a different metric you want to use: do you think it is unreasonable for the cheapest non-intern job to guarantee at least $28,474 a year, including benefits?
I think roughly $30,000 is fair for a college graduate.
If someone has an advanced degree (CPA, Law degree), it should certainly be worth closer to $60,000.
While I agree advanced should be 60k +, I think two adults who have college degrees should be able to afford to have at least one kid if they are willing to work full time, don't you? IF both parents made 30k (which I admit is your minimum, but you yourself said it would be fair) that would barely enough to sustain themselves, let alone a single child (and when I asked if 28k was reasonable, we are assuming that person is working full time 35-40 hours a week. I am not suggesting Parry Part time gets that for working 20 hours a week).
i agree with that, however we have to consider other factors.
2 adults making 60k aren't entitled to live in manhattan, NY for example.
This is a reason why i think a straight $15 minimum wage is ridiculous.
There is a reason a lawyer makes $100 per hour, since he is skilled and earned it.
Let's take that example:
Let's say the cost of living in Manhattan, NY is about $140,000 a year for a couple with one child. Not crazy, it means either both parents have comfier jobs, or one parent is doing really well. Are there restaurants in Manhattan, or other offices that require lower income labor. Are you really going to pay a waiter a $50k salary a year? Probably not. So have them commute to Manhattan while living somewhere else. But what if they don't have to commute, and can get the safe office job in another city that's closer? Unless you plan on adding cleaning to a stock trader's job description, or waiting to a chef's job, businesses are going to have to hire labor.
That's always been the issue with capitalism no one likes to talk about: Even in a perfect world with 0% unemployment, and flexible changes to market where people can move to relevant skill sets if previous ones become obsolete, not every man and women can be a CEO. Not ever person can be a doctor, or a lawyer, or any other comfier job. Someone has to cook the food, someone has to collect the garbage, someone has to clean the offices, ect ect ect.
(as a note, I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with certain cities having a higher cost of living than others. I am merely pointing out the flaw that these cities have, and how even low paying labor needs to have a livable wage).
Quote from Highroller »
Why? $15/hour x 40 hours/week x 52 weeks/year = $31,200/year. It doesn't seem ridiculous to me. We might play with the numbers a bit, but it's certainly better than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
The funny thing is, even if we assume people are working 60 hours a week (which is absurd), the minimum wage to make that median household income for 1 adult would still have to be about $9.12 an hour, just to get by.
30 years ago a man could buy his own house, support a wife and kids, have a car and go on holiday abroad once per year. The kids could all get properly educated (up to university if they manage) and there was good healthcare for the whole family. These days you need 1,5 to two median incomes to have that (Talking Netherlands here).
And yet we are far better off than we were 30 years ago by every economic metric. Something is wrong here...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The secret to enjoyable Commander games is not winning first, but losing last.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rather, I would like to know what a living wage means to you.
Seems a good place to start.
But to be honest, like with the atheism thread (even more so because that one at least addresses a clear controversy), I don't think this is a particularly substantive debate. I mean, this is basically a question we can arbitrarily answer. What are we supposed to dispute? 'Living wage' is just a signifier for a specific notion, like any term. What that notion is is whatever we want it to be, that's how language works. The only matter we could discuss is what is a useful definition of living wage with regards to the existing set of terms and uses, and I don't think that's ever going to be a very rewarding debate because the connection to any real world consequences is tenuous.
Whether people should be given a living wage is a much better topic, I think, because it actually has a deeply meaningful relation to the material state of affairs- something which is inherently meaningful. We can there talk about values on what an ideal world is in relation to the idea, the facts about how the world is in relation to the idea, and how we can use those facts to support those values.
I'll bet if this thread sticks around it will either be on tangents or people stone-walling and refusing to acknowledge alternative definitions.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
His response, “You mean, they can preserve and reheat food? Oooh-la-la! I guess the poor are too good for mold and trichinosis.” (http://maspower.tumblr.com/post/8139350541/they-can-preserve-and-reheat-foods-oooh-la-la )
So evidently for some people, this is a discussion we need to have. The conservative study was held out on Fox News in support of the asinine narrative that people on public assistance programs were freeloaders, and getting a comfortable lifestyle while refusing to work.
My opinion, I think minimum wage should put someone right about where they need 1-2 roommates to split rent with at a 2-bedroom apartment, with 40% of disposable income going to housing. The federal guideline for lending on income to expense ratio is 28%. The other 60%-72% can and should go to other living expenses like food, utilities, appliances, and investing in the betterment of a person’s ability to earn. It’s not reasonable to expect 70%+ of someone’s income to go to housing, and them living on uncooked beans, rice, etc.
Right now where I live, a 2 bedroom apartment rents for $1500/mo and the minimum wage is $9.50/hr. That means that about 45% of someone’s income who works 40 hrs and splits rent goes to housing. I’d say it needs to be improved.
Also opinion mine, living conditions of being barely above water at this 40% while splitting rent and working 40hrs a week should mainly be understood as pertaining to single people under age 30. If people who are getting more experience and taking on more life responsibilities are still not able to make ends meet, that’s also a problem. Also, it’s a problem if capable people are strictly unable to find work, even at minimum wage. Furthermore, those unable to work due to documented conditions should not be turned out on the street like animals.
But as to the Living Wage, I think 40% income to housing expense ratio is not overly generous at all, and would probably put me on the more austere end of the political spectrum.
That's cool. Do you know what FDR meant with "decent living"?
Well, people across the U.S. have clearly taken up "$15 an hour" as a good signifier of a living wage. Would you consider $15 an hour a living wage?
Where I live, a 2 bed apartment is anywhere from 2600-3k a month for the LOW-END.
Supposing 2 people in the apartment and 2600 for the apartment, you'd be paying 1300 a month for housing. If we stick to your 40% income to housing expense ratio, then you'd have to be making 3250 (clearly post-tax) a month.
Min wage would have to be in the avenue of $25/hour for you to be making close to that post-tax in San Jose.
Just that, afaik, the min. wage in San Jose is currently ~$10 an hour...
But you bring up a good point. Is earning enough just to have a roof above your head and having access to refrigeration the hallmark of earning a living wage?
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
It's a good place to start. What is very clear is that anyone who claims we don't have to increase the minimum wage does not understand what the minimum wage is for.
What each of those values means varies wildly from region to region though. My rent on my two bedroom apartment is $690/mo. I went out of my way to find the cheapest place I could in all of NE Ohio (without fear for safety). In NEO you pretty much are required to have a car. The bus lines are few and far between. If you work downtown, you could get a rapid pass but you still need to get to a rapid station (of which there are maybe 5 on the entire east side and none in the northeast). A person should be able to have a car out here. Someone in more urban areas may be able to roll with subway, train, etc. expenses, just like someone on the west side of CLE could too. As for recreational spending, this is necessary for morale. A person who is working full time should be able to treat themselves to a meal at a restaurant, movie, card night, bowling, something recreational to realize that they're not just working to live.
I also feel that maybe I live in a dream world where this could never happen, so I guess something as close to that as possible would be ideal.
is it meant for a single person, a married couple, a 5 person family, etc....?
is it the wage for someone with a bachelor's degree, a masters degree, a high-school dropout, etc....?
obviously a college graduate is deserving of a higher income than someone who is lacking the degree.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
When the term was coined by FDR, the most common family was a married couple, two children, and one parent was working.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I highly doubt that situation is sustainable any more.
Regardless, 'living wage' would need to be tiered according to my criteria.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Well, you are more than welcome to do the research if you are trying to do a debate. Each state can have a radically difference cost of living. Like, 10 seconds on Google got me this:
"The average cost of raising a child born in 2013 up until age 18 for a middle-income family in the U.S. is approximately $245,340" (Divide that by 18 gets you about $13,630)
"Annual Cost for a Single Adult with No Children: $28,474"
So, for a married couple with a single child, the minimum they would need to make for a living wage would be $70,578 so support that family. That assumes the child is moderately health, and a decent, but not grand house. Now, I do agree that that amount is not sustainable for a single income, unless that person is doing really well, but so in a two working parent household, each person would have to make about $35,289. Increase that number by 14,287 or decrease it for each kid beyond the first, or if the couple decides to not have kids.
For a single parent family, that parent would have to make $42,104 to support a single kid.
So, unless there is a different metric you want to use: do you think it is unreasonable for the cheapest non-intern job to guarantee at least $28,474 a year, including benefits?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
When FDR said this, the average person worked 50-60 hours a week. I think we base way to much of this debate off a 40 hour work week. There's no reason why anyone can't work multiple jobs or overtime.
Multiple jobs a week is not out of the realm of possibilities, but it is unreasonable to expect people to have to work multiple jobs if they are willing to put in 40 hours a week.
As far as overtimes is concerned, I think you would surprised to know that most people would work overtime, but in my experience (anecdotal, I know) businesses don't normally want to give employees overtime. They would rather have someone work part time for 20 hours a week, than pay two people 50 hours, 10 being overtime. Not even mentioning that one of the factors that lead to a reduced workweek was that many studies showed working longer was not more prodcutive.
And if we are going to be really technical, most families during the FDR time had 50-60 hours with a single income. Two income takers to meet that work hour expectation would mean 25-30 hours for each adult.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I think roughly $30,000 is fair for a college graduate.
If someone has an advanced degree (CPA, Law degree), it should certainly be worth closer to $60,000.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
While I agree advanced should be 60k +, I think two adults who have college degrees should be able to afford to have at least one kid if they are willing to work full time, don't you? IF both parents made 30k (which I admit is your minimum, but you yourself said it would be fair) that would barely enough to sustain themselves, let alone a single child (and when I asked if 28k was reasonable, we are assuming that person is working full time 35-40 hours a week. I am not suggesting Parry Part time gets that for working 20 hours a week).
The GJ way path to no lynching:
i agree with that, however we have to consider other factors.
2 adults making 60k aren't entitled to live in manhattan, NY for example.
This is a reason why i think a straight $15 minimum wage is ridiculous.
There is a reason a lawyer makes $100 per hour, since he is skilled and earned it.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Working two jobs is sometimes worse than working only one. There were several times in my life I pulled 80 hour weeks. As a single with no kids, the state of CA automatically puts you in a higher tax bracket than I would working a single job earning the same as the two jobs together. This is ontop of all the other associated costs such as insurance and fuel for the car. This is outright unfair IMHO, why am I punished for making ends meet or trying to get ahead in life? I learned later that this tax structure was designed to "spread the available" jobs amongst more people. If I take two jobs that means someone else isn't working. That was the logic as I understood it anyways.
The taxes on pulling overtime is far more favorable than two jobs, even if that overtime equates to two jobs.
Living where?
Why? $15/hour x 40 hours/week x 52 weeks/year = $31,200/year. It doesn't seem ridiculous to me.
Maybe i was a little unclear.
i have no problem if a salary for a college graduate is 30k, obviously this may be adjusted based on location/demographic, etc....
I do think $15 is way too high for someone flipping burgers at McDonalds, Toll collectors at bridges/subways, and other assorted unskilled positions.
Does that clarify my point?
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
Once again I'll quote FDR: 'By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.'
The minimum wage law does not state that it is only for those with college degrees, it applies to all workers. And if the intent of the minimum wage laws is to provide, not bare-bones subsistence, but a decent living, then the burger flipper at McDonalds should, if he works full time, be able to afford a decent living. That is what the minimum wage law is for.
Let's take that example:
Let's say the cost of living in Manhattan, NY is about $140,000 a year for a couple with one child. Not crazy, it means either both parents have comfier jobs, or one parent is doing really well. Are there restaurants in Manhattan, or other offices that require lower income labor. Are you really going to pay a waiter a $50k salary a year? Probably not. So have them commute to Manhattan while living somewhere else. But what if they don't have to commute, and can get the safe office job in another city that's closer? Unless you plan on adding cleaning to a stock trader's job description, or waiting to a chef's job, businesses are going to have to hire labor.
That's always been the issue with capitalism no one likes to talk about: Even in a perfect world with 0% unemployment, and flexible changes to market where people can move to relevant skill sets if previous ones become obsolete, not every man and women can be a CEO. Not ever person can be a doctor, or a lawyer, or any other comfier job. Someone has to cook the food, someone has to collect the garbage, someone has to clean the offices, ect ect ect.
(as a note, I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with certain cities having a higher cost of living than others. I am merely pointing out the flaw that these cities have, and how even low paying labor needs to have a livable wage).
The funny thing is, even if we assume people are working 60 hours a week (which is absurd), the minimum wage to make that median household income for 1 adult would still have to be about $9.12 an hour, just to get by.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
And yet we are far better off than we were 30 years ago by every economic metric. Something is wrong here...
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.