Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, since the topic comes up often enough, I thought we could start a thread, separate from various news articles to discuss the theories or practical solutions to the subject..... Should there be a difference between "living" and "minimum"? How do we decide the difference, and how do we apply those decisions?

Well, this is going to be divisive. One thing I do know for sure, everyone is going to have a strong opinion, they're going to differ, and they're all going to still somehow be wrong.

 daedalus wrote:
Well, this is going to be divisive. One thing I do know for sure, everyone is going to have a strong opinion, they're going to differ, and they're all going to still somehow be wrong.

True, but since we're talking about this subject in basically a vacuum, hopefully it'll survive longer than in previous threads

Fair enough. I feel like "living wage" isn't a term that can be used in a meaningful way. I feel like it only means what you need it to mean to justify any argument you could be trying to make.

Minimum wage should be enough that it provides more incentive to seek it out instead of welfare benefits.

The issue is for everyone to be treated equally, everyone must be treated differently.

A "Living wage" for a 14 year old, a single 27 year old, a married 40 year old with wife and 3 kids, a single 30 year old with 4 kids all have different costs to be fulfilled. There is no single wage which can allow all of those scenarios to 'LIVE' to the standards discussed.

The issue then becomes 'well tax credits address the disparities and wellfare covers the kids...' Except when it doesn't... And then 'how many jobs?' should someone be expected to do? Should that be enforced by the government?

And then where does skill come in? If a single person with 3 kids needs 52k a year to 'live' in a particular area, should she be guaranteed to earn a wage which will pay 52k a year for 40 hours a week? Does that mean someone who does the exact same job as her but is single and only needs 23K a year, should he get a reduced wage? Or does everyone make the wage for the most costly lifestyle or family situation in the area?

It would have to boil down that the government would need to confiscate allw ages, give everyone a scientifically designed 'allowance' based upon their life needs, pay for 'critical costs' like healthcare and food before an employee gets a dime, and then everyone in society works for ' added value'. So your paycheck is simply funmoney over your socially alloted allowance for your work.

So everyone gets their allowance, and jobs would then pay a 'wage' on top of that allowance. So I wouldn't make 15$ an hour, I would make <my allowance for my life situation and fundamental needs> + 3.50 an hour.

Sounds cool to me... I would like to be treated like a perpetual teenager mowing my parents lawn for the rest of my life and have no worries about health care, retirement, taxes and not worry if I piss my money away that I won't eat or be homeless.

Do you trust anyone to run this system? I don't.

 daedalus wrote:
Fair enough. I feel like "living wage" isn't a term that can be used in a meaningful way. I feel like it only means what you need it to mean to justify any argument you could be trying to make.

Minimum wage should be enough that it provides more incentive to seek it out instead of welfare benefits.

Living wage is an easily quantifiable term by reference to objectively measured living costs in different localities.

In theory, people ought to be incentivised to work for piss poor wages if the alternative is starvation, i.e. zero welfare benefits, but actually they resort to crime and revolution instead when the wages offered are too piss poor.

Has anyone looked at this site?
http://livingwage.mit.edu/

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Living wage is an easily quantifiable term by reference to objectively measured living costs in different localities.

The feth it is.

If it was so easy, we'd have a definition for it that everyone agreed on.

 daedalus wrote:
Well, this is going to be divisive. One thing I do know for sure, everyone is going to have a strong opinion, they're going to differ, and they're all going to still somehow be wrong.

I can't believe how wrong you are!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Living wage is an easily quantifiable term by reference to objectively measured living costs in different localities.

That's easy enough to say, but what costs do you account for in that? If it's food, water, electricity, and a roof, and nothing else, I have managed that on minimum wage before. If you include other things, bootstrappers start getting huffy and indignant.

In theory, people ought to be incentivised to work for piss poor wages if the alternative is starvation, i.e. zero welfare benefits, but actually they resort to crime and revolution instead when the wages offered are too piss poor.

I agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Well, this is going to be divisive. One thing I do know for sure, everyone is going to have a strong opinion, they're going to differ, and they're all going to still somehow be wrong.

I can't believe how wrong you are!

I know right? Now I'M the Nostradumbass!

In NZ

Between 16-18 minimum is less than livable.

18+ minimum wage is very livable (if you work full time)

If you work part time you can easily live with other people and have enough to live.

I used to have internet, tv, power, petrol, food, rent, insurance and room to mess around with on minimum wage full time work. Its even easier with a partner.

But being younger means your employer can pay you less, as you dont need it as much as someone older.

I understand america is a big place, and they dont even share the same laws across the country, so the answer to your problem is much harder. But each area (state?) will need to work it out because im sure living in Texas will end up being very different to living in some other state or whatever.

A full time worker of 18+ should be able to rent a living space, have food, internet, power and have enough to travel at least. A part time worker can seek out help from the government and live with other people until their situation improves. I havent lived with other people, but its common for teens to share a house until they can move on, and after living with others they generally do move on.

But even then, we still have a problem of people just getting the benefit since that means they can skip the work side of things.

 Swastakowey wrote:


A full time worker of 18+ should be able to rent a living space, have food, internet, power and have enough to travel at least.

Why should they be able to have the internet?

A part time worker can seek out help from the government and live with other people until their situation improves. I havent lived with other people, but its common for teens to share a house until they can move on, and after living with others they generally do move on.

A full time working adult can do the exact same. It's done ALL THE TIME.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Living wage is an easily quantifiable term by reference to objectively measured living costs in different localities.

The feth it is.

If it was so easy, we'd have a definition for it that everyone agreed on.

"Everyone's" agreement is not necessary to objectively quantify a living wage by reference to living costs.

 cincydooley wrote:
Why should they be able to have the internet?

And so it begins.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


A full time worker of 18+ should be able to rent a living space, have food, internet, power and have enough to travel at least.

Why should they be able to have the internet?

A part time worker can seek out help from the government and live with other people until their situation improves. I havent lived with other people, but its common for teens to share a house until they can move on, and after living with others they generally do move on.

A full time working adult can do the exact same. It's done ALL THE TIME.

People should have the option of an internet connection. Why shouldn't they?
The benefits to anyone with an internet connection are huge from an educational stand point. Banking, online deals and so on. Even finding work is made far easier by having an internet connection. Its a simple tool that can be of great benefit to someone on the minimum wage.

As for your second comment, unless an adult is working part time, the fact a full time working adult may need to share a living space to get by kinda shows that there is a problem.

 Swastakowey wrote:
In NZ
A full time worker of 18+ should be able to rent a living space, have food, internet, power and have enough to travel at least. A part time worker can seek out help from the government and live with other people until their situation improves. I havent lived with other people, but its common for teens to share a house until they can move on, and after living with others they generally do move on.

What constitutes a 'living space'? In my area, a 1 bedroom efficiency apartment is 1700$ a month minimum. You can go on craigslist and rent a room in a house for maybe 400$. Do people have the god-given right to live alone? I alss know within the same state, you can rent a whole 3 bedroom house for 600$ a month, so a state wide 'minimum' would not take in account the disparity.

How much does someone 'deserve' for food? And how much should someone be given in order to prepare and store said food? Stoves, Fridges, cooking tools all cost money.

Internet? Why not throw Cell phone on that too? You can go to public buildings for internet.

Power? How much is 'enough power'? What if someone lives in a living space which costs 200$ a month to heat in the winter due to the bad insulation while someone else pays 45$ a month? What about people who leave the lights on? how much is enough for power?

Travel? Travel? People have a right to travel? You mean commute to work? or go to Disneyworld because vacation is a god given right?

There are so many variables which makes it impossible to determine a single correct metric on what people should have the 'right' to be given as a wage, if such a thing even exists in this illusion of civilization we have where depending where on the planet you are standing determines so much about your situation. There is no single answer, and for everyone to be treated FAIR everyone needs to be treated differently, and humans (along with dogs and primates) will rebel at a fundamental level about inequity, even in the name of helping everyone along.

 Swastakowey wrote:


People should have the option of an internet connection. Why shouldn't they?

Because it's hardly a necessity and can be accessed for free from any public library?

As for your second comment, unless an adult is working part time, the fact a full time working adult may need to share a living space to get by kinda shows that there is a problem.

Why?

 daedalus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Why should they be able to have the internet?

And so it begins.

The faster we get there, the faster it becomes the monkey gak-fling it always does, and the sooner it gets locked.

There are national and international standards for living space.

In the modern world, where many government duties and services are being moved into online only, it is not unreasonable to expect internet connection as a right.

You can't expect people to look up jobs online if they can't go online, and you can't expect people to look up jobs offline if jobs are advertised mainly online.

 Swastakowey wrote:


People should have the option of an internet connection. Why shouldn't they?

Because our schadenfreude depends upon people of a lower class than ourselves living with technology strictly mid-20th century or before. Though it's well established that poorer people generally have the deck stacked against them when it comes to the logistics of travel, they can always go to a public library if they need internet, right?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are national and international standards for living space.

In the modern world, where many government duties and services are being moved into online only, it is not unreasonable to expect internet connection as a right.

You can't expect people to look up jobs online if they can't go online, and you can't expect people to look up jobs offline if jobs are advertised mainly online.

But then how will society punish the poors?

No, it's cool. I enjoy having people tell me how many things they're entitled to on a "living wage."

Why should they be able to have the internet?

SO we can argue about it online!

Also you need a computer, printer, and a IPhone device.
You need transportation as well.

nkelsch wrote:


A "Living wage" for a 14 year old, a single 27 year old, a married 40 year old with wife and 3 kids, a single 30 year old with 4 kids all have different costs to be fulfilled. There is no single wage which can allow all of those scenarios to 'LIVE' to the standards discussed.

And this is basically what I'm talking about. Your "typical" high school age worker doesn't actually NEED a "living" wage, but then there does still, in many ways, need to be a "minimum" wage that people are paid.




Personally, I would define "minimum" wage as the ability to feed yourself, house yourself, transport yourself, clothe yourself, and conduct business activities (internet/basic phone or cell phone).

Living Wage would be all of the above, with the caveat that you could afford "nicer" clothing, private transport even if it isn't reasonable. As well as being able to afford other niceties, such as Cable/Sat TV, gaming consoles/leisure items, as well as the ability to support and raise offspring.

All of that of course varies from location to location, because real estate prices in Salem, MA are going to be a lot different to those in Salem, OR. (which I don't think anyone has or will argue against)


I include internet/phone in "minimum" because of the simple fact that so many employers use an almost exclusively online application process, and so much of that business is done online that computers/laptops have become a near necessity.

 whembly wrote:
Has anyone looked at this site?
http://livingwage.mit.edu/

Anyone check out that link?

I believe IKEA is using that as a model for their entry-level minimum wage in 2015.

So...

If you like the concept of living-wage, patronize them.

 daedalus wrote:

Because our schadenfreude depends upon people of a lower class than ourselves living with technology strictly mid-20th century or before. Though it's well established that poorer people generally have the deck stacked against them when it comes to the logistics of travel, they can always go to a public library if they need internet, right?

Our internet and cable was one of the first things we cut when I lost my job (and was working two part time jobs) in 2008.

When I needed to use the internet, I did so from one part time job on my lunch break, or went to the library.

They're certainly not rights, or necessities.

 cincydooley wrote:
entitled

Secret word!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



I include internet/phone in "minimum" because of the simple fact that so many employers use an almost exclusively online application process, and so much of that business is done online that computers/laptops have become a near necessity.

And libraries and their facilities are for.....what then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
entitled

Secret word!
[spoilier]http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2010/09/22_peeweeshow_560x375.jpg[/spoilier]

Oh, I bingo'd it on purpose.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



I include internet/phone in "minimum" because of the simple fact that so many employers use an almost exclusively online application process, and so much of that business is done online that computers/laptops have become a near necessity.

And libraries and their facilities are for.....what then?

For the homeless to sinkwash their junk and go BM?

 Swastakowey wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


A full time worker of 18+ should be able to rent a living space, have food, internet, power and have enough to travel at least.

Why should they be able to have the internet?

A part time worker can seek out help from the government and live with other people until their situation improves. I havent lived with other people, but its common for teens to share a house until they can move on, and after living with others they generally do move on.

A full time working adult can do the exact same. It's done ALL THE TIME.

People should have the option of an internet connection. Why shouldn't they?
The benefits to anyone with an internet connection are huge from an educational stand point. Banking, online deals and so on. Even finding work is made far easier by having an internet connection. Its a simple tool that can be of great benefit to someone on the minimum wage.

As for your second comment, unless an adult is working part time, the fact a full time working adult may need to share a living space to get by kinda shows that there is a problem.

I honestly don't feel that Internet Connection should be a required item in Living Wages; Libraries have full access to the internet for free/rather cheaply. While you could argue against it for gas/car maintenance, a bike is cheaper, healthier, and in general better for you.