What is a "liveable wage"?

[Gipper]

I've seen far too many people (that lack any sort of basic economic education) discuss some fictitious term like "liveable wage". I think it's time we let liberals define it.

What is it, people?

 

[lizzie]

It's enough to pay my bills, and have some leftover for a little fun. :lol:

 

[iliveonramen]

I've seen far too many people (that lack any sort of basic economic education) discuss some fictitious term like "liveable wage". I think it's time we let liberals define it.

What is it, people?

n 1776 Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations argued that poverty is the inability to afford, "not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without.

In the Wealth of Nations the poverty line or some livable wage doesn't mean someone gets by stacked in a room paying rent with 5 or 6 others, wearing the same clothes for 5 years, and living off of beans.

It would be someone that generally can afford rent/clothing/food and have a little left over.

 

[CalGun]

For where? A live able wage in San Francisco is far different then my home in Denio Junction where I can live on $750 a month and save for retirement.

Also is every job required to pay a living wage? Why? Why do that to an entry level opportunity for teens and what impacts would such a decision have on the fixed income masses who won't get cost of living increases fast enough to stay up with the inflation of higher mandated wages. I personally think a man should be free to work for what he wants how ever high or low that May be.

 

[EdwinWillers]

While they're at it, maybe they could define for us what "rich" or "wealthy" means too.

I voted "there is no such thing..." - with an important caveat - that such a term is necessarily and purely subjective, ergo any objective definition cannot exist.

 

[ttwtt78640]

My current wage times 5.

 

[Gipper]

In the Wealth of Nations the poverty line or some livable wage doesn't mean someone gets by stacked in a room paying rent with 5 or 6 others, wearing the same clothes for 5 years, and living off of beans.

It would be someone that generally can afford rent/clothing/food and have a little left over.

I'll tackle this:

Here are some other percentages that run down the things that poverty-stricken Americans own. The number in parentheses is provided for comparison. That’s the percentage of Americans living above the poverty line who own the same stuff.
■Refrigerators: 97.8 (99.5)
■Clothes washers: 68.7 (88.1)
■Clothes dryers: 65.3 (86.6)
■Dishwashers: 44.9 (73.5)
■Food freezers: 26.2 (37.5)
■Stoves: 96.6 (98.9)
■Microwaves: 93.2 (97.4)

Poverty In America: Cellphones, TVs, Refrigerators And Microwave Ovens : Personal Liberty

What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

 

[rocket88]

My current wage times 5.

Indeed. But without the ex finding out!

 

[Neomalthusian]

There is no such thing as a "living wage" or "livable wage" because wages are not determined with any consideration given to what a person's lifestyle needs are.

If a local grocer wants to hire someone to keep shopping carts from cluttering the parking lot and keep the icy sidewalks salted, and two interested applicants show up, a 35-year old single father of three, and a 16-year old only child who lives at home with his middle class parents…

…what is the living wage that the job should pay?

 

[rocket88]

I'll tackle this:

Here are some other percentages that run down the things that poverty-stricken Americans own. The number in parentheses is provided for comparison. That’s the percentage of Americans living above the poverty line who own the same stuff.
■Refrigerators: 97.8 (99.5)
■Clothes washers: 68.7 (88.1)
■Clothes dryers: 65.3 (86.6)
■Dishwashers: 44.9 (73.5)
■Food freezers: 26.2 (37.5)
■Stoves: 96.6 (98.9)
■Microwaves: 93.2 (97.4)

I wouldn't call some of those things luxuries. For example, fridges and stoves or microwaves: having the ability to safely store and cook food should be considered fairly minimum. Unless you want everybody cooking on an open fire in the inner cities. I suppose you could have one kitchen per floor, but that seems rather Stalin-esque. In fact, they tried that in the USSR and it didn't really work.

 

[Neomalthusian]

There is no such thing as a "living wage" or "livable wage" because wages are not determined with the employer having to give consideration given to what the person's lifestyle needs are. The lifestyle needs and choices of the applicant are frankly none of the employer's business.

If a local grocer wants to hire one person to keep shopping carts from cluttering the parking lot and keep the icy sidewalks salted, and two interested applicants show up, a 35-year old single father of three, and a 16-year old only child who lives at home with his middle class parents…

…what is the living wage that the job should pay?

 

[EdwinWillers]

It would be someone that generally can afford rent/clothing/food and have a little left over.

...which translates to what, wage-wise?

 

[Tigger]

There is no such thing. What any one of you could live on may or may not be what I can live on and vice-versa.

 

[Gipper]

...which translates to what, wage-wise?

I avoided putting it in static wage terms because of cost of living, geography, etc. I tried to word it in relative "creature comforts".

 

[iliveonramen]

I'll tackle this:



Poverty In America: Cellphones, TVs, Refrigerators And Microwave Ovens : Personal Liberty

What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

I'm not sure what you get from this. When I read this

Here are some other percentages that run down the things that poverty-stricken Americans own. The number in parentheses is provided for comparison. That’s the percentage of Americans living above the poverty line who own the same stuff.
■Refrigerators: 97.8 (99.5)
■Clothes washers: 68.7 (88.1)
■Clothes dryers: 65.3 (86.6)
■Dishwashers: 44.9 (73.5)
■Food freezers: 26.2 (37.5)
■Stoves: 96.6 (98.9)
■Microwaves: 93.2 (97.4)

So if someone rents a place with a microwave/stove/washer and dryer/fridge/freezer but has problems getting food for those things, clothing themselves etc then they are living in poverty? What exactly does poverty look like to you? Do you have to cook your food in a fire pit after curing it to make it last longer?


As for the various amenities....a better question is...at what point do you think someone is living in poverty?

You seem to hold some dustbowl Great Depression era view of poverty. Your not in poverty into you're living in a shack with a dust floor on the prairie barely getting by on what you can grow. Have you ever walked into a house with a TV and been like "man...this is poverty". I have.

 

[iliveonramen]

...which translates to what, wage-wise?

Well obviously it's not a set in stone number. Food prices change over time, rent varies by city. It would pretty much be a certain % over the poverty line which takes all that stuff in account.

As a single guy minimum wage puts you right over the poverty line (of course not taking into account rent prices). You can make minimum wage in rural America and be alright. Not in big cities.

 

[Gipper]

I'm not sure what you get from this. When I read this



So if someone rents a place with a microwave/stove/washer and dryer/fridge/freezer but has problems getting food for those things, clothing themselves etc then they are living in poverty? What exactly does poverty look like to you? Do you have to cook your food in a fire pit after curing it to make it last longer?


As for the various amenities....a better question is...at what point do you think someone is living in poverty?

You seem to hold some dustbowl Great Depression era view of poverty. Your not in poverty into you're living in a shack with a dust floor on the prairie barely getting by on what you can grow. Have you ever walked into a house with a TV and been like "man...this is poverty". I have.

There are also other things definitely considered "luxuries" that people often own when living below the poverty level. I was stating that, even at that level, people don't have it quite that bad.

Full-time minimum wage puts you right around...actually over...the poverty level - which apparently affords you quite a bit. That is the chief reasoning behind why I wonder why liberals are trying to squeeze the nuts of business for all this extra money. Are they wanting a PS4 and XBox One for every TV and an iPhone for every pocket? Is that 2011 Corrolla an embarassment now?

 

[EdwinWillers]

There is no such thing. What any one of you could live on may or may not be what I can live on and vice-versa.

The formula is simple: Living Wage = k *(1 + mu)

Where:
k = cost of your healthcare deductible
mu = one's personal needs assessment factor ($1 to "Rich")

 

[iliveonramen]

There are also other things definitely considered "luxuries" that people often own when living below the poverty level. I was stating that, even at that level, people don't have it quite that bad.

Full-time minimum wage puts you right around...actually over...the poverty level - which apparently affords you quite a bit. That is the chief reasoning behind why I wonder why liberals are trying to squeeze the nuts of business for all this extra money. Are they wanting a PS4 and XBox One for every TV and an iPhone for every pocket? Is that 2011 Corrolla an embarassment now?

Well a large problem is the poverty line is a universal number across the country and doesn't take into account cost of living. Living in a rural area where you can rent a doublewide (or buy) cheaply is a little different than a larger city with higher rent.

There's also the issue that not everyone receiving minimum wage is a single individual.

No...I don't think a PS4 or Xbox One or an Iphone should be the measuring stick for poverty. I think for the most part getting people out of the trap where as soon as they get paid everything leaves for clothing/rent/food and they are constantly behind paying basic bills.

To me that's poverty...eeking by where one flat tire or one of those unplanned costs out of no where means not enough to eat or getting behind on rent. The poverty trap is what I want to be eliminated. It's a nasty thing.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I avoided putting it in static wage terms because of cost of living, geography, etc. I tried to word it in relative "creature comforts".

Both of which are why it's undefinable. But I get your meaning.

 

[Gipper]

Both of which are why it's undefinable. But I get your meaning.

I've always considered it a made-up term that's complete bunk. The problem is that liberals and "progressives" lately keep wanting to use that term like it's real or something.

 

[TheNextEra]

I've seen far too many people (that lack any sort of basic economic education) discuss some fictitious term like "liveable wage". I think it's time we let liberals define it.

What is it, people?

There is no set-in-stone "liveable" wage amount, however, the definition of a liveable wage would essentially be the cost for a person to pay their bills without going into more debt.

However, what the cost for a person to do that is different with everyone. A person's habits, bills, debt, location, age, all play into it. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to help people and like it or not, the only way to do so effectively with our population is to set a min amount. Unless of course you want to pay for an army of people to do evaluations on each person on a case by case basis all paid for by the taxpayers. I don't think you want that either.

 

[Cardinal]

I've seen far too many people (that lack any sort of basic economic education) discuss some fictitious term like "liveable wage". I think it's time we let liberals define it.

What is it, people?

What city (if even a city)? I'm guessing where you live you're paying a hell of a lot less than me for the same services and goods.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I've always considered it a made-up term that's complete bunk. The problem is that liberals and "progressives" lately keep wanting to use that term like it's real or something.

Ahyup. It's a term that only assuages their emotions yet has zero basis in practical reality, save as an appeal to the emotions of others.

 

[Helix]

i think the "living wage" efforts can be unintentionally counterproductive. let's say that everybody is guaranteed $30k a year. it won't take long before that 30k is just like 12k is now, and with the inflation that it causes, everyone's savings will be worth less than half as much.

so, now that we've established that some entry level jobs are always going to pay **** wages, what should we do? i support guaranteeing access to college regardless of financial means and increasing the opportunity for promotion out of the **** jobs. how to do the latter is complicated, but it can work. perhaps give corporations extra tax breaks for low turnover and rate of promotion within the company. what we need to happen is what happened in the mid 20th century : you start work for a company, you're loyal and hard working, and you can make it from the mail room to management. that doesn't happen nearly as often, and one can be loyal to a company for years and still get canned for no reason other than a bean counter wanted a better bonus.

if i were organizing a union, i would ask for more opportunities for promotion, better job security, and better worker control over schedule. those are reasonable demands, and would benefit both the company and the worker.