• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The "Living Wage"

hanger4

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
7,501
Reaction score
1,500
Location
WNC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??
 
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??

in a socialist society, like the US Army, yes.

In a capitalist society, no.
 
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??

People who use "living wage" rhetoric will insinuate that ManA should earn at least what ManB needs. I've seen routine insinuations that a single wage should basically always cover the needs of a family of four. "Living wage" is usually just a dog whistle that signals to the base the reminder that the entire lower half of the income distribution is underpaid, in their opinion.
 
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??

By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."

How one spends one's "living wage" is a matter of one's discretion; however, what wage is a "living wage" isn't a function of one's spending, aka lifestyle, decisions. Were a "living wage" a function of how one spends one's wages, a person earning $500K/year who over-indebts himself could be said to not earn a "living wage."
 
By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."

How one spends one's "living wage" is a matter of one's discretion; however, what wage is a "living wage" isn't a function of one's spending, aka lifestyle, decisions. Were a "living wage" a function of how one spends one's wages, a person earning $500K/year who over-indebts himself could be said to not earn a "living wage."

*By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."*

Are you advocating all should paid a "living wage" regardless of skill set, marital or dependent status ??
 
*By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."
-- Xelor, Post 4

Are you advocating all should paid a "living wage" regardless of skill set, marital or dependent status ??

Red:
No.

What about my statement led to surmise I might have even been intimating as much, let alone potentially saying such?
 
Red:
No.

What about my statement led to surmise I might have even been intimating as much, let alone potentially saying such?

You did, there are no qualifiers in your sentence, it's quite to the point.

*By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."
 
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??

By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."

How one spends one's "living wage" is a matter of one's discretion; however, what wage is a "living wage" isn't a function of one's spending, aka lifestyle, decisions. Were a "living wage" a function of how one spends one's wages, a person earning $500K/year who over-indebts himself could be said to not earn a "living wage."

*By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."*

Are you advocating all should [be] paid a "living wage" regardless of skill set, marital or dependent status ??

Red:
No.

What about my statement led to surmise I might have even been intimating as much, let alone potentially saying such?

You did, there are no qualifiers in your sentence, it's quite to the point.

*By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."

Blue sequence:
???
  1. I neither stated nor implied anything normative about one's pay.
  2. I am not a "what." I am a "who," a person.
 
Blue sequence:
???
  1. I neither stated nor implied anything normative about one's pay.
  2. I am not a "what." I am a "who," a person.

"is a "living wage" is most definitely "implied".
 
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??

By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."

How one spends one's "living wage" is a matter of one's discretion; however, what wage is a "living wage" isn't a function of one's spending, aka lifestyle, decisions. Were a "living wage" a function of how one spends one's wages, a person earning $500K/year who over-indebts himself could be said to not earn a "living wage."

*By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."*

Are you advocating all should [be] paid a "living wage" regardless of skill set, marital or dependent status ??

Red:
No.

What about my statement led to surmise I might have even been intimating as much, let alone potentially saying such?

You did, there are no qualifiers in your sentence, it's quite to the point.

*By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."
???
  1. I neither stated nor implied anything normative about one's pay.
  2. I am not a "what." I am a "who," a person.


"is a "living wage" is most definitely "implied".

giphy.gif
 
Seriously, a childish gif, all to avoid answering a simple question ??

I several posts back directly answered your question. It's you who've not directly answered mine.
 
I several posts back directly answered your question. It's you who've not directly answered mine.

Sure I did, you posted a declarative statement;

"By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."

The last four words seal the deal.
 
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??
Cost of living refers to the general cost of living over a certain geographic area, often relative to other geographic areas. It is a macro concept reflecting the amount of money needed to sustain a certain standard of living. On an individual household level, you wouldn't say two people living next to each other have different costs of living. They may have different expenses based on various choices, but that isn't the same concept.

A living wage is the minimum wage high enough to sustain a certain standard of living (what that standard should be is up for debate). What is considered a living wage does depend on household size, so to earn a living wage ManB either would have to earn more than ManA or ManB's spouse would also have to be working. But I'm not sure what you are trying to get at there.
 
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??

My guess is you don't know what the term living wage even means, I don't think liberals do either they just say it because they want the minimum wage raised. My take on a living wage is the bare minimum $1200 a month is plenty for a ****y apartment, utilities, and food.
 
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??

free market pays both the same. only a libNazi govt could intervene to prevent wage free people agree to. Do you understand?
 
I thought that the title of the thread indicated a serious interest in the subject. That is not, apparently, the purpose (given the obvious baiting and childish namecalling). Isn't one of the rules of the forum "Don't be an asshole"?

Just in case, though, let me provide some context/substance. Generally,
A living wage is the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs.[3] Needs are defined to include food, housing, and other essential needs such as clothing. The goal of a living wage is to allow a worker to afford a basic but decent standard of living.[4] Due to the flexible nature of the term "needs", there is not one universally accepted measure of what a living wage is and as such it varies by location and household type.[5]
(Wikipedia)

Here's one approach: Living wage calculator (MIT)
An analysis of the living wage, compiling geographically specific expenditure data for food, childcare, health care, housing, transportation, and other basic necessities, finds that:

The living wage in the United States is $15.12 per hour in 2015, before taxes for a family of four (two working adults, two children).

The minimum wage does not provide a living wage for most American families. A typical family of four (two working adults, two children) needs to work nearly four full-time minimum-wage jobs (a 76-hour work week per working adult) to earn a living wage. Single-parent families need to work almost twice as hard as families with two working adults to earn the living wage. A single-mother with two children earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour needs to work 139 hours per week, more hours than there are in a 5-day week, to earn a living wage.

Here's another: Living Wage and How It Compares to the Minimum Wage (The Balance)
The living wage is the amount of income needed to provide a decent standard of living. It should pay for the cost of living in any location. It should also be adjusted to compensate for inflation.


The purpose of a living wage is to make sure that all full-time workers have enough money to live above the federal poverty level.

Now, this is a normative approach - cost of living in various geographical areas can adjust what wage is required to be considered "living". It is a somewhat different standard than what is considered "poverty" - HHS POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR 2019. It is generally adjusted for the size of a family (and covers all areas of the United States and Territories, with separate numbers for Hawaii, Alaska and Territories). For the lower 48:
1 $12,490
2 $16,910
3 $21,330
4 $25,750

Technically the "Poverty line", "Poverty threshhold" and "poverty guidelines" are separate determinations. "In May 1965, the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity adopted Orshansky’s poverty thresholds as a working or quasi-official definition of poverty. In August 1969, the U.S. Bureau of the Budget (predecessor of the Office of Management and Budget) designated the poverty thresholds with certain revisions as the federal government’s official statistical definition of poverty." (HHS)

But, the basic tenet is - how much money does an individual need to provide the basics of living - Food, Shelter, clothing, heat, and sometimes transportation?

A "Living wage" is generally a higher threshold than poverty. A $15/hour wage earner would earn $31,200 before taxes and expenses. At $7.25 a full time worker earns $15,080/year.... which is poverty for all but the single worker.
 
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??

In theory yes, but in practice no (since that would just lead to job discrimination against family men).

A living wage should be enough for a reasonably frugal family with kids to live off of.
 
In theory yes, but in practice no (since that would just lead to job discrimination against family men).

A living wage should be enough for a reasonably frugal family with kids to live off of.

Cool, a blast from the past. Just funin.

So living wage would be dependent upon the cost of living where one lives. When a couple adds a child should the bread winner automatically get a raise ?? If the couple both work should the living wage include child care ??
 
Cool, a blast from the past. Just funin.

So living wage would be dependent upon the cost of living where one lives. When a couple adds a child should the bread winner automatically get a raise ?? If the couple both work should the living wage include child care ??

The best solution would probably be a direct state subsidy of children. Barring that, the minimum wage should be sufficient to meet the basic needs of an ordinary family, without the mother needing to work. The antidiscrimination laws which prohibit employers from paying family men more should be abolished. Of course, moral employers would pay men with more kids than average enough to live off of, but I don't see any way to legally enforce this that wouldn't have adverse effects.
 
From the Economist: Economic growth does not guarantee rising happiness
- excerpt:

Philosophers from Aristotle to the Beatles have argued that money does not buy happiness. But it seems to help. Since 2005 Gallup, a pollster, has asked a representative sample of adults from countries across the world to rate their life satisfaction on a scale from zero to ten. The headline result is clear: the richer the country, on average, the higher the level of self-reported happiness. The simple correlation suggests that doubling GDP per person lifts life satisfaction by about 0.7 points.

Yet the prediction that as a country gets richer its mood will improve has a dubious record. In 1974 Richard Easterlin, an economist, discovered that average life satisfaction in America had stagnated between 1946 and 1970 even as GDP per person had grown by 65% over the same period. He went on to find a similar disconnect in other places, too. Although income is correlated with happiness when looking across countries—and although economic downturns are reliable sources of temporary misery—long-term GDP growth does not seem to be enough to turn the average frown upside-down.

There are important examples of national income and happiness rising and falling together. The most significant—in terms of population—is China, where GDP per person has doubled over a decade, while average happiness has risen by 0.43 points. Among rich countries Germany enjoys higher incomes and greater cheer than ten years ago. Venezuela, once the fifth-happiest country in the world, has become miserable as its economy has collapsed. Looking across countries, growth is correlated with rising happiness.

Yet that correlation is very weak. Of the 125 countries for which good data exist, 43 have seen GDP per person and happiness move in opposite directions. Like China, India is a populous developing economy that is growing quickly. But happiness is down by about 1.2 points in the past decade. America, the subject of Easterlin’s initial study, has again seen happiness fall as the economy has grown. In total the world’s population looks roughly equally divided between places where happiness and incomes have moved in the same direction over the past ten years, and places where they have diverged.

Happiness is not everything - so shall we content ourselves with "well-being", that is being able to lead an average/normal lifestyle? Devoid of both poverty and wildly exaggerated incomes that are taxed away?

Is there really any other choice ... ?
 
"By my reckoning, a wage that provides for a 2000 sq. ft. home, while also supporting two kids and a spouse, is a "living wage."

Wow imagine the disincentive to work if you could be solidly middle class thanks to a guaranteed living liberal wage.
And imagine the disincentive to work if most of your income was taxed away to keep others in the middle class!!

Now we can see how socialist disincentives slowly starved 120 million to death.
 
A living wage is the minimum wage high enough to sustain a certain standard of living

Well, for much of the world its $1-2 /day! giving people free stuff reverses evolution and makes poverty worse not better. 1+1=2
 
Scenario; Two men, both electrical engineers, live next door same size lot. ManA, married, no children, 1000sq foot home, 1BR 1B. ManB, married, two children, 5 and 6, 2000 sq foot home, 3BR, 2B. Both work at the same corp, both hired same day. Obviously ManA's cost of living is much lower than ManB's. Should the "living wage" for ManA be less ??

ManA decided not to have children until he could afford them, so he is being responsible and saving money. Your living wage idea would penalize him for being responsible.
 
Back
Top Bottom