- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 16,386
- Reaction score
- 7,793
- Location
- Where I am now
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The cost of living varies greatly in various regions. To some degree, state minimum wages adjust for that, but not enough in many cases. For example, I heard you can get a one bedroom apartment for $700 per month in Memphis. That would cost at least $1700 in San Francisco. $700 won't even get a room in an SRO in SF.
Based on your numbers for 1975 a minimum wage worker earned 145% of the poverty level.
Based on your numbers for 2013 a minimum wage worker earned 126% of the poverty level. That shows that minimum wage workers are worse off currently, and by enough to hurt.
I said that there has been 'some erosion'. But it is still nowhere near below the poverty line.
Most skilled trades could barely/not afford to live in Manhattan or many parts of San Fran or other major cities - but you are saying that a minimum wage worker should be able to?
Come on now.
Obviously, if you live in those areas and the best job you can get is at Walmart - then you are going to have to live outside of that area.
The point is that working at Walmart can provide you with a living wage in most regions of the lower 48.
And that is totally besides my point anyway - which is that Walmart has ZERO moral obligation to provide a 'living wage' to anyone in it's employ. And NO well-respected international organization (that I am aware of), like the UN, disagrees.
You and others have this utopian fantasy that a place you work for owes you a living - which is not backed up by ANY well-respected, international organization (that I am aware of - like the UN) or even the definition of the word 'job'.
Then when I show that Walmart does in fact provide a living wage for most areas of America - then you infer that it has to apply to wealthy neighbourhoods with $1700 rents as well.
Clearly, there is no reasoning with you on this subject - so I will not waste any further energy trying.
Have a nice day.