If a person is working 40 hours a week, they should be paid enough to live off of.

[Humanist_Activist]

I don't care if they work as a shit shoveler, a burger flipper, or as computer programmers or whatever it is, no full time employee should be denied a living wage.

And don't give me this shit about "free markets" or different skill sets/advance skill sets, you have college graduates working in IT for 8 bucks an hour, at companies where advancement is damn near unheard of, in the same boat, financially, as a 17 year old flipping burgers at McDonald's.

What we have is across the board wage depression, but without the corresponding decrease in cost of living. You have people who range in age from 20-40 who had to move back in with their parents, several times, just to avoid homelessness. How many others have their parents carry them in other ways, for example, paying their car insurance for them? Or their medical insurance? There's a reason why the 26 year old provision in Obamacare is becoming very popular among the populace, and that's just a sad state of affairs.

The minimum wage is useful in that its a good selling point for companies to say they are "better" than the government by paying people 8 bucks an hour versus $7.25, but its not like anyone, even in the most rural, economically depressed, areas of the country can live off either wage.

This is why unions are important, and why we need a living wage provision as well. Everyone who is employed full time should earn enough money to be able to afford a place to live, food on the table, transportation to work, and yes, even entertainment and extras, at least enough to be able to treat themselves to going to the movies more than once a year.

[quakerboy]

1. Wrong

I would put it at about 30 hours. Working more than that should give you a comfortable margin past enough to live on.

We have machines. We don't have enough work that needs done by people to employ everyone 40 hours a week. We need to start reducing the work week and increasing the pay to reflect our increased productivity and population growth.

Other than that, I agree.

[Live and Learn]

3. Exactly, we need to reduce hours to create more jobs.

And all of them should pay a livable wage of course.

We also need to rid ourselves of this notion that some jobs are more worthy than others. I had to laugh today when I heard a local radio talk show host making fun of clerks that were striking on the docks because he thought they were greatly overpaid when all they did was paperwork and computer stuff that anyone could do.

Ha, anyone can do paperwork and computer "stuff" but it takes a genius to spew bs on a right wing radio show for a few hours a day.

This is the same mentality that thinks field workers making minimum wage are lazy while CEOs put in lots of sweat to earn those billions. Seriously, does it look like Mittwit ever sweated a day in his life (except maybe the last few minutes of November 6, 2012)?

[Justkd1]

32. Well, he did sweat A LOT during that last debate

But your point is right on!

[randome]

52. We need to reduce hours just because!

We need to progress in this country, not keep trying to squeeze the last drop of effort out of employees.

[Humanist_Activist]

6. Actually I agree with this, but its dependent on industry...

many service jobs are not done by machines, and 40+ work hours are common in many of them. In addition, I would really like the oversight over companies that put people on salary, at less than 20 grand a year, label them managers(though no one is below them in the hierarchy), and then not pay them overtime and other shenanigans.

[Johonny]

30. Don't you think "we got machines" is just a myth

You watch the show Mad Men and see the huge secretary pool and think to today with computers and it makes sense. Modernization means less jobs... but the problem with this is standards increase with improved modernization. Expense accounts, travel reports, presentations... the amount of "work" needed to do the same things as before is amazing. People still need the same level of support as ever to get things done because modernization produces higher and higher expectations of quality of work. However more and more of this work is placed on the employees as support staff get cut more and more under the theory they aren't needed. Yet surprise, surprise your upper management never cuts their secretaries.

[quakerboy]

47. I don't

I dont know of a machine that can replace a janitor or a secretary.

But I know of a machine that can allow a store to do as much with 1 teller as it used to with 4. And I know of a machine that allows one farmer to do the work that used to take many people. And ones that can allow one live telephone operator to do the work that used to take more. And ATMs that reduce the number of tellers needed. Manufacturing line equipment that allows a few dozen workers to do the work of hundreds. And apparently now even a machine that is supposed to do the work of a burger flipper, according to one post I read earlier. And many other such situations

Machines are not going to make people redundant, at least not as they are now. But they do reduce the number of people needed to do certain jobs. Many jobs, in fact. And as we get clever, there are more and more that fit that bill. Sometimes it backfires, as you describe. But not in the majority. If you look at most any industry, productivity per worker has gone up in the last 60 years, often significantly. And its not because the current generation of workers are amazing supermen. Its because companies have found ways to do the same amount of work with less people and more automation.

I dont shop in the self check line and I avoid ATMs. People need those checker and teller jobs. But if we reduced the work week and raised wages to a liveable level, I would have no problem with doing either. They work for 90% of what I need to do, and I would hate being in a "make work" job myself. Just not as much as I would hate not having any job.

[Blue_Tires]

12. +1000

I've discovered awhile back that the optimal life balance is 4 days work, 3 off...

[shanti]

25. that was my ideal as well

and i had that schedule until i retired in 2010. i did have to work 10 hours a day for that schedule, though, but it was worth it.

[Enrique]

14. i agree, and lower the retirement age as well

that evil mofo Blankfein was just talking about raising the retirement age and he has it exactly backwards. Like you say, there is not enough work as it is.

[quakerboy]

48. I dunno

on a financial and social structural level, I agree. But it seems there are a lot of people who kinda fall apart after retirement, they never find peace with a life without a structured plan and duties. Much as people, myself included, complain about working, I think most of us actually get benefit from it, beyond just our paychecks. And I find most people actually want to work at something. Just not always on the schedule or at the hours or type of work demanded of us.

I would almost be ok with raising the retirement age, as long as it was paired with a drastic cut in the number of hours considered to be "full time" to bring the job market to a point where workers are a desired commodity rather than disposable, easily replaceable tools, and a rise in pay rates that would allow any worker at full time to live a reasonably comfortable life. Almost. I would have to think on it deeply and talk to a bunch of almost retired persons.

[Chellee]

60. So volunteer.

Retired people can work for the good of their communities rather than a paycheck if they just want somewhere to go every day.

[leftstreet]

19. +1

[JustAnotherGen]

28. Let's start a little smaller

Those of us in large corporations in office jobs - although your idea is one I LOOOOOOOOVE - the reality is we do need JUST 40 hours.

I'm sure I'm not the only DU'er that puts in 9-10 hours a day at the office and that is expected to work for hours on the weekend, before I come into work in the morning, after work, working during thanksgiving dinner etc. etc.


One thing (shyly putting this out there) is that fear in corporate America thaf if you don't put in 60 hours a week minimum then you will be fired or replaced with someone who will put in 70.

So a 40 hour work week? That's really good for those of us who have to do 4 or 5 jobs post the housing/banking implosion.

[quakerboy]

49. Thats a whole separate issue

Honestly, salary should be banned in most industries. Or at least limited to persons making 250k+ per year. The rules as they are are abused heinously. Like you, I know from personal experience. I was ranging between 50 and 65 hours a week.

But thats a whole separate thing. We need to increase the pay and reduce the work expected of a full time employee to match the needs of our society, rather than to match the needs of the people bilking the most profit off the top as we currently do.

[CrispyQ]

53. Nice!

We need to redefine wealth as discretionary time with family & friends, not money & material goods. Think what people could do with 10 hours a week!

[MrYikes]

2. So everyone shop at Costco

where the average worker makes $20 an hour. That is good management. Spend your money there. Take away the power from other stores and businesses.
Unions are old school. The Borg is the today. Rolling sudden strikes that last a week and move on.

[Live and Learn]

4. I heard the other day that it was $17 per hour plus benefits and get this:

The CEO earns less than 500 thousand. Imagine that! Love Costco.

Here, found a link: http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/online-love-former-costco-ceo/nTHjy/

[AlexSatan]

18. This was on another site the other day

and someone pointed out that with bonuses it is a bit over $500K. With stock options and other benefits, it is over $2M

Obviously this doesn't take away from the goodness of how Costco workers are treated but it's not a point to push (since it is wrong or at least misleading)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Sinegal#Compensation.

[Live and Learn]

24. It is still a hell of a lot less than the ridiculous sums many CEOs

are being paid. Even if you figure in all the stock options and benefits, his compensation relative to the business profits is very low in comparison to what similar corporations pay their CEOs.

I think that is very much a point to push!

[AlexSatan]

29. While I agree that it is much less than most CEOs

If you use the "less than $500K", you lose the battle because you will spend time defending that your facts are wrong. Especially since 3/4 of his pay will likely be taxed at the Capital Gains rate.

Personally, I prefer to make my points with real facts.

If someone remakes the graphic with the correct value, it still makes its point since Costco is a very large corporation.

[Live and Learn]

57. Until you post your "correct values and real facts",

I will stand by the already posted values and facts. And continue to wonder what it is you have against us trying to support corporations that do things right.

[AlexSatan]

59. If you can't read or click on links, I can't help you.

I don't know what you have against being factually correct.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. Unions are one of the most effective counterbalances to corporate power...

yes Costco is better than the rest, good for them, doesn't mean we shouldn't have unions, organizations whose interests are with the workers, not the corporations. Corporations last a long time, Costco is no exception, what happens when its current management passes or retires? Wal-Mart was allegedly a good company to work for...20+ years ago, times change, we can't trust corporations or corporate structures to protect workers.

[PD Turk]

15. Unfortunately not everyone can

I'd love to shop at Costco but the closest one is a 4 hour drive from here

[BlueinOhio]

7. Employee owned

Good alternative.

[quakerboy]

54. And even then, you have to be careful nowdays

We have a grocery store local here. The workers all wear tags that say "proud to be employee owned".

I asked a quite a few workers how much of the store they owned, if i was talking to them anyway, the checkers, or someone helping me find something, that kind of thing. Not a one of them owned any of the store.

One explained the situation. If you work there something like 5 years, full time, then you get some shares. But, as she explained, only a portion of the workers are full time, and therefore eligible. And she said that usually people who are full time get fired at four to four and a half years working there, just before they can get vested. She was very concerned, because she had just gotten to 4 years there.

[lightcameron]

8. How would you calculate "living wage"?

The definition would be important.

Seems like it would have to be done not nationally, not regionally, not even by state, but by zip code (or maybe even a smaller area than that). And you'd also have to address the issue of someone living in an area where the cost of living is different than that in the area where the business is located, which means companies would find a way to hire people who live in areas where the cost of living is lower, as decided by whomever the legislation empowers to determine the COL in every neighborhood in the country.

Then there's the self-employed. I am one of those, thanks to setting out a couple of years ago with the goal of never EVER working for anyone else for the rest of my life. I'm what some here might consider "rich," but how would the legislation you have in mind deal with the self-employed who are just barely scraping by? One way, I guess, would be to reduce the self-employment penalty tax, which is absolute bullshit, penalizing independent-minded entrepreneurs. But other than that, how would you address this aspect of it?

Interesting topic, by the way.

[whathehell]

9. It sounds like you are challenging the very concept, imagining it as "overwhelming"

I don't have a blueprint myself, but I sense you're exaggerating the difficulty.

I don't know what you make, but I do know that what is considered "rich" in this country varies a lot.

I was surprised to learn that many consider it to be making $100,000 a year.

Multi-millionaire John McCain, on the other hand, claims you need at least 3 million dollars.

[lightcameron]

38. No, just asking how it would be defined. It would have to be, wouldn't it?

[TheKentuckian]

11. I don't get this by zip code or smaller shit, I live in the same economy as someone across town

What are you expecting, that we make cost of living zones to reflect costs in gated communities and fancy subdivisions. Account for the keeping up with the Jones' factor of BMW's and private schools that cost more than most colleges?

[whathehell]

20. No, the idea is to pay as little as possible

Attempting to calculate by zip code means paying workers not a penny more than is absolutely necessary.

Thus a living wage, in the view of some, it seems, means preventing the employees from starving to death before they

show up for work the next day.

[lightcameron]

42. Hyperbole is sometimes effective.

But not at the expense of having an answer.

[whathehell]

50. As, I suppose, are challenges disguised as questions.

Sorry if my answer displeased you, but your question appears insincere.

On the off chance that it's not, you might try putting yourself in

your employees' position and ask what would satisfy you.

[lightcameron]

55. I don't have any employees.

What is a living wage to you? Pick a number.

[whathehell]

58. If you don't have any employees, why are you obsessed with the concept of a living wage?

Otherwise, you pick a number.

You may be self-employed now, but you weren't always.

[lightcameron]

39. I live in a town where the cost of living is much higher than it is fifteen miles away.

So a living wage for someone living in this part of town is different than it would be in that part.

Rent is cheaper there. Mortgages are less. Even gas is cheaper.

Maybe you're talking about making the living wage bottom-line so low that it doesn't matter in the areas where it costs more to live?

[PD Turk]

16. Arithmetic nt

[lightcameron]

40. Okay, explain it?

[PD Turk]

44. Cost of living divided by hours worked

Equals a living wage. And of course it will vary by location but it really is that simple.

Housing +food+clothing+transportation + a little left over for leisure activities = cost of living .

Eta: single payer med to take care of med costs would go a long way toward fixing things.

[lightcameron]

56. Thank you for answering the question.

That makes sense.

I agree with you about single-payer. During the health care debate, I favored a one page bill that would have repealed the barriers to Medicare (age and disability status), allowing everyone to buy in at the current rate.

[Egalitarian Thug]

22. You're approaching it backward, it's not about making the wage as low as possible.

It's about promoting the general welfare.

If a minimum wage is set at a rate sufficient to live in the most expensive area, that would be a very good living in the cheapest. What would the consequences of that be? Wouldn't one of them perhaps be that someone with a really good idea that is tired of living paycheck to paycheck in a tiny studio in San Francisco decide to take that idea and work it in Omaha or Biloxi?

[lightcameron]

41. No, I'm wondering how *high* it would have to be.

What would you use as a baseline?

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. It would have to be calculated more precisely, but roughly how much does it take

to live modestly live in an expensive city. Rent, power, water, food, clothing, and transportation. Probably in the neighborhood of $22 p/hr and tie it to inflation. This would also have to be implemented in conjunction with "protectionist" trade policies and such "nanny state" provision as health care and education. As we have seen over the last 25 years, anything less permits a race to the bottom and the accompanying subsidization of the ruling class.

Capitalism works wonderfully when the citizens are taken care of first and we know that we cannot depend on the capitalists to do what is right.

"The necessitous man is not free" - FDR (IIRC)

[stevenleser]

67. $22/hr is not a living wage in NYC

You need $30/hr minimum, maybe more

[Egalitarian Thug]

69. Read the subject line, rough estimate. But, $30 is about $800 a week take home and

nobody's living large on that in The City. But it would remove the stress of potential deprivation, and more importantly, a person could take that $800 a week and make a good life in Birmingham, for example. Over time, I believe we would see a leveling out across and within the nation, rediscover our commonality, and become much stronger overall for it.

[Humanist_Activist]

66. You do realize the Census already has a existing Cost of Living index...

in addition to other things like Consumer Price Index and a shitload more statistics. Most of them focused on localities, like you said. So basically fix the minimum allowable wage in an area to what is necessary to allow people to afford rent/food/utilities/entertainment in their area, having it adjust every couple of years or so. This post is simply a very brief summary of what is possible, and as far as independent minded entrepreneurs, well, taxes would be tied to income in a progressive income tax structure, not to mention standard writeoffs for small businesses, so I don't see your taxes rising, if that's what you are afraid of.

[OnionPatch]

10. We will always have poverty

until the public mindset changes to where the majority of us believe anyone who works for eight hours a day deserves a living, no matter what they're doing. I had hoped we were getting closer to that but was surprised to find people right here, progressives, who believe there are certain occupations where the people who fill them don't deserve a living. Apparently, we still have a long way to go.

[Puzzledtraveller]

13. In some case and some places you can

but what and how do we decide what living is?

[underoath]

17. good idea. not likely in reality..

[woo me with science]

21. Of course it's possible. Of course it's realistic.

But how unsurprising to see another Third Way voice for helplessness.

You were on the other thread trying to smear Occupy, too.

Need new names all the time, because the old ones get so transparent.

[whathehell]

23. It was a reality during the post war years of The New Deal when labor unions were strong,

and Democrats largely controlled Congress.

Baby Boomers and their parents lived it during those years, but, like many here,

you may be too young to remember.

During the Nineteen Sixties, America had the largest middle class in the world

and the largest number of college graduates...The Big Decline started with

Reagan and Trickle Down. The long downward shift started there and got progressively worse.

For the last two decades, this country has only VAGUELY resembled the one I grew up in.

Hopefully, the pendulum is beginning to swing back.

[librechik]

26. I think it was at least 5 yrs ago that I read a study saying there is no county in the US

where 40 hrs a week on minimum wage can pay for a 2 bedroom apartment. You know, for the kids.

These "job creators" are really slow murderers. And the same goes for greedy landlords and city officials who refuse to deal w the housing issue.

[NoOneMan]

27. Why not 20?

Thats what many hunter & gatherer cultures work, and thrive in doing so. If civilization is supposed to be "better", shouldn't we be able to work even less and obtain the same amount of comfort, happiness and fulfillment? It seems like we work twice as much, as constantly enslaved, and lost without heavy dosage of anti-depressants or opiates. Being that you are arguing for sustenance in exchange for 40 hours of work shows how conditioned you are to believe that 40 hours of work is "natural", necessary and even a good basis for a starting discussion.

[felix_numinous]

31. I don't know when labor laws disappeared

-but they all need to be reinstated. People fought and died so that we have worker's rights.

[Democratopia]

33. Not according to my REPUBLICAN father in-law

Overheard him complaining about Walmart last weekend and told him that tax payers were paying for Walmart workers to have healthcare and food stamps.

This is what I learned:

Walmart is the one of the best companies in America.
(I agreed with him, if profit is more important than human suffering)
Walmart does not cause anyone to suffer.
There is nobody who produces goods for Walmart in sweatshop conditions.
It would go out of business if it had to pay workers more money.
Walmart employs lots of uneducated people.
They probably couldn't get a job elsewhere.
Europe with 25% unemployment shows what socialism does to a country.
There isn't a nation in the world as successful as America
The unions would ruin Walmart.

To put it in context: Things I had previously learned from him:

Nobody in America suffers without healthcare.
If anyone is ill they can always go to the emergency rooms.
WMD were found in Iraq.
Obama is going to ban guns.
Obama is going to build concentration camps for dissenters.
I should watch Fox News to really understand what is happening.
I denigrated the troops by criticizing the Bush foreign policy
I haven't got a clue.
I don't know anything.

[arcane1]

35. You're cute :)

Regarding Obama: the founding fathers would probably take him and others like him to the market to be sold into slavery. But that's ok because it would make them money, right?

[Starry Messenger]

37. Well I really hope you didn't learn to write like that in our government schools.

Because that was fucking atrocious.

[HiPointDem]

36. kr.

[arely staircase]

43. I agree and

recent intenet memes i have seen pointing out how much low wage employers force the government (taxpayers) to subsidize their employees through, food stamps, medicaid, etc. is a perfect message for fighting this battle.

Let's educate people who bitch about having to pay for "welfare" as to why so many qualify for it - the greed of the likes of wal-mart and fast food chains.

[TheKentuckian]

62. Except most of them will just want to cut off the benefits that helps those workers

keep above water.

"If you work full time and can still get food stamps then they are too easy to get" they'll say.



You can't fix stupid and you can't negotiate with intransigence.

[rhett o rick]

46. Unions cant be effective with high unemployment. We need jobs in America. nm

[forestpath]

51. K&R

[butterfly77]

61. Kick&Recommend..

[B Calm]

63. A union is the Bastard Child

of PISS POOR MANAGEMENT!

[lonestarnot]

64. Damn straight they should!

Unity, solidarity! The only way to get there! They are not going to do it because they want to.

[WillyT]

65. HUGE K & R !!!

[RainDog]

68. k&r n/t

[andrewmac0]

70. hi

i wanted to thank you for this great read!! i am definitely enjoying every little bit of it i have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post. thanks for all

[hrmjustin]

71. Welcome to DU!