What is a "liveable wage"?

Neomalthusian said:

Yep. I personally know such people. The wage a job pays is determined primarily by the range of pay that the employer has budgeted to be able to hire outside help.

The wage that left wingers consider "living" or "livable" is based on what a given person "needs," which is determined mostly by lifestyle choices.

The difference between a "living wage" and an actual wage is the difference between fantasy and reality.

Click to expand...

I use to pay contractors for installing carpet. I seen guys make $4,500 on a Friday and requested to be paid early the following Thursday because they were broke. Lots of cocaine, hookers and booze is not a requirement for living but to some people it is.

Just because you give someone more money doesn't mean the money will be used for living expenses.

Gipper said:

Liberals "want". Conservatives "do". There are avenues out there available for self-improvement. I can cheer for the person who goes down the path. I can't cheer for someone who wants to go down the path.

Click to expand...

You should change your lean to conservative since you have the conservative meme down pat. Any other overgenaralizations you want to make? I was a liberal when I was in the military. I DID do. Did you?

TheNextEra said:

You should change your lean to conservative since you have the conservative meme down pat. Any other overgenaralizations you want to make? I was a liberal when I was in the military. I DID do. Did you?

Click to expand...

Economic liberal, not overall liberal. I'm a social liberal.

vasuderatorrent said:

I use to pay contractors for installing carpet. I seen guys make $4,500 on a Friday and requested to be paid early the following Thursday because they were broke. Lots of cocaine, hookers and booze is not a requirement for living but to some people it is.

Just because you give someone more money doesn't mean the money will be used for living expenses.

Click to expand...

Whatever it's used for isn't really the employer's business, nor should it be. As soon as you start making it employers' responsibility to pay according to the needs of the employee, that employer is going to have to start caring how their employees spend their paychecks.

My wife and I recently had a baby. That was our personal decision and it changed what our bare minimum necessarily income would be. Should those types of decisions be any business of an employer? Of course not. The employee deserves his/her privacy and that means making decisions to work for a certain level of pay or not to do so, and keeping the employer as removed as possible from how you manage your personal finances.

This is an excellent post but you miss several key points. The left needs to buy votes from those limited to only a few games for their xbox and it considers anyone with savings among the elitist rich. Taking half their savings thru taxation is off the table so just take it thru inflation.

Helix said:

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.

Click to expand...

Depends on the place you live, a livable wage in rural Georgia will be different than a livable wage in New York.

Though, one should be able to provide all the necessities to themselves and their family on a livable wage. Things like, shelter, food, clothes, medical care, transportation.

Your Star said:

Depends on the place you live, a livable wage in rural Georgia will be different than a livable wage in New York.

Though, one should be able to provide all the necessities to themselves and their family on a livable wage. Things like, shelter, food, clothes, medical care, transportation.

Click to expand...

This is why I phrased it by percentages and related it to consumer items. Do you think a full-time worker at Wal-mart should be able to have an iPhone or a GS4 or whatever the next big thing in the phone world is? What about a newer car? Do you think that they should be able to trade in that 2009 Chevrolet because it's getting a tad old? Should they be able to go out to Red Lobster once a week because "they deserve it"?

People can make it on minimum wage in most places if they really want to (with obvious reflections for areas with high COL, adjusted accordingly). I'm just wondering what all you think they "deserve", because it sounds as if you're wanting the uneducated, unskilled worker to have a LOT more than the "basics".

Gipper said:

Want in one hand, defecate in the other. Which one fills up faster?

I have no sympathy for people who want to live better. It doesn't take effort to want.

Liberals "want". Conservatives "do". There are avenues out there available for self-improvement. I can cheer for the person who goes down the path. I can't cheer for someone who wants to go down the path.

Click to expand...

When one side of the discussion involves what constitutes a liveable wage and the other side basically states that the very concept of "liveable wage" shouldn't even exist, then even starting a discussion titled "What is a 'liveable' wage" is inherently meaningless.

Cardinal said:

When one side of the discussion involves what constitutes a liveable wage and the other side basically states that the very concept of "liveable wage" shouldn't even exist, then even starting a discussion titled "What is a 'liveable' wage" is inherently meaningless.

Click to expand...

No, it's completely relevant. I basically want to know what economic liberals think that they're "owed".

Gipper said:

No, it's completely relevant. I basically want to know what economic liberals think that they're "owed".

Click to expand...

Then I suggest you start a thread titled "What do you economic liberals think you're owed?"

Your Star said:

Depends on the place you live, a livable wage in rural Georgia will be different than a livable wage in New York.

Though, one should be able to provide all the necessities to themselves and their family on a livable wage. Things like, shelter, food, clothes, medical care, transportation.

Click to expand...

This is something that should be decided by state governments or possibly county governments. I know living in Charlotte, North Carolina is a lot more expensive than Laurinburg, North Carolina. To suggest that a state government could handle this task is fare fetched. To suggest that the federal government can get a handle on determining a living wage is completely ridiculous. It is inevitable that they would come up with inequitable results. That's why we have the stereotype of food stamp recipients driving new cars. It really does happen to people living in some of the more rent friendly climates. When your rent is $400, minimum wage is luxury but the government is still required to help you because a magic number exists on paper that says you are poor. How can you argue with a piece of paper when that piece of paper is the law? The answer? You can't.

The federal government can't determine poverty. It's just not possible.

Cardinal said:

Then I suggest you start a thread titled "What do you economic liberals think you're owed?"

Click to expand...

He pretty much did:

Gipper said:

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?

Click to expand...

Gipper said:

This is why I phrased it by percentages and related it to consumer items. Do you think a full-time worker at Wal-mart should be able to have an iPhone or a GS4 or whatever the next big thing in the phone world is? What about a newer car? Do you think that they should be able to trade in that 2009 Chevrolet because it's getting a tad old? Should they be able to go out to Red Lobster once a week because "they deserve it"?

People can make it on minimum wage in most places if they really want to (with obvious reflections for areas with high COL, adjusted accordingly). I'm just wondering what all you think they "deserve", because it sounds as if you're wanting the uneducated, unskilled worker to have a LOT more than the "basics".

Click to expand...

I don't know, all depends on how they manage their money. I have better things to think about than your characterization of poor people who want to have a living wage as greedy mouth breathers.

A living wage is a wage where you can afford all the necessities in life, such as food, shelter, clothing, medical care, transportation. All the things that keep you alive and the things that make it possible for you to work. It is nothing less, and nothing more. Your question is flawed because you want people to argue over what consumer items people feel they need and tying it to the argument for providing a living wage. They are not the same thing.

Cardinal said:

Then I suggest you start a thread titled "What do you economic liberals think you're owed?"

Click to expand...

This is a more accurate method of determining it. Frankly, I think economic liberals will hesitate on either one, but on that poll they wouldn't dare answer truthfully because it puts them even further behind the 8 ball.

TheNextEra said:

The question was asked to define what a liveable wage is. Like I said, the definition doesn't allow a "set" amount to be set because everyone's "liveable" wage is different was the point I was trying to make. You can't have a set amount on liveable.

Not sure why the hostile response to what I said, but whatever floats your boat. You seem to want to put words in my mouth as to what I was saying, and what you are saying is simple not true to what I want. Try again.

Click to expand...

Not 'hostile', disagreeing and then some.

Supporting a 'livable wage', by that definition, shows no concern for how the person receiving it treats it..... just because their 'bills' are part of what it costs for them to live doesn't mean they aren't wasting what they are being 'given'.... hence my examples of heat usage, etc.

Those that earn their wage, a real wage, have a little more concern as to where that money goes, then those who are 'given' it.

Beaudreaux said:

He pretty much did:

Click to expand...

No, he "pretty much" didn't. It was a bait thread. Hardly the most egregious example of a bait thread on this forum, but a bait thread nonetheless. When you put up the title "What is a liveable wage?" but really want to argue against the validity of a liveable wage altogether, that's dishonest.

I didn't really agree with any of the choices.

I believe a living wage is a person can live comfortably by themselves with basic necessities. A roof over their head, food on the table, reliable transportation.

Gipper said:

This is a more accurate method of determining it. Frankly, I think economic liberals will hesitate on either one, but on that poll they wouldn't dare answer truthfully because it puts them even further behind the 8 ball.

Click to expand...

Or maybe you're not well informed about "economic liberals."

Helix said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your two statements are contradictory. Look at it this way... If the minimum education level is raised to "Bachelors" (30k) then it won't take long before that Bachelor's degree (30k) is just like a high school diploma (12k) is now.

I have seen it first hand. In the Navy, there are qualifications called a Warfare Designator (Air, Surface, etc) They USED to be voluntary. They were hard to get and required a lot of effort to get ESWS or EAWS (Enlisted Surface/Air Warfare Specialist) qualified. It really broke out the professionals from the guy just getting by. A few years back, they made the qualification mandatory. Now, the norm is to see Dual or even Triple qualified Sailors. You would think "Hey, Great. They are now more highly trained." But they are not. The qualifications are now easier to get and they have no impact besides a "check in the box".

I understand that "guaranteeing access" is different than "mandating" BUT, if we suddenly have 80% of the American populace with a Bachelors Degree, then it will not be long until the only way to get a "high level" job is to have a Master's. It is already starting to be that way, and there is no doubt in my mind that the trend will continue.

GottaGo said:

Not 'hostile', disagreeing and then some.

Supporting a 'livable wage', by that definition, shows no concern for how the person receiving it treats it..... just because their 'bills' are part of what it costs for them to live doesn't mean they aren't wasting what they are being 'given'.... hence my examples of heat usage, etc.

Those that earn their wage, a real wage, have a little more concern as to where that money goes, then those who are 'given' it.

Click to expand...

I "defined" a liveable wage, however, I never said we as a country can meet that definition. To truly define liveable wage would be to take a look at everyone on a case by case basis which is frankly impossible. The closest we can come to is setting a min amount and even then it's dependent on region since states, cities, and counties vary greatly.

Is your solution to just not help anyone?

Cardinal said:

No, he "pretty much" didn't. It was a bait thread. Hardly the most egregious example of a bait thread on this forum, but a bait thread nonetheless. When you put up the title "What is a liveable wage?" but really want to argue against the validity of a liveable wage altogether, that's dishonest.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, the thread title is just a primer. The OP is the gauge of the thread. Anyone that responds to a thread by reading only the title, and not the OP is guaranteeing failure in the thread, or at least a misguided approach to the thread. But, maybe that's just me.

There is a good debate to be had, as to whether a livable wage is even a real thing.

Chiefgator said:

Your two statements are contradictory. Look at it this way... If the minimum education level is raised to "Bachelors" (30k) then it won't take long before that Bachelor's degree (30k) is just like a high school diploma (12k) is now.

I have seen it first hand. In the Navy, there are qualifications called a Warfare Designator (Air, Surface, etc) They USED to be voluntary. They were hard to get and required a lot of effort to get ESWS or EAWS (Enlisted Surface/Air Warfare Specialist) qualified. It really broke out the professionals from the guy just getting by. A few years back, they made the qualification mandatory. Now, the norm is to see Dual or even Triple qualified Sailors. You would think "Hey, Great. They are now more highly trained." But they are not. The qualifications are now easier to get and they have no impact besides a "check in the box".

I understand that "guaranteeing access" is different than "mandating" BUT, if we suddenly have 80% of the American populace with a Bachelors Degree, then it will not be long until the only way to get a "high level" job is to have a Master's. It is already starting to be that way, and there is no doubt in my mind that the trend will continue.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Cardinal said:

Or maybe you're not well informed about "economic liberals."

Click to expand...

Enlighten me then. Go to the Walmart thread and tell me who is an economic conservative and who is an economic liberal.

I'm just wondering how many of those people kicking around the term "liveable wage" are economic conservatives.

I'll wait.

Your Star said:

I don't know, all depends on how they manage their money. I have better things to think about than your characterization of poor people who want to have a living wage as greedy mouth breathers.

A living wage is a wage where you can afford all the necessities in life, such as food, shelter, clothing, medical care, transportation. All the things that keep you alive and the things that make it possible for you to work. It is nothing less, and nothing more. Your question is flawed because you want people to argue over what consumer items people feel they need and tying it to the argument for providing a living wage. They are not the same thing.

Click to expand...

Is asking for more of a definition 'characterization of poor people who want to have a living wage as greedy mouth breathers.'?

Food:
Steak, mac n cheese, or toast?
Housing: One bedroom, multi-bedroom, view?
Transportation: Used Yugo, new Malibu, Lincoln Navigator?

The term is so vague as to leave itself open for interpretation of many degrees. The point being that 'living wage' is too subjective, and cannot properly be defined by someone receiving it.

The next move would be to leave that interpretation up to a governing body, and other then setting a basement, the government has no business in determining wages.

Most jobs have an intended demographic of people. Right now, that's kind of screwed up because older people are occupying entry level jobs, and entry level-ready young people can't get full-time jobs at all. That means that a lot of people are currently living on a lot less than what they built their life on, so they are going to have unique problems due to the fact that their current work prospects are out of step with the demographics those jobs are designed for.

But ignoring that, and pretending that isn't the case, the "livable wage" mostly applies to people on the low end of the job market, since, by definition, everything above it is higher and will probably therefore being supporting a life with more unnecessary things in it, or more responsibilities related to family/self care.

When we're talking about a "living wage," we're talking about young people without degrees who are probably single, or at least don't have kids.

It also kind of depends on where you're living.

In the city, a livable wage in that bracket is a flat share without having to starve. You can have stuff in a stable area, and your bills and food are paid. Space is limited and therefore expensive, so you shouldn't expect to be able to live alone, and maybe not have a car.

In the country, stuff's cheaper and space is easier to come by, so maybe the wage is lower in sheer numbers, but maybe it's still enough for a trailer or renting a guest house, and probably having a used car, which is necessary in the country.

A living wage means someone is able to function with the basics of stability, food, and the necessities to keep their job.

To call a third world living a "living wage" in this kind of country is a statement that you'd like to move back to feudalism, quite frankly.

I am sick and tired of this "but the poor have TV's" statistics. From when I was living in low-end apartments, you know what? Most of them come with a TV. A TV that's older than I am and worth 5 bucks at the most, and doesn't even get reception anymore. Yeah, it has a cable, but the cable isn't necessarily hooked up. The landlords put stuff like that in there to make the place seem less cheap. It costs them nothing. That does not mean people living there aren't poor.

And a refrigerator? Are you serious? Most people don't have the resources to grow their own damn food. Without a fridge, and without space to make your own food, you have to give up on the best methods of getting calcium, protein, and a lot of minerals. How are they supposed to eat adequately in a populous country without a refrigerator? Are we seriously begrudging the poor means of storing food?

Good lord.