What is a living wage?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075


I used San Francisco County because of the discussion about the employer blaming wages as to why he has to close his business.

I believe it is $15 an hour by 2018 ...

The living wage in San Francisco County for ONE adult and ONE child is

$26.03 an hour.


Discuss...

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. You want the truth, or what people want to hear?

At those wages, San Francisco will become a mecca for the wealthy only. You saw the article: the guy said IF HE COULD RAISE PRICES HE WOULD. But the prices are on the books themselves. Think of what would happen to business who can increase prices: they will, because they have to in order to pay wages and finance COGS. Then you have wages pushing up prices so the people who work there can hardly afford to live or shop there.

The result will be to segregate people by class even more than they already are. Manhattan is another example of this.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

3. $15 an hour is a mecca for the wealthy? What?

So what do you do, pay people $8 an hour and have them live in tenements?

WHERE do the people who clean the rooms, wash the dishes and sell the books live?

Please answer this

[Dreamer Tatum]

4. Let's discuss the actual issue, OK?

The owner said that he would like to increase prices, but he can't.

That MUST mean that there are businesses that CAN raise prices.

And they will. And that livable wage will soon not seem so livable. So, they increase it again. And prices go up again...and so on.

Do you think the people who do non-skilled labor in San Francisco LIVE in San Francisco, or at least anywhere near the better parts of San Francisco? They haven't for many years.

The end result is that some places will become for the wealthy only, and others, like inland California and places like it, will be where lower-income people predominate. It's already like that. San Francisco is limited by its geography, so it can't build much more housing, if any. That's the real problem: the land is too expensive for low-cost housing that would be the baseline for a cheaper cost of living.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

6. So keep the poor living elsewhere and bus them in to do the work?

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. No, by all means let's make the minimum wage $25 per hour and see what happens.

There will be many fine shops open from 10-4 where the Google millionaires can buy $10 lattes and Apple products, and
the formerly employed will be free to window shop after they sweep alleys for under the table wages.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

9. So I assume your answer is yes. Keep paying below a living wage, bus in the poor to do the dishes

and clean the shit out of the toilets.

Dont dare attempt to make things better, right?

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. On second thought, let's make the wage $50/hour.

All the national chains will move out, and ONLY Mom and Pops will exist, provided there isn't an online alternative,
as there is for most things.

My god. You have the evidence from that bookstore alone that there would be, in San Francisco, a very likely wage/price spiral that would exacerbate the problem you're trying to solve.

The real issue is the lack of low-cost housing, which is caused by the lack of land and by the influx of people willing to pay to live there. If you set prices for housing, you exacerbate the problem even more.

If the free market isn't the solution to everything, then dictating wages can't be the solution to everything, either. There is something STRUCTURAL about that market that causes living costs to be astronomical. Also see New York, Chicago, Tokyo, London, and so forth.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

14. So LAND is to blame

Then why is the minimum wage $7 an hour in "fill in the blank any city in America where land isnt an issue or for that matter rural areas", and why is there so much poverty there?

So do we have the Casinos in Vegas pay $30 an hour to dishwashers?

Does that logic work for you?

Isnt it Sheldon Adelson who proudly has huge casinos where he has thrown the unions out?

Wonder what the starting wage is for a dishwasher or housekeeper at The Venetian, one of his non union hotels?

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. I didn't say wages shouldn't be increased at all.

You made that part up yourself.

I think wages should be higher, but I don't know by how much. I do think that there are some businesses that will
no longer exist as a result of that, however, and that will mark a change in the economy.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

17. And what about areas where land is NOT an issue, like Vegas and Casinos owned by

assholes like Adelson which are nonunion?

If righty gets their way, you will be paid as little as the market will allow, $3?

$4?

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. Do you have reading comprehension issues?

Read my last post. It satisfies your question, other than the union non sequitur.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

19. Ahh, the insult, that didnt take long.

You are advocating AGAINST raising wages to LESS than a living wage in one of the most expensive places in the world to live, San Francisco.

Right?

Isnt that your argument?

Then I point out that this same argument will be used against people in places like Vegas where there are no excuses other than greed, so people like Adelson can become SICKENINGLY rich off the backs of dishwashers and housekeepers making $9 an hour and living in poverty.

That is NOT OK with me...

[Dreamer Tatum]

21. I merely pointed out the wage/price spiral implied by the bookstore example.

You supplied the rest.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

22. Ya know it isnt a sin to admit that once you have read my examples, like Vegas and Adelson

and how the excuses as to why they cant pay a living wage are endless, it isnt a sin to say:

"Ya know, that makes sense. I still think it isnt the entire picture, but that makes sense"

I almost never see that here , I try to do it anytime I think I have been wrong or partially wrong or have learned something new.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. If you could read past your agenda, you would clearly see that I advocate higher wages.

I am not sure why your world seems to involve Sheldon Adelson only, but good luck with that.

I will indulge you a little longer: increasing wages in Vegas, to take your example, might very well
have a benign impact since there is a large housing stock and a number of very large, profitable
employers. While they may cut back on staff, they couldn't very well run a 1000-room hotel on
a skeleton crew. This may cause them to seek revenue from gamers, shoppers, and diners, but
competition is fierce in Vegas and I imagine the end result would be a transfer of income from
the Wynns and Adelsons to workers. All good things.

San Francisco is structurally different for reasons I have already listed.

I would bet that you think very little of free market economics. That's fine, but then you would have to
accept that market intervention may well be more effective in some places than others.

[Glassunion]

45. The actual issue...

Yes there are businesses that can raise prices, and indeed they will. I personally don't feel that you will not have this out of control spiral of wage/price increases. They are not tied to each other dollar for dollar.

I recall a similar argument back when fast food employees were pushing for $15 an hour. There was one argument that was based on a few assumptions. The most predominate assumption was assumed that 1/3 of all costs go to labor, so 1/3 of a wage increase would be reflected directly on the retail of items. So in an industry (fast food) that averages $9 an hour, to increase that amount to $15 an hour would work out to about a 20% increase in the retail of items to cover that cost. So that dollar menu, would suddenly become the 1.20 menu. That 3.00 hamburger would be 3.60, etc... Even at those numbers there is really not a huge impact on the cost of goods.

The counter to that argument is that it would only increase the retail of items by about 10%. Because there is a net benefit to paying people well. First and foremost, they don't quit. Which reduces turnover, which is very costly for an employer. I personally feel that the truth of it lies somewhere in between the two.

You use the argument later down-thread about a $10 latte. Well, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Currently at the Starbucks by my house, the largest size latte goes for $3.95. Of course you do need to realize that Starbucks, pays better than McDonald's. They average over $11 an hour. So if they do raise their minimum wage, you'd only be looking at about a 26% increase in wages. 1/3 of which would work out to about a 9% increase in the retail of items. So that 3.95 latte would now cost about $4.30. Which is less than the increase we had on the cost of coffee a few years ago from a rise in gas prices and a drought in South America.

So bottom line, cheap fast food will still be cheap, and yuppie coffee will still be expensive. However, someone working at McDonalds would only have to work for about 17 minutes instead of 26 minutes to enjoy that large ass latte from Starbucks.

[hfojvt]

33. to some degree, he CAN raise prices

or, in fact, he already has.

When I had my bookstore, my set price was 20% off the cover price. My local competition was 10% off and I wanted to undersell them. Plus, wal-mart would often be 25% off and the local grocery store I think was 20% off (the one at the accursed strip mall). Considering that Amazon and other online retailers often hugely discount their books, he may have been hurting because his prices were already too high.

Plus, if you are big enough then you can get volume discounts from wholesalers. Generally they were 40%. But clearly it is better to sell TWO books for $9 (and a net profit of $6) than to sell just one book for $10 (and a net profit of $4). He may have been thinking in the wrong direction.

[CreekDog]

34. If we're concerned that business can't pay a living wage, we could...

guarantee a minimum income or have European style programs to make sure the effects of a poverty wage are avoided on the worker.

so $15/hour might be enough in San Francisco, if one has help from the gov't that makes sure they have health insurance/care, a supplement to cover housing that their income cannot, etc.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

2. Two people working should be able to provide for themselves

sharing a modest dwelling. I don't think we can reasonably expect that one person doing unskilled labor will be able to support two or three people - very unfortunately, not with undocumented immigrants driving down wages, outsourcing of work, insourcing workers, and everything else that is stacked against the American worker.

Wages are going down, and it sucks.

[lovemydog]

5. I think it's determined in each area, locally.

It's higher than the federal minimum wage. In some places it's tied with inflation. Different studies on its impact say different things. It's important to look at who finances the studies.

To give my own opinion, I believe in most cities it should be $15/hour or higher.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

7. You can find your answer at the link in the OP...

It will tell you what it is wherever you live.

When you see what an ACTUAL LIVING WAGE really is vs these discussions about $12 or $15 an hour, you will see why it is such a HUGE problem.

You can also see why a rightwinger would say the way to solve your poverty problem is to get married and have two incomes.



The oligarchs and Wall sTreet and so on do NOT want you to remember that it wasnt all that long ago a family of four could live a decent life on ONE income, instead of two.

No, they will tell you those days are over.

Well they are for you and me, but not for them.

[lovemydog]

10. Thanks, and I fully agree.

The oligarchs don't want us to remember that a family of four could live a decent life on one income, instead of two.

That's very well-said. I believe it's one of the most important issues of our time. We need rising wages. It starts locally, with a decent living wage. Meanwhile the federal minimum wage must be increased so that working people can afford a decent life.

[kiva]

27. A correction:

The oligarchs and Wall sTreet and so on do NOT want you to remember that it wasnt all that long ago a family of four could live a decent life on ONE income, instead of two.

Not on minimum wage, they couldn't. Minimum wage used to be something teenagers made working on their first job, not something adults were expected to earn to support themselves, much less a family.

That's the true failing of the system, not that minimum wage is the problem but that too many workers are making minimum wage instead of a living wage.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

28. And while there are not that many making MW there are way more making very little more than MW

and that is just part of the whole problem.

The MW issue is a place to start, but what needs to be done is far too uncomfortable for most to deal with so one step at a time.

[hfojvt]

31. according to that link

I must be dead. since I make less than their living income for my city.

Of course, they estimate $600 a month for housing expenses and mine are more like $60.

That business of a family of four surviving on one income in the past is NOT all that true. Plenty of people were also poor in the 1960s and 1970s, even before Reagan. My dad was sole provider for a family of 7, starting in 1970, but he also had a pretty good job. By 1970 he was probably GS-11 or above. He got his 13 perhaps in 1978. A GS-11 makes $24.34 an hour and a GM-13 makes $34.69 an hour. But not everybody was doing that well. One of his co-workers was only a GS-9 in spite of his master's degree. But even there, he was making $20.11 an hour (or more, since government pay scale has NOT kept up with inflation (the $10.45 an hour I made as a GS-9 in late 1986 is the same as $21.78 today, a little more than $20.11))

And as far as ONE income goes, well the participation rate for mothers with children aged 6 to 17 was 54.8% way back in 1975. And in 1975 40% of the country made less than $27,404 (in 2001 dollars) and 60% made less than $41,312. Contrast that to 2007 when 40% made less than $39,100 and 60% made less than $62,000. That would indicate that the vast majority of the country is better off than in the pre-Reagan glory days of 1975.

[JaneyVee]

11. Minimum wage should be at least $15/hr.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

13. When Walmart can sell a toaster made in Liberia for $19 at a big profit, made by 10 yr old

children earning ten cents a day or whatever it is, they create this situation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. The cost of living is also vastly different overseas.

The overseas wages may seem horrid to an American but to the overseas worker they're a godsend.

To increase overseas wages to US standards would only lead to currency inflation overseas.

To force the manufacturing back into the US would lead to cost inflation.

Meanwhile the number of toasters being sold would decrease because the price of manufacturing toasters would increase.

[Orsino]

15. Let's find out.

Poverty and the economy are moving targets. Start raising fucking wages, and let's see where that takes us.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

23. I believe the studies show that wherever you raise the MW EVERYTHING improves for

EVERYONE

Problem is there are small businesses that do barely make it as it is.

But the problem isnt paying a living wage, the problem is the big corps have gamed the system.

For instance, big corps LOVE government regulations, strict this or that, why, because they employ hundreds of people whose only job is to jump through those hoops, knowing small business really cant make those hoop jumps much of the time.

[Orsino]

26. The problem is the big corps don't pay enough living wages...

...and they're trying to own everything so that mo one else can, either. It's a game of musical chairs we can't win.

[One_Life_To_Give]

20. Freedom from Hunger

The $'s will change by state and zip code. But what it should mean is that one can afford to not be hungry. Have a roof over their head, with heat during the winter and not unreasonably warm during the summer. They should be able to travel to their place of employment as well as places to purchase supplies/goods. They should be able to purchase clothing in amounts so they are not running around in rags or seed bags. And since the ACA, enough to purchase basic healthcare.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

24. And a married couple with one child, both working MW jobs, have none of that according

to the stats here


http://livingwage.mit.edu/

[One_Life_To_Give]

29. Preatty Close some places

Low cost counties appear to be $8/hr if both are working. Vs a $7.25 minimum wage.
While in other places it's reported as both earning $12/hr (Nassau NY)

Which to me seems to under represent the cost of living in places like New York, Boston etc. Which I why I prefer to specify what one is able to purchase.

[Cleita]

30. I've often wondered if there is a formula that can figure the changes in COLA

on a quarterly basis so wages cover that. It seems just setting it at a dollar amount is imperfect and never adequate. What does the average person with one child need?

My List:

a)Housing. Comfortable, safe shelter meaning bed, storage, kitchen facilities, bathroom facilities and adequate security in the way of police protection. A place and means to wash one's clothes and linens. Enough to pay utilities. What exactly is a modest but clean, well constructed apartment or home? How much should the monthly rent be? How much maintenance is the renter's responsibility? How much the landlord's?

b)Food. Enough to purchase nutritious and fresh wholesome and safe food to eat. What should this cost for local and in season groceries?

c)Clothing and furnishings. Enough for adequate protection from the elements and a decent wardrobe for work as well as grooming needs, haircuts, etc.. A little extra to purchase furniture maybe at garage sales or second hand stores. I have furnished every place I lived in by this means.

d)Health care. Enough to buy good health insurance. If we had single payer, at least for the low wage earner, it would be whatever it costs to buy into it. It would of course be better than insurance.

e) If there is really good public transportation enough for fare, even better if there is an unlimited monthly pass to purchase. For those who need a car, enough for car payments and insurance on a reliable car that is economical on gas and routine maintenance.

f) Finally, some extra money to save for emergencies and some recreation, whether it be a movie or some beers and pool with friends on the weekends.

So a formula would have to take all these factors into account and probably should be applied regionally rather than nationally. Percentages of a dollar of each of those six basic needs would be part of the formula. Every quarter it would be adjusted to take into consideration those needs and whether prices have gone up or down. If our utilities were run by counties or cooperatives, they would be far less expensive for everyone. If we had single payer, health care costs would be half of what the are now and preventive care would be available for no cost.

Right now your assessment of $26.03 an hour would be just right down the coast from San Francisco. Although my county has a high medium wage of approximately $55,000 a year, we have 13% of the population who are below the poverty base. Our minimum wage is higher here, but often professions like office work that traditionally paid more are now not much more than the person who works at the fast food place.

Having run a couple of businesses in the past myself, I always paid a living wage and if you find you can't make a profit with that then your business model is wrong. You need to go back to the drawing board.

[Glassunion]

32. I missed it. Do you have a link to the original article?

The one about the employer who had to close his business.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

36. ...

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/borderlands-books-in-sf-announces-closure-cites-minimum-wage-increase/Content?oid=2918723

My friend who lives in San Francisco makes this point

Re: The bookstore on Valencia... The reporter (Examiner)..does not himself choose the headline... Headlines are chosen by newspaper editor/printing people... and this headline does an injustice to the actual story.
But the Examiner is with Chamber of Commerce reasoning... and wants to put the negative feed on Minimum Wage increase. So the headline writer choice is to make it look like the "real reason" for store closure "is" wage increase.

He cites several other reasons for his problems... Like most other Bookstores (and chains - Borders) the main problem is book buyers going "Online" to buy books..and "a national shift to electronic readers (kindle.etc)" Bookstores are closing everywhere... and not for minimum wage reasons.

[Glassunion]

37. That's what I thought.

So the wage increase was basically the straw that broke the camel's back.

Rent increases, moving expenses, and competition with online retailers were also the catalyst in this.

He owned a business that is a dying model, and sadly enough this was the end of it.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

38. And neither the employer or the writer of the story probably meant to make it all about wages

the headline chosen by the editor...

[hunter]

41. Funny how that happened, isn't it?

One might suspect the owners of this press have some agenda...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Thankfully, I don't know, but definitely far less than the minimum wage.

A living wage is the minimum amount you need to live on is obviously far less than the minimum amount you need for a decent standard of living.

The minimum wage should be significantly higher than that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. An odd chart; not well explained.

The living wage in $26/hour but the poverty rate is $7/hr.

What's the difference between "poverty" vs. "living"? In all honesty, I've always thought the poverty line was what was needed, as a minimum, to live. Certainly not a thing to envy but not starving or living on the streets.

Is it that expensive to live in SF?

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

40. ...

[TheKentuckian]

46. The "poverty wage" is not enough to be self sustaining in about any metro

and I'm dubious of rural areas too. We are taking 15k gross here and keep in mind singles pay taxes and anyone else is trying to support more than one person which sounds daunting to me.

Even with zero deductions (which is never the case) rent is going eat you alive before we talk about anything else and I live in a moderate cost area. New York, California, Chicago, Massachusetts and all that? Forget about it.

I also argue that the actual poverty line (which is actually significantly lower than full time at minimum wage, by the way) is artificially low to limit eligibility for what limited assistance is available and to promote an atmosphere of propaganda painting a phony picture of prosperity that is in no small part a lie.

[Glassunion]

47. I look at it like this.

Poverty Wages are those that fall at or below the level of poverty, and are insufficient to sustain an individual. Basic needs are not met, such as shelter, clothing, and food. I consider it a biological minimum.

Living Wages are those where an individual can afford their basic needs, plus enjoy a minimum quality of life within that particular community as well. Such as private housing, utilities, transportation, health care, etc... Since it is community based, it is on a much larger sliding scale.

[sendero]

43. Depends...

.... on where you live.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

44. Yep, and per the link, that amount is always well over even the amount suggested

we raise the MW to...