U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2015, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
5,746 posts, read 3,212,798 times
Reputation: 7205

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
The original post reeks of snot-nosed far right bias and does not address the real "living wage" issues. Such disconnect is not only irritating, it serves to divert attention into political dogma rather than anything intelligent or useful.

At the very core of the term, the sum total of a "living wage" is a wage calculated, over your working life, to eventually cover ALL real costs of your life (monetary or not), from birth to death. Anything less than that merely shifts that burden of cost for your existence onto others.

But then you just want to complain that some worker, somewhere, is somehow getting too much money because of a required "living wage", and preventing a business you invested in (and haven't done a lick of work for) from making a larger profit, right? Complain on.

Truly, a brilliant post. One of the best I've ever read in the Economics sub-forum. But I hate you say it, harry: your intellect and insight is wasted here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2015, 09:13 AM
 
4,563 posts, read 4,738,470 times
Reputation: 3616
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonderella View Post
This site shows the income needed to reach a living wage status in every county/state in the U.S., given family size and composition. I've found it to be fairly accurate in general terms, although of course individual situations will vary somewhat.

Living Wage Calculator - Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator
This calculator appears to literally be a self-sufficient living wage. I went to look at the county where I live and the housing cost for the living wage assumption is the going rate for a pretty decent 1 bedroom apartment. I think in certain situations it makes sense to have a roommate, especially if you are making $8 an hour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
5,746 posts, read 3,212,798 times
Reputation: 7205
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
I vote for this^^^

And as I've said in other posts, part of the problem we have isn't a wage problem. It's that we expect everyone to live in a single family detached house and have their own car type standard of living. So we have inadequate/nonexistent public transporation, no/limited bike and walking infrastructure, cities & towns that sprawl everywhere that force people to go long distances for every errand, etc. This type of development costs a small fortune and it is not affordable for a large swath of the population.
Totally agree. A couple of points:

I think home ownership is highly overrated, though, with current rents in many cities being so cost prohibitive, a necessary "evil".

While I'm ALL for public transit, I always get a kick out of the right-wingers on these threads who call for people to give up their cars in order to use it. This prescription seems to be paradoxical, considering that:

A) right-wingers tend to be very anti-tax. And, unfortunately, good public transit systems cost money, and LOTS of it

B) there are very few American cities that have decent public transit systems. So, should all poor people move to those cities (big expense, right there) in order to be able to take advantage of their transit systems?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 10:45 AM
 
580 posts, read 606,054 times
Reputation: 740
Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl View Post
Totally agree. A couple of points:

I think home ownership is highly overrated, though, with current rents in many cities being so cost prohibitive, a necessary "evil".

While I'm ALL for public transit, I always get a kick out of the right-wingers on these threads who call for people to give up their cars in order to use it. This prescription seems to be paradoxical, considering that:

A) right-wingers tend to be very anti-tax. And, unfortunately, good public transit systems cost money, and LOTS of it

B) there are very few American cities that have decent public transit systems. So, should all poor people move to those cities (big expense, right there) in order to be able to take advantage of their transit systems?



I think you have a skewed definition of right winger.

Most right wingers are against construction of public transportation schemes BECAUSE of the cost. Here in the the Maryland/DC/Va area, we get to see cheery proposals of streetcars, extension of train services, etc. that will cost 9-12 figures, only to find that the stated economic benefits are at best, grossly optimistic, at worst, fraudulent (H-Street streetcars, Purple line in PG/Montgomery, Red line in Baltimore.

Also, look at the insane figures regarding budgets of high-speed train cost in California. $68 billion? To recoup costs, tickets from LA-SFO will have to be $1000 a pop.

You see the green left-wing folks trying to shunt everyone into mass transit, while the true elite take private jets and helicopters to avoid the rif-raf.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 10:58 AM
 
Location: NNJ
9,601 posts, read 5,384,265 times
Reputation: 10497
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
No, stupid (and immoral) is expecting ME to support YOU.

Everybody works. But to demand that someone that works at a job that doesn't pay well gets to steal my money is wrong.
I hear this a lot (around the context of living wage) about morality. Can someone( not just ringwise) provide clarity for me? (I'm a layman)

People are not a raw material resource. They are also consumers that require basic necesities to survive. Its not like dirt. If dirt has little value it simply isn't sold nor do we, as a society, have a responsibilty to provide the basic necessities for dirt to survive.

So when the job market devaluates a human resource to below living wages and is no longer capable of sustaining basic necessities (food water shelter etc), we are left we two possibly situations:

1) We can allow that person to suffer... go hungry... go sick... with out shelter....
2) Government (using tax money) will need to step in and make up the difference required to sustain basic necessities.

Situation #1 to me coincides with the strickest sense of free market. I don't think many would say from a society standpoint, its a moral choice.

Situation #2 seems to me that an employer is passing the cost of basic necessities of an employable human to the government... ie Tax payers. That seems like stealing.


So I'm trying to come to terms on how a requiring s living wage is somehow "immoral" and "stealing" while the alternative is equally "immoral" and "stealing"


ringwise, your statement seems off. Storm Eagle never said that its ok for any worker to demand a WELL PAYING JOB. What Storm Eagle said is that human worker's output has an intrinsic value that is require to sustain life... and it is immoral to drive that value towards zero... slave labor. What you are arguing seems a different topic..... living wage is not a well paying wage.

My personal opinion.... If a business cannot afford to pay living wages to a human being, they should not be in business at all. On the other hand, I think we have a tendency to "inflate" what is a living wage... to include stupid stuff like cell phones, new cars etc.. That's just not realistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,912 posts, read 54,244,442 times
Reputation: 30479
Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl View Post
Truly, a brilliant post. One of the best I've ever read in the Economics sub-forum. But I hate you say it, harry: your intellect and insight is wasted here.
Thank you for the compliment, but I write not for those who are entrenched in their own dogmas, but for the lurkers who would otherwise become entrapped by the repetition of those political positions. The line you highlighted points out that it is in the interest of any intellectually honest right-wing or left wing pundit to allow wages that stimulate growth within their community.

Consider a limited number of people, say 100 individuals earning an income and 100 who are dependent upon them and unable to work (underage child, disabled, mentally deficient, aged). People need incentives to work. I can't tell you how many stories I have heard by men saddled with excessive alimony who simply refused to work much above the amount left over after their wages were garnished. A person who isn't working to full potential is not creating any excess wealth to be taxed. A person who isn't working to full potential is not a creator of new jobs. Burden the 100 who can work too heavily, be it via taxation or simply paying too little for work done or through theft, and they will "go Galt" and refuse to put forth an effort. I've seen that first-hand when I have had to underpay employees and they had no illusions that harder work would get them more money. Once that drive to work is gone, the 100 who can't work suffer, and the next generation doesn't even know what a work ethic is.

Are some jobs not worth a lot? Of course. Should those jobs pay less? Of course, within reason. At the other end of the spectrum, are some jobs worth much more? Of course. Should they pay more? Of course, within reason. Various studies of satisfaction and happiness indicate that there is a relationship to them and wage disparities. A sweet spot appears to occur when the highest paid individual earns about 15 times the lowest paid worker. I suspect that much of what happens when boards of directors overpay CEOs is that they are moving from financial prudence to gambling and hero-worship (and the hope of tagging on to the coattails of a real "winner" that they can cash in on). When workers are underpaid, the triumvirate of customer, investor, employee has been skewed to benefit investors at the expense of customer and employee. The drive for short-term results in the stock market has gutted many businesses, and thus turned employees out on the streets.

There are two primary ways people look at "ideal" economics. One is through greed and maximal intent to seek the top of the heap, screw everyone else. The other is fair and measured recompense for work done and large safety nets. Those will always be in tension. The end game of both perceived ideals, if completely unfettered as either maximal greed or maximal equality, is a tiny oligarchy and a massive number of slaves. "Communist" soviet ideals showed how some of the masses eventually become more "equal" than others. The tension and fighting between factions - when equally matched - is more productive than either alone.

Businesses that are largely employee owned, as in stock sales being restricted to employees, seems to be an answer that works. Such businesses are less subject to open stock market pressures, employees are better paid and have more interest in the success of the company, and customers get treated with more respect. However, such companies are less likely to take big risks or show as much flash and bling to outsiders. Were the hands in the pockets of the corporations the hands of employees dependent upon a stable and reliable income from them, I suspect the "living wage" debate would disappear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 11:28 AM
 
4,563 posts, read 4,738,470 times
Reputation: 3616
Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl View Post
Okay, fair enough. So, what's YOUR level of education, seeing as you're such a big proponent of education? Just curious.
What's yours? Just curious
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 12:26 PM
 
Location: the Permian Basin
4,196 posts, read 3,090,264 times
Reputation: 5892
"A living wage" is just a socialist catch-phrase with an intentionally vague definition - or lack thereof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 01:49 PM
eok
 
6,684 posts, read 3,175,988 times
Reputation: 8464
Why is health insurance part of a living wage? It's expensive. Most health care is wasted. Doctors do unnecessary surgeries, and excess procedures just to cover their own liabilities. People go to the doctor for flu. There was a time when most people would gamble on their health, and usually win. And when they lost, it was a loss from gambling, not from poverty. George Washington paid through the nose for large numbers of doctors, but died from lack of competent medical care.

Why can't people walk to work? If a living wage includes the cost of transportation, billions of people throughout the world would consider it more a luxury than a basic job.

Why do we all need our own bedrooms? Billions of people throughout the world do just fine sleeping 10 to a room.

A living wage means a wage that gives us a particular standard of living. However high or low we decide to define that standard to be. In other words, it's just a random number, to give us a random number of hours, days, weeks, months, or years, to argue about that number. There is no practical limit to how high or low it can be.

Why should a living wage not include Vegas vacations every six weeks? Are we slaves? Should we not have the best doctors money can buy? Are we supposed to be forced to economize on our own health? Do our apartments have roaches? Do our landlords care? Are we supposed to live in slums or McMansions or what?

High tide or low tide, the water can still be seen as too deep or too shallow. The only sure thing is that the argument will continue forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 02:27 PM
 
12,709 posts, read 9,989,624 times
Reputation: 9521
Quote:
Originally Posted by eok View Post
Why is health insurance part of a living wage? It's expensive. Most health care is wasted. Doctors do unnecessary surgeries, and excess procedures just to cover their own liabilities. People go to the doctor for flu. There was a time when most people would gamble on their health, and usually win. And when they lost, it was a loss from gambling, not from poverty. George Washington paid through the nose for large numbers of doctors, but died from lack of competent medical care.
The problem is, there is no such thing as "necessary treatment only" health insurance. Which is the lesser of the evils - having some patients receive unneeded treatment, or limiting lifesaving procedures to the wealthy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eok View Post

Why can't people walk to work? If a living wage includes the cost of transportation, billions of people throughout the world would consider it more a luxury than a basic job.
I agree. The usual middle class whining continues about "can't get kids into good schools if living close to work".

Of course if spouses have jobs 30 miles apart from each other, it is simply not workable for both to walk to work. Some sort of transportation has to be accounted for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eok View Post

Why do we all need our own bedrooms? Billions of people throughout the world do just fine sleeping 10 to a room.
This allows disease to spread very easily and is often associated with poor sanitation. This is a bigger risk now than it was a decade or two ago as more and more antibiotic resistant microbes come up. Also, excessive crowdedness tends to get people mad at each other.

Sorry, can't agree with you here. 1-2 people per room, sure. Tiny house, absolutely. But 10 adults in a 200 sqft room? You're nuts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eok View Post

A living wage means a wage that gives us a particular standard of living. However high or low we decide to define that standard to be. In other words, it's just a random number, to give us a random number of hours, days, weeks, months, or years, to argue about that number. There is no practical limit to how high or low it can be.

Why should a living wage not include Vegas vacations every six weeks? Are we slaves? Should we not have the best doctors money can buy? Are we supposed to be forced to economize on our own health? Do our apartments have roaches? Do our landlords care? Are we supposed to live in slums or McMansions or what?

High tide or low tide, the water can still be seen as too deep or too shallow. The only sure thing is that the argument will continue forever.
I'm afraid you're mixing too many issues together here - and rambling excessively.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:39 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top