Do you support a living wage indexed to inflation?

[Zhade]

I do.

[UL_Approved]

1. Well, ummm, no actually

I just can't come to any justification why starving inner-city children have more of a right to food than I have to my new H2. What is this country coming to?

/sarcasm off

[Zhade]

2. Kinda sad when I have to poll DEMS if they support a LW.

But since I've seen anti-LW arguments here, figured I'd test the waters, see if LW is still a respected idea worth fighting for.

[Zhade]

3. Kinda interested in the "No" votes. DLCers? Freepers?

NT!

[RafterMan]

4. I said no

because "living wage" means different things in different circumstances, and if you take those circumstances into account, you make it more expensive to hire those who need it most. And if you don't, it's not a living wage.

I also have problems with the minimum wage itself -- we can't pretend that a minimum wage job in Manhattan is the same as one in Mobile. I believe we need one to prevent flagrant abuses, but there is a downside. It's a balancing act between making it as easy as possible to create low-end jobs and making those jobs as rewarding as they can be.

And no, I'm neither a DLCer nor a freeper.

[Zhade]

5. "I'm neither a DLCer nor a freeper."

I can tell, because you gave a coherent argument, rather than simply attacking the messenger!

[Guarionex]

27. I consider a living wage to be ....

a wage that affords a rent, healthcare, and food...

I'm all for guaranteeing people all of these things...provided they find some employment and are productive...

if they want more perks (appliances, car, etc.) then THAT's the incentive to go work more or find education to get better...

but a roof over one's head, or one's health, or food supply shouldn't be held like the sword of Damocles over someone else.

So, with that definition in mind, I voted YES.

[formernaderite]

6. Good post, I think I agree with you...

In many urban areas, minimum wage if it were a "living wage" would be quite high compared to a rural part of the country. I'd hate to see something like that standardized and not localized. I think some cities have decided to address this, which makes sense. But you're right, it's not a one size issue.

[DaveinMD]

20. there needs to be a national floor

or else there is a race to the bottom. Those states that support living wages are hurt by those that don't. That that's not right.

[KnowerOfLogic]

21. Bottom line is this: businesses are going to raise their prices anyway,

so there might as well be a mandated wage increase as well. I will hear no arguments to the contrary, because i have been working a "low-end" job for quite some time, and i have seen my industry raise prices, add fees, downsize the product, switch to cheaper products, etc. so many times i can't count, and never *once* did they raise their starting pay, except when minimum wage was raised.

[imenja]

22. that's why a number of states set their own minimum wage

Florida just passed a state constitutional amendment raising the minimum wage $1.00 hr above the federal level. If it can pass here, it can pass most anywhere.

[Cuban_Liberal]

7. Absolutely.

The poverty index should be used to determine the minimum wage, i.e., anyone working full-time (2000 hrs/yr.) at minimum wage should be at the poverty level for a single person.

[bread_and_roses]

28. The federal poverty level is an artificially low figure

it is based on calculations done in the 60's, when an average household spent 1/3 of its' income on food. It is also calculated to exclude ANY expenditures for recreation, or even for non-vital basics like school supplies. Why should someone working full-time be unable to EVER go to a movie? And what about the single earner two-person household, such as a mother with child?

I realize that most are unfamiliar with the history of the poverty calculations, and so are unfamiliar with how artificially low they are. Decent wages should be considered part of the cost of doing business.

For small business, there are surely ways to structure tax incentives or subsidies to help them stay afloat while paying decent wages.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Yes. And A Single Payer Health Care System, too.

If we're really the most advanced, wealthiest nation on the planet, We can afford to do the right thing by ALL our citizens.

[blurp]

9. No. Causes unemployment. Subsidy is much better.

Any kind of mandated wage is going to cause some unemployment. The law of supply and demand doesn't stop working just because you happen to be talking about labor.

That said, why not just give everyone some money for the basics, no questions asked and a bonus for the money they earn for working?

Start with a flat $5,000. Then pay them matching dollars for whatever they get as a wage, for example.

This way, businesses aren't pressured away from hiring low skill workers with a mandated high wage and people still get the money they need.

[UL_Approved]

10. Hmmm, faith-based wages?

What is to say that the boss will ever be "satisfied" with wages. Remember, if people did the right thing, we wouldn't need a minimum wage. In a perfect, or even an honest world, your system would already be in place. This is not a just world we live in, and it requires many brute-force measures to bring about social livability.

[RafterMan]

11. Fine, but

your post in no way addresses blurp's.

He calls for a guaranteed minimum income with matching money for low-wage workers. Where do you see him relying on the good faith of employers?

[UL_Approved]

12. Federal standards were required to get minimum wages

The real problem with minumum wage is cost of living. People in NYC have to have much higher wages than people in rural western states. The trick is to get wages adjusted to specific regions of the country. A flat rate wage plus other income would be good, but how does one set up the wage rates? And what is the flat rate? Five grand is fine in Montana, but fails miserably in areas like southern California. Unless, of course you use the flat rate as an affluence allownace and adjust the rest of the income to cover cost of living. That may work.

[RafterMan]

13. Now we're getting somewhere

I agree that cost of living is the key problem. I would love to say, "kick it to the states", but my belief is that states with the highest poverty problems are the same as those that are most willing to let their citizens live in squallor. In essence, I don't trust the Federal government to micromanage a fair cost-based solution, and I don't trust the local governments to implement one. It's a poser, but I think we agree on the definition of the problem. That's rare enough these days.

I still think you were being unfair with blurp.

[Zhade]

16. As an Angelino (Los Angeles), I can confirm this.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion, I'm enjoying reading it.

[blurp]

14. Bosses rarely are forced to do anything.

What is to say that the boss will ever be "satisfied" with wages. Remember, if people did the right thing, we wouldn't need a minimum wage. In a perfect, or even an honest world, your system would already be in place. This is not a just world we live in, and it requires many brute-force measures to bring about social livability.

Most people already are paid above minimum wage. That's because there is competition for labor and that drives up the price of labor. If bosses could drive the price of labor down as far as they wanted, everyone would be making minimum wage, yet this isn't the case.

The trouble with minimum wage is that bosses are like shoppers. Raise the price of no-skill labor too high, and they just won't buy.

It's fun to think a law like minimum wage will "make" them pay more. It mostly doesn't. They just look for a different business or automation. They have many more options available to them and they use them.

They might also raise prices. You might say "so what", but the whole point of having a job is so you can buy what you need. It makes no sense to raise minimum wage if prices go up to match.

So why try to fight the inevitable? A subsidy gets the desired result without making no-skill jobs and jobs for teens illegal.

Business is happy and employees are happy.

[Zhade]

17. Ah, but you missed something crucial.

They might also raise prices. You might say "so what", but the whole point of having a job is so you can buy what you need. It makes no sense to raise minimum wage if prices go up to match.

Just a reminder that I asked about a LW indexed to inflation. This should knock out this part of your argument, I think.

[blurp]

18. But then you create a dangerous feedback

Just a reminder that I asked about a LW indexed to inflation. This should knock out this part of your argument, I think.

The trouble is that you've now created a feedback loop. Wages go up, then prices go up, which make wages go up some more. This greatly increases the inflation rate. At some point you do real damage to the economy as a whole.

And of course the other option is that bosses just give up and unemployment rises instead.

[bread_and_roses]

29. These arguements are produced every time raising

the minimum wage is suggested. Somehow, businesses survive, despite their loud wails in opposition. A "subsidy" will come from the wage-earning tax-payers, including those at minimum wage, no doubt. Why should we subsidize the profits of stockholders so they can continue to pay below-poverty level wages? We are already subsidizing cheap wages with food stamps, HEAP, and medicaid for low-wage workers - our tax dollars at work contributing to corporate profits.

[greenohio]

15. I think it would depend on how it is implemented.

[imenja]

23. perhaps we should reinstitute slavery

and we can have full employment? There are lots of things we are required or forced to do in society: pay taxes, follow SEC regulations, refraining from killing each other. Why should paying people a fair wage for their work be unduly burdensome? The so-called laws of supply and demand don't work perfectly. Corporations are subsidized with American tax dollars. American agribusinesses profit because of farm subsidies paid for by workers, including those who make low wages. Why should American taxpayers further subsidize corporations by making up for the wages they don't pay through the welfare subsidies you suggest? People who work earn their wages. Businesses profit from that labor. Paying employees a living wage is little to ask for the great privileges this nation, and our citizens, provide the wealthy.

How can we consider ourselves a civilized nation when people who work full time can't afford housing? I believe it is a question of fundamental morality and decency. To create a society based on profit alone is nothing short of spiritual bankruptcy.

[debsianben]

31. Full Employment at a Living Wage

There are two solutions to the "unemployment as a result of the living wage" argument:

(1) Guarentee full employment through massive, federally funded, New Dealy-style public works program(at a living wage, of course). As DK said in the primaries, "if the private sector can't provide full employment, the public sector must." Pay for it through massive capital gainst tax increases.

(2) Institute a 100% capital flight tax and re-open closed workplaces under workers' control. (There have been lots of successes with this kind of thing in Argentina and Venezuela.) If you want to leave the state/country, fine, but you can't take your business with you.

I'd also support government-imposed price controls to ensure that the living wage doesn't lead to inflation.

[hollowdweller]

19. Corporate profits are at an all time high. Why should the taxpayers pay

to subsidize low wages thru earned income, gov't insurance and other programs. The corporations should have to pay a wage where people could afford a certain basic level and insurance coverage.

Think of how many low wage workers we have now that the only thing they are gonna get when they get old is SS. The poverty rate will go thru the roof.

[Fawn]

24. Perspective from a business owner

What do you consider a living wage?

Not all businesses are stuffing profits in their pockets at the expense of their employees. Many of us are doing the best we can for our employees, but that does not always translate to a living wage, health plan benefits and pensions.

My employees start at well above the federal minimum wage but there are no health or pension benefits because the company can't afford them. I make no more than my highest paid employee (warehouse manager) whose salary is only 1/3 higher than the unskilled workers...and who, by the way, also does not get health care or pension benefits. Additionally, there are some months when I don't get a paycheck because sales are down...a frequent occurence since the down turn in the economy.

But...consider those companies paying only the federal minimum wage, which is impossible for anyone to actually live on and God forbid you get sick and need medical care. Do you really think that if they're forced to pay higher minimum wage, health benefits, etc. that they'll stay here in the U.S.? I don't. I think they'll pack their companies up and move them to Mexico or China where they can pay even less.

You say tax the incoming goods heavily to make it less profitable for these corporations to move their businesses out of country? Sounds good until you realize that the corporation is going to pass that cost onto the consumer and you'll now pay more for that pair of jeans or shoes than you used to so the wage you are getting now buys even less.

I'm not sure there is an answer. Unless you live in a utopia, there will always be people at the bottom of the chain who barely survive and people at the top who have more than they could possible need or use in 10 lifetimes. That's just life.

[newyawker99]

25. Hi Fawn!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JohnKleeb]

26. Of course I do

Ive done the math on calucators and here's my results.
A person who works 40 hours a week at the current min wage level and for 52 weeks a year makes 10,712 dollars, thats gross not net pay, and then you realize these people have to pay bills on other stuff, etc.

[quaker bill]

30. Then you subtract 6.2 percent for FICA off the top.

10,712 - 644 = 10,048

Per week 10,048 / 52 = 193.23 per week

This does not come close to a "living wage" anywhere.

By providing benefits, such as food stamps, public health clinics, and subsidized housing for the people earning the minimum, the taxpayers in fact subsidize businesses to pay wages this low.

Now you can pay them on the job, with a slight increase in the cost of your Big Mac, or you can pay them through taxes to provide socialized benefits for the working poor.

Personally, I would choose a slightly more expensive hamburger.

[JohnKleeb]

33. ouch 193.23 a week

You can't live off of that.

[Selatius]

32. The L-Curve

This should help you to formulate some ideas.

http://www.lcurve.org/

The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.

Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.)

--The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high.

--At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high.

--The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.

--From there it keeps going up...it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale!