What would a livable minimum wage be?

[ck4829]

I'd say everybody, and I mean everybody, could live off and profit from a minimum wage of about $8.50

What do you all think? If you could raise the minimum wage, what would you raise it to?

[mondo joe]

1. Depends on location.

[Arkansas Granny]

12. Definitely depends on location. Living cost vary widely according

to where you live. I would say at least $8.50, maybe more, and perhaps annual reviews to determine if increases need to be made.

[sam sarrha]

16. $8.50.!! you must live in a hole and eat grass...

[BigMcLargehuge]

22. $8.50 per hour won't even get you a studio apartment in Southern NH

[zanne]

59. Take it from someone who's about to be homeless in So. NH

You're right.

[Arkansas Granny]

28. I'll have to admit that Arkansas has been called a hole of one

kind or another, but we don't actually eat the grass.

The cost of living here is quite a bit lower than in other parts of the country. $8.50 an hour wouldn't allow you to live in luxury, but it's a big step up from $5.15.

[hfojvt]

55. I am guessing that most minimum wage workers

either do not have health insurance or have to pay for health insurance. So providing health insurance would also be a step up that would not increase their tax burden. After all, the extra $7,000 in income will face income taxes and FICA taxes of $533.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. That makes sense

Rather than a minimum wage, there should be a federal minimum minimum wage?

[bullimiami]

2. 10

[waiting for hope]

9. Definitely $10.00

[grrl62]

3. i think it depends on where you live

the cost of living can vary greatly from place to place.. not to mention factoring in the # of dependents someone supports, health issues, proximity to mass transit..

[ck4829]

4. You're right

In Ohio, $8.50 can get you all of the basics.

In California, $8.50 will get you half of a cardboard box.

[ultraist]

27. In the South, $l0 per hour

As it stands now, TWO full time working parents on min wage with kids, are at the poverty level ($l9k per yr for family of four).

That's just wrong. Two full time working parents should be above the poverty level enough to have a semi decent standard of living.

[belle]

66. In NY--oh, at *least* $15. And/or, do something to lower rents.

Truthfully you need more than that, especially if you're single or the only worker in a household, but it'd be a start.

[chelsea0011]

5. A livable wage for a family with health insurance?

$30 hr. might help.

[TahitiNut]

39. That's a good barometer, I think. (HI x 5 / 160) <= $16/hour

Assume HI (Health Insurance) is $500/month (for an individual). Assuming it's 20% of an individual's personal expenses, that would make a minimum wage $2500/160 = $15.63/hour.

Clearly, $16.00/hour isn't too much.

[hfojvt]

58. Considering that my pay and benefits are about $13.97

I think it is ridiculous to say that people cannot live on less.

Also, I doubt if anybody is aware of what would happen to costs if the minimum wage suddenly jumped to $10. I currently make 271% of the minimum wage (including my insurance benefits). Am I going to be happy if suddenly I drop to a mere $137% of the minimum wage? It sounds like a pay cut to me. If, on the other hand, my pay goes up to $27 an hour along with the minimum wage jump, then the minimum wage earner has not gained anything.

[TahitiNut]

65. The average American worker is compensated for about 1/3rd of the value ..

... of his or her labor. The average net operating revenue per employee of the S&P500 companies is around $87,000/year. With an average total compensation (including CEOs) per employee of about $42,000/year, that means employees are creating about three times the wealth that they're being paid.

So, the question is: How much is too much for the "ownership share"??

Hmmm? :eyes:

[lazarus]

69. Costs?

Costs rarely go up in direct association with an increase in minimum wage.

It's been a long time, but I did a paper back in the first Bush years for an econ class that showed that there was virtually no movement in costs following a minimum wage increase. I'd dig it out, but it's in storage.

[panader0]

6. I think it varies by region

I live near the Mexican border and wages are low jere. As you go north toward Tucson and Phoenix they go up, there's more unions and the cost of living goes up. $8.50 would help a lot of people tho...

[tyedyeto]

13. Hi 'neighbor' and welcome to DU

I'm a couple of mountain ranges west of you.

So, true about wages around here, but the cost of living is also lower than many other areas. Three years ago when I first moved here, I rented a small furnished apt for $360/mo. Not bad considering my bro in SF pays triple that for the same sized apt.

I doubt if AZ will ever vote to raise minimum wage higher than the federal level.

[newportdadde]

7. Depends on what you mean by livable.

Of course the thing here is if that was instituted what would companies eat that additional cost or pass it on. Other workers would demand increases in salary as well. If they all passed it on then the buying power of the liveable wage would fall back possibly back to where it is now.

[kikiek]

8. I've read that 15 dollars an hour is what it takes to make it now days.

Not that all jobs should have it of course. People who get tips, kids working after school, etc. But anyone trying to make a living deserves livable wages.

[tyedyeto]

17. About tips

Many states, including where I live, pay MUCH LESS than minimum if you work in a tipping job. Pay per hour can be as low as $1.75. There are hours before and after your shift when you receive NO tips: getting ready for the shift and clean-up after. If it is slow or off-season, your hourly for the entire shift can be greatly reduced to the point where you barely make the $5.15 minimum.

Second point. Some of the same after school jobs held by tennagers are also held by those who are not in school. Do you diffentiate the first shift worker who is a little older and pay them more than the second shift of 'after school' workers? Seems like that would create a lot of dissention in the workplace.

[kikiek]

19. I do think there should be a different wage for highschool kids. I know

that many states have a lower minimum wage for people who receive tips. On the other hand the way tips are taxed make them much more attractive to many people. They certainly walk away with more to the dollar than regular wages. Despite the claim that sometimes they don't make as much I think overall they come out very good.

[politicat]

21. Legally, tips are taxed like self-employment income.

Which means you pay the FICA and Social Security taxes for both yourself and your employer's portion on the tip income. Tips are actually, under the taxation plan, taxed at a higher rate than wages, and tend to get people into trouble.

You may walk away with pay in your pocket at night, but that's not a good thing when 30% of that pay needs to go to the Feds or you're going to get stuck with a big tax bill come April.

[kikiek]

23. Only for those who claim it. I don't know of anyone who does.

[politicat]

25. They're an audit waiting to happen, then.

Feds know that tips are approximately 10% of the bill (average). Most restaurants use a computer based billing system that records the bill for 3-5 years, and something like 80% of all bills are now paid with a credit or debit card, so there's a transaction record there, too.

If I were still making tips, knowing the tax laws and the current state of affairs WRT transaction records, I'd be reporting every cent because tipped employees are #2 on the audit list (the first being those who make money through contests and gambling.)

[Sgent]

35. No, they are taxed as wages if you earn over $400/yr

Not as SE income -- you only owe the 7.65% of earnings. If a restaurant is treating you differently, then there are some serious issues. If you earn less than $400 in tips, then you don't have to report it to your employer, and must report it on your tax return and pay SE income. But for most positions, tips are treated just like regular wages -- including witholding, etc.

As for some people who claim tipped personel only make 2.125/hr,that is only partially true. The business must pay that much as a minimum on a check. If tips to equal at least 5.15/hr at the end of the payperiod, then the company has to pay at least 5.15/hr.

[politicat]

51. Check those facts against the IRS

If you report your tips to your employer, then the employer should pay the employer's share and the employee only owes the employee's share of FICA and Medicare (which the employer should withhold, and if the employee's wages were not enough to meet the obligation, the employee will have to pay the employer.)

However, if the employee isn't reporting tips (as the above poster was indicating), then the employee does owe taxes at the higher rate. (Also, many temp cocktail and bar waitstaff are employed as contractors - no W2 at all, and no employer's share.)

To quote the IRS: (Publication 17, page 58)
If you do not report tips to your employer as required, you may be subject to a penatly equal to 50% of the social security and Medicare taxes or railroad retirement tax you owe on the unreported tips. The penalty amount is in addition to the taxes you owe.

Further, one is only exempt from reporting tip income if the employee received less than $20 in tip income in all months. Any month where the employee received less than $20 in tips, the employee is not required to report them.

The Publication mentioned above is very specific on tip income - not reporting it is a good way to end up in a lot of trouble.

[tyedyeto]

26. Not sure I understand what you mean by this statement:

On the other hand the way tips are taxed make them much more attractive to many people.

Tips are taxed on a percentage of sales generated that day per individual employee's sales. I have seen people leave next to nothing but the employee is still taxed on the full percentage of the sale. Yes, the next customer maight make that up but you never know what type of customer will be walking in next.

I disagree about paying teenagers a lesser amount than other employees. Not all teenagers have parents who can pay for all their needs.

[amandabeech]

29. Back in the '60s and '70s there was a lower minimum for those

under 18. Back then, the minimum went from about $1.60 to $1.85 over time. The under-18 minimum was about 15 to 20 cents lower.

[Terran]

24. That's about right.

Nationwide, the average is around $12.50. $15 would be needed in some of the more expensive areas, and in much of California you'd need more like $18. And those figures always assume that you have a job that provides health insurance.

[MemphisTiger]

10. Here I would say $8 per hour

Cost of living is pretty low in TN. Other places it might be higher like NY or LA.

[Roland99]

11. My ex is getting by on about $7.50/hr plus some child support from me.

I'd say $9/hr (on a job offering some semblance of health insurance) is the minimum to live a decent life here in Louisville.

[bloom]

75. Does that mean with public assistance?

Seems if people were to get enough from their employers to live on - without food stamps, without free/reduced lunches, etc. - it would have to be more than that - esp. with kids.

[Roland99]

76. No. No public assistance.

She's not in the greatest apt. in the world but it's in a good part of town and she has a good used car she's making payments on.

[hopeisaplace]

14. $18 per hour

..the Who's down in Whoville the tall and the small had extra money to go to the mall...

[halobeam]

15. With the prices of health insurance,

utilities, and everything else which is sky high, $8.50 hour wouldn't cut it, IMO.

I've got a friend living past the state maintenance limit in VA. She heats ONLY with a wood burning stove. Her taxes are 30 dollars a year, mortgage at 290./mth. Her electric is the norm, and with the above costs, gas, health and car insurances, food, etc... she is barely cutting it with 9.50/hour. Takes a side job on the weekend to make some money to pay for maintaining her home, her car, herself.

Location, as per poster 2, is definitely critical. I'm in NY. $8.50 wouldn't get your bills paid if you held down two full-time jobs, and that's if you don't get sick.

You asked a very general question, without limits, so here's my answer: Number one is location. Number two is 13.00/hour. Let's not fool ourselves. It isn't possible to get it to that point (before it would do any good), but you didn't limit me to what "could" be possible. Once taxes are taken out of 13.00/hour, you are looking at 10/hour. $1600./month for forty hours. How easy it is to live on that? That is a REAL minimum wage.

I'd like to take this one step further. What constitutes minimum wage? What's the definition?

I believe it should be what you need to make in order to live like a human being. This entails:

acceptable health care
decent living conditions (house, heat, electric, water, plumbing, food..other than dog or cat food... etc)
transportation to get to work
and since we are talking what "should" be... every person should have fifty dollars a month to spend on pleasure. If there is pleasure in life, there is balance. Without balance, we will still have a VERY angry world.

That's my "should be" view. I know, so much for that. But you asked. LOL

[MarianJack]

18. In a 2 Income Family,...

...I'd say at least $10.00 per hour with health insurance.

[Bloodblister Bob]

20. $120.00/hr. Then we'd all be rich. n/t

[kentuck]

31. Good going!

Way to minimize a serious question...

[Lannes]

30. Not needing 2 jobs to make ends meet.

For a single person.Having more mouths to feed would make that harder of course.

[jane_pippin]

32. I remember reading a story a few years ago that claimed $11/hr was

the minimum wage needed for an actual living wage. In my last job that's about what I made and with cheap rent it was enough for that, food, and bills and a little leftover for whatever. However, I only had me to take care of and I didn't have insurance (still don't. what fun!) so I don't know if the figure would actually be useful for anybody. And I didn't have a car to worry about so that just adds another thing to factor in.

$8.50 is a start but depending on the city a person lives in it might not go very far at all.

[Blue_Roses]

33. that still only gives you about

$340 a week and about $1360 a month BEFORE taxes. Still below poverty level. It is despicable that people are trying to live on 5.50 an hour. It's an outrage and the republicans just keep voting it down. :argh:

[AngryAmish]

34. $24 per hour

Allow basic dignity.

[triguy46]

36. $8.50 won't get you much in Oklahoma, believe it or not...

My son took a job in town at $8.50. Was able to rent a dump, pay utilities, eat, (but he's an ex college kid, ramen, rice and beer). Then it was gone. It sure beats $6.00, but its a different world at $8.50.

[greendog]

37. A living wage...

*should cover the cost of rent of a simple apartment in a safe and convenient location.

*should cover reasonable clothing costs.

*should cover the cost of a healthy diet.

*should cover transportation costs - gas, maintenance, and car payment.

*should cover all health care costs.

*should provide for a decent retirement.

*should provide for continuing education.

*should provide for reasonable recreation costs.

*should provide for the support of one dependent.

[madokie]

38. Minimum wage should be tied to the location and it should be

sufficient for a family to live on. It would only take a small percent from the highter wage earners to accomplice this and still keep prices the same. One of our biggest problems is the disparity between the low wage and high wage earners. High wage earners and low wage earners wages should be tied together, fair for all.

[porphyrian]

41. Funny, we were thinking nearly the same thing.

[madokie]

42. That's the way good thoughts work

[Cats Against Frist]

48. What do you mean "sufficient for a family?"

Do you mean with one income earner, or two? If you mean one, it would be sufficient, in Iowa, for a family of four, for that one wage earner to make about $22/hr -- which, for some jobs, is ridiculous. If you mean two incomes at $11/hr, they could make a decent living, but ONLY if their kids were NOT in daycare -- if you have two kids in daycare, I'd easily recommend $12.50 to $13 as a living wage.

I'm not so hot on the "living wage," idea, because I'm pretty libertarian. Seems to me, it doesn't make much difference, when we're all in a "race to serfdom," competing with workers from developing nations. Rather than concentrate on "enforcing" a living wage, I'd rather back a campaign to tax offshores and imports from American corporations who are using cheap labor, AND fund a campaign to get consumers to boycott products made with cheap labor.

[porphyrian]

40. Make it a percentage of the cost of living in the area the job's at...

...instead of a fixed figure. The fixed rate thing fucks people who live in places where the cost of living is high.

[madokie]

43. When the Dems come back in power in Washington

they'll have a ear full of what we want and expect of them. It will be the biggest changes our government has ever had. We know whats going on and we're making noises. I want a government that empowers all of our citizens. And not one dam thing less.

[leftofthedial]

44. $15/hr

plus benefits

maximum wage should be $150/hr

plus the same benefits

[helderheid]

45. I thought I heard Kucinich say that if the minimum wage had gone up with

inflation it would be at $15 an hour now.

[TahitiNut]

47. Naww. Less than $9.00/hour max.

[woldnewton]

46. Once you figure out the number...

you must also set in statute stone that it will automatically be inflation adjusted periodically, perhaps with a constitutional amendment that requires a two third vote of both houses of a given legislature to override a given automatic increase.

[Cats Against Frist]

49. I have a different theory, or one that would work in combination

To me, pushing a "living wage," seems ridiculous, in the face of our "race to feudalism," with workers in developing nations. The reason we're having to push for living wages in the absurdly blooming service economy, is because there are fewer good jobs to be found, as our manufacturing base is decimated.

When third world countries want to bail themselves out, they use import-substitution industrialization, which means that they create jobs, specifically, to produce and consume within the country. Our rationalization for consumption -- and something that I've heard from my fair share of conservatives is that "consumption creates jobs." But, what if it doesn't? Then why are we consuming so much? It destroys the environment, funnels our money (and our tax dollars, under corpo-fascist rule) to the multinationals and those who don't value our country enough to keep their jobs here. This, to me, is also the fault of the consumer who refuses to shop around, buy American, go without, or buy second-hand, as to not encourage this practice. Even "blue" companies, such as J.Crew and GAP pay shitty wages for goods priced outside of their use value.

How does encouraging a "living wage," help any of this? It's just pushing for more uneducated and irresponsible consumers to have MORE money to buy more crap, and hasten the day when our wages are equal to the rest of the "global community."

Rather than set a "living wage," I would support efforts to heighten unions, strengthen union protections, encourage consumers to buy less and buy responsibly, tax the fuck out of offshorers & those who make the bulk of their money using cheap labor, increase small business loans, and for pete's fucking sake, get over this bullshit about how the "manufacturing base with never be restored." It'd be restored, if people stopped buying cheap-ass goods, and insisted that those jobs come back to the USA.

What we're arguing for, with a living wage, is the scraps -- demanding a standard pay for our shitty service jobs, to serve the people with other shitty service jobs, who are complaining about not making enough money, while spending every last dime they have on more cheap shit that makes us all poorer.

[B Calm]

52. $15.15 an hour is a start. Hell that's only 31 thousand a year!

[SoCalDem]

54. We've regressed.. I made $16.56 an hour in 1991

I was union, but the people doing the same job I did are now making 10-something..

[OnionPatch]

60. I'm in the same boat

I was union in the mid eighties making the same I'm making now in a tech job. My union job is gone, needless to say and I wonder when my tech job is going to get sent overseas.

[SoCalDem]

53. It would have to vary, due to location and would be hard to enforce

A key part of it would have to involve wage-price freezes (people hate them)..

and a determination of what was "adequate"..

a family of mom dad 1 girl 1 boy would "need" a 3 bedroom place
a family of mom dad 2 boys would only :need" a 2 bedroom..

who decides what's adequate?

Is ONE TV the limit?
Do people really "need" a computer and internet access?
Who decides what are "legitimate" expenses, and what's frivolous?

Should a guy with 5 kids get paid more, because he "needs" it?
Why should a single person with NO kids be paid less?

What WOULD help, would be to free employers from being obligated to provide healthcare. They USE that as a reason to pay employees less money. Take it away from employers via national healthcare for all, and employers suddenly have NO excuse to pay employees less.

[MrSlayer]

56. I can't see how anyone can live on less than $20 an hour.

$8.50 is a joke, $10 is a joke. You might be able to survive on such short wages but you can't live off of them.

[pitohui]

57. that is not liveable unless there is universal health care

you can't pay both rent and health insurance on that wage

[HereSince1628]

61. Not here. Not unless their is a great health insurance policy.

I suppose if you put 9 people in a van and live DOWN BY THE RIVER! that you could do that here.

After tax that's about $950 a month, unless you have dependents which would make the following even more ridiculous...

Rent here is going to be about $500 a month without utilities. Utilities are gonna average $80 a month. Minimum groceries about $175-$200/person per month.

Transportation is gonna be another $50/person at a minumum.

That leaves about $100 a month for health insurance, clothes, and sundries. That can't be done here and still make life "profitable.

Add telephone, cable service and other humanizing "extras" and suddenly there is no positive cash flow.

[jmm]

62. If I made $8.50 an hr I couldn't support myself let alone a family

I would have to get a roommate, live off of cheap carb ladened food with little nutritional value like Ramen noodles, and pray I never get sick because even if I was one of the "fortunate" few who have a $8.50 job that provided affordable health care I couldn't afford to take a day off of work. I would be living pay check to pay check and wouldn't be able to save any money.

[lovelaureng]

63. I'd say at least,

$16 to $18 per hour. There are too few companies willing to pay a living wage.

[sweetheart]

64. It depends if all labour is paid

If "all" work is paid, thinking of ones life as a series of clocking-in
and clocking-out, then 40 hours per week might say 10 dollars per hour,
but for a full time mother of 2 children, work is much more than 40
hours per week. Since a housewife/husband is a full time job, paid
zero dollars per hour, a single-earner household, has an unpaid slave,
or a vicarious earner of the other's estate.

If the society provides medical care, as with great britain or canada,
minimum wage could reflect, that that free social service can cost
like 400-1000 dollars per month depending on which health insurance
provider.

If the society takes it as its obligation to provide housing for all
its people, it is paying different kind. And too much, we not only
discuss a low wage, but one without any holiday, or any benefits at all,
none. So to discount basic social services on the social race to the
bottom, the wage must account for these erased social establishments
that the person will have to pay for out of their takings.

So then, 10 dollars an hour can sound like enough, but not if we want
all citizens to have car insurance, health insurance and healthy children. But i guess "we" the collective nightmare of the
establishment, thinks it is fair for people to suffer and lose
their liberty, traded away for poverty where "rights" exist only
if you can afford them.

[gardenista]

67. In SF Bay Area- $15.00 nt

[dcfirefighter]

68. Minimum Wage can only be set at the margin of employment

As in, what is the next best option?

I don't favor setting minimum wages by location - I do think that marginally employable people should move to where the jobs are. Call me cold-hearted, but there's nothing guaranteeing people the right to stay where they are.

To REALLY raise wages, we have to remove taxes from labor:
DIRECT:
Payroll Tax: 15.3%
Federal Income Tax: up to 27%+, average 20% or so.
State and local income taxes: 5-8%

INDIRECT:
Sales Taxes: up to 5%
Most property taxes: ~1%/y
Taxes on the products of labor used for production (Capital): 15%

Just looking at the direct taxes on labor, we have 40% or so in taxes. Eliminating these would drop the price of labor (what employees pay) by 40%. This drop in price would increase employment by 10-20%. This increase in employment (which is greater than the official unemployment count) would force employers to raise wages. What would wind up happening is that more people would be employed, and most people would enjoy a 20%-40% increase in take-home pay.

However, public revenue would have to be made up with other taxes. Progressives often look for a steeply progressive income tax. This isn't bad, most of the upper incomes are made from rent-seeking rather than wages; however stated incomes can be easily manipulated, off-shored, or otherwise hidden. Rather a better solution would be to charge for the benefits government provides. A market value could be charged for every license, permit, or title recognized by government.

Another way to look at this would be to trade an income tax for a wealth tax - with one important caveat. If you tax wealth, less wealth will be produced. The old luxury tax put a lot of blue collar yacht craftstmen out of work. The trick is to not tax the products of labor - only tax 'natural' wealth: land values, mining claim values, etc.

A direct and first step, that can be taken at the local level, is to shift the real property tax to bear more heavily on land values rather than building values.

[lazarus]

70. there is something

"I do think that marginally employable people should move to where the jobs are. Call me cold-hearted, but there's nothing guaranteeing people the right to stay where they are."

Yeah, nothing's guaranteeing them the right to stay there. But marginally employable people also don't have much money. You do realise it costs a lot of money to move, right? Even for poor folks?

[dcfirefighter]

71. Yes

Perhaps part of government provided job search and education assistance could be relocation assistance.

It doesn't make any sense to me to pay someone to live on welfare if they could be relocated to someplace where they could find a job.

[RebelOne]

72. At least $12 an hour for a single person.

But for someone supporting a family with only one income, I would consider $20 an hour to be fair.

On edit: to change hourly wage for a family with only one wage-earner. I originally said $20 an hour, but than I realized that I am earning $13 an hour and I am a single person, so a family with only one wage-earner and possibly one child could not survive on $20 an hour wage. It would have to be at least $25 an hour.

[Mr_Spock]

73. I'd say $10/hr is a minimum wage.

Obviously there could be exceptions for young workers, but adults need to make at least $10/hr.

[taught_me_patience]

74. $8.00 (single person) if health care is provided

I've lived comfortably off of $12.00 in Hawaii.


taught.