Common Sense On Living Wage

Well, yes, if along with raising the minimum wage everyone else's wages increase as well, it's meaningless. The idea is equalization between those at the top and those at the bottom...the top isn't so high, the bottom isn't so low.

You may find it interesting to know that 2.6% of all wage and salary workers get the minimum wage or below. 47% of those are working in food preparation or serving. A quarter of them are teenagers, and half are 24 or younger.

The real purchasing power of the minimum wage is the same as it was in the early 1980s.

Two thirds of the minimum wage workers work part-time.

Of the people earning minimum wage or below, the majority are making less than minimum wage because they fall into exempt categories: tipped employees, full-time students, certain disabled workers and others. So how many workers covered by minimum wage laws are receiving just minimum wage? About 1.5 million people, about 1 1/4 per cent of the employed people in America.

Now, what's the problem again?

Sorry forgot to add the link.
www.pewresearch.org...

originally posted by: charles1952
You may find it interesting to know that 2.6% of all wage and salary workers get the minimum wage or below. 47% of those are working in food preparation or serving. A quarter of them are teenagers, and half are 24 or younger.

The real purchasing power of the minimum wage is the same as it was in the early 1980s.

Two thirds of the minimum wage workers work part-time.

Of the people earning minimum wage or below, the majority are making less than minimum wage because they fall into exempt categories: tipped employees, full-time students, certain disabled workers and others. So how many workers covered by minimum wage laws are receiving just minimum wage? About 1.5 million people, about 1 1/4 per cent of the employed people in America.

Now, what's the problem again?

Sorry forgot to add the link.
www.pewresearch.org...

Everything you're saying is skewed, because it's about 'minimum wage and below' when most low-wage jobs pay slightly more than minimum wage...which makes them not part of those statistics, although just above minimum wage isn't much better...

a reply to: TheJourney

Dear TheJourney,

I think you have made a good point and are quite correct. At least, though, we can stop worrying about "Minimum Wage Workers" and switch our attention to "Low Wage Workers."

What would you suggest would be the point where they're not just above the minimum wage? $8.25? $9.25? It's tough to find any statistics on "just above" minimum wage. It's a little like a "fair" wage or "living" wage, nobody has a clue what those mean either.

After we solve that issue, I wonder what happens when the government orders companies, especially small ones, to double the minimum wage they pay to workers. Do they keep the same number of workers? Hire more workers? Fire workers? Go out of business?

Your opinion is appreciated.

With respect,
Charles1952

I was just pondering a somewhat opposite idea, which is to institute a wage cap. I mean I don't care what your job entails, when you are receiving millions of dollars in bonuses or in salary, while people aren't getting by, the system is inherently flawed. So this is a rich vs poor issue in that regard. Someone can say that these people don't "deserve" to make more than minimum wage, but does anyone truly "deserve" to have BILLIONS of dollars? I mean just look at the distribution of wealth, and the fact that the system is designed in such a way that those who already have money get more, while it is extremely difficult for those who do not have money to get more. And an education does not mean guaranteed money.

Someone wants to say that people should get an education, because people with an education deserve to make more money. But then you get in the job market and experience is just as highly prized as education. My point is that the system is broken, no matter which way you slice it. And I was just thinking of the idea of a wage cap. The majority would be for it, and the majority of those opposed would be the very people who would have their wages decreased. I mean just think about the fact that a company could pay each employee a little bit more if it would forego paying outrageous bonuses and salaries. Anything beyond a certain amount of money is just ridiculous when people are starving. And to say that these people are more intelligent than all the poor people out there is ridiculous. I'm sure there are highly intelligent and highly educated people out there who can barely make ends meet, and who "deserve" to make more than those who actually have millions or billions of dollars.

Our system does not support or reward hard work, education, or anything else as much as it rewards taking advantage of other people to make a buck. I bet that the majority of the time those willing to LEGALLY take advantage of other people make more money. Those who do not have consciences are also the same people who are okay with accepting such outrageous "bonuses." They are deluded enough to think they "deserve" it.

Despite some of the ATSers that are against a prevailing wage, I'm all for it.

The problem is when we get down to location. NYC studio is at bare minimum 2400 a month for 330sq ft. And there that still includes utilities. Let's face it, we all need phone and internet. Those are now basic necessities. At least in NYC food is cheap. In Chicago a one bedroom will run you 1300 in a neighborhood with shootings and bodies. Studios are ultra rare outside of white areas like Lakeview, and those neighborhoods are inflated priced higher than the low common areas.

There needs to be one set rent, one set tax, and one set utility bill. Chicago TAXES EVERYTHING. Gas on Irving I heard today was over 5 bucks a gallon. Now imagine that you are driving out an hour everyday, because the city ran all the jobs out, or gave them over to the illegals. And that is, if you are lucky enough to drive. That is some serious money going into the tank.

Not everybody can just get up and go. There are a LOT of homeless people in places where they were born and raised. Some are homeless in places they migrated to and the job didn't pan out and they got stuck. You cannot assume everyone has a loving family willing to take them in - most people now will jump quick to say "I can't afford to have you living here". I saw over 20 of my own friends with PHDs in Chemical Engineering, Law, Economics, Medicine, Political Science, and even Accounting not be able to find jobs, not even teaching. They graduated, and after a year their parents put them out. One in particular was homeless from the day he graduated.

350 million people and 100 million jobs; 25 million physical labor and the rest digital/desk. We have to be realistic. I have washed my hands of America and have embraced my new EU citizenship, but I got fortunate and married someone from over there. America still claws to drag us and the extended family back (see the Tax thread).

The problem is how America does BUSINESS with its own people. They have said time and again FCK YOU, and allowed the immigrants to get carte blanche. Think about that.

When you are in a country that doesn't support you unless its time to extort you for money, its time to emigrate out.

Problem is, America does not let its eaten young out so fast.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Could you clarify something for me? Are you talking about an income cap, at so many dollars a year? Or are you talking about a wealth cap, meaning everything you've earned in your life, plus whatever you've inherited?

Either way, this would be justified by the federal government saying "You don't need X number of dollars, so we'll take it from you." Doesn't that make you feel a little uncomfortable? You can't have anything that the federal government thinks you don't absolutely need?

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I was just pondering a somewhat opposite idea, which is to institute a wage cap.

Thanks for your post. It bring to mind a thought I have had off and on, which no one would take serious and idk how serious it even sounds, so I have never thought about it too seriously. But yea, having a pre-defined range of yearly salaries. Say the least anyone can make per year is $50,000, and the max anyone can make is...I don't know, a million, hell even 10 million...there is no reason anyone needs to make the amount of money some people do, and if that were capped as you're suggesting, that could raise the lower end.

The idea is this. If there were an income-range, incentive to raise yourself up, which the capitalists are always on about, still exists. And yet no one is poor. And no one is insanely rich. And honestly, boo hoo to the filthy rich...it makes me sick that people think that is acceptable with all the low-income and poor people...

a reply to: TheJourney

Dear TheJourney,

All right, I did the searching and my eyes are sore. I went to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and checked their wage information on hundreds of job categories. Those guys cover everything.

I looked for areas where the average wage was under $10 an hour. From their data of April this year I got this:

Farm workers and laborers; crop, nursery, and greenhouse 9.65

Cashiers 9.83

Shampooers 9.09

Amusement and recreation attendants 9.76

Ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket takers 9.79

Food preparation and serving in general 9.08 - 12.61, depending on their particular job function. Leaving out some chefs and supervisors.

The food preparation and serving industry as a whole has an average wage of 10.38

www.bls.gov...

The average guy at McDonald's, or Burger King, or a place like that, is already getting $9.00 an hour plus.

With respect,
Charles1952

I still struggle a bit with the differing concept I observe in France, in which it is assumed that a part of the population is and always will be less capable of higher education, or less willing (less capable) of handling jobs of responsibility. Some people are good at being a cashier in a grocery store or fast food restaurant, and that is a possible career for life.

Students are assumed to be primarily students, and working a job at the same time is considered detrimental to that - not taking your studies seriously, in effect.

My own ambitious nature sneers at this and doesn't really want to participate in supporting that.....

BUT
I can only be honest with myself in acknowledging that I have really witnessed people who do not have the intellectual capacities to do jobs of more responsibility or higher education, and they really excell at the minimum or low wage job they do, and are happy to stay there.

As mentioned, these jobs NEED to be done.....the part of the population that either can't or doesn't want a different class of career is human resource, that is wasted if we keep them from being able to stay there. I also know through personal experience that trying to complete higher education while physically and mentally exhausted by service type of jobs increases chances of failure at school.

Now, I have always held the idea that that just serves as a weeding out- if a person cannot handle working and studying at the same time, then they don't have what is necessary for more responsible positions later. But then what happens to them?

Why keep trying to force them to "move up", if they aren't capable? Why not just valorize things like manual work as a career choice that is just as important as engineering? To the society, it IS.

I've always gotten irritated with Ayn Rands idea that all the brains of a nation could make their own little society without the muscles- they'd be busy designing things that no one would build, or maintain. You either spend your calories on brain work or muscle work; you either invest in years of education, or years of integrating muscle memory and manual skill.


I am sort of arguing against myself here- I tend to de-value these sort of careers, even though I am a immigrant in a foreign country who ended up in food service (which I never before thought I'd ever step foot in) and while at work, feel embarrassed and shocked at the way others treat me as an equal. Doctors that act like I am on the same social level, while I am wearing a hair net and security shoes. My husband that is considered rich in these parts, with a job that allows him to stay at fancy chateaus, eat at famous restaurants, and buy expensive cars... who claims his dream job would be -a mason.

I don't relate personally to this way of thought, but I cannot deny that it works for them. Those lower wage jobs actually pay enough for those people to live.

-On the other hand, the luxuries of life are more expensive, it's true. Technological toys, fashionable clothing, some entertainments.... but then those people who lack ambition seem to be fine without them, and ith getting together to dance outside in the evening, instead of texting on their phones together at a swanky resto while drinking a ten dollar cocktail.

a reply to: TheJourney



I am retired now but when in was working I had a job that paid what I

considered to be a reasonable salary, which could many times be topped

up by 'incentive bonus's'. This consisted of selling certain goods over a

given amount.


There were many times that these 'bonus's' were missed (and therefor

unpaid) by as few as one or two cases .... fair enough a miss is as good

as a mile as they say .......


NOW WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN .... an instance >>>>

A Banker who earns a higher than average salary receives 'mega' bonus's

even when the bank makes losses When that is queried by

shareholders they are told that they have to pay for the best or they will

go else where??? I personally would say "let them" there's always someone

on the rung of the ladder below waiting and eager to take their place.


Even if they let them go for not doing the job to the required standard they

get 'golden handshakes' unlike the average worker who just gets sacked!!!!


"shakes head" .... you couldn't make it up!

are low end service positions like clerks, grocery baggers, and fast food workers meant to be a permanent life supporting positions?

I thro not.

These types of jobs are for students and those first starting out in the Job market. These types of jobs were never meant to support life let alone support a family from the income afforded it. Mainly because the businesses that utilize low wage positions are offering an inexpensive product with minimal service and time. this is so they can turn a profit. if they can't turn a profit they will close. Look what happened in Washington State as they forced the $15 and hour minimum wage. By the way that is not livable wage either.

No, certain jobs cannot be offered to have a "living wage" as you put it. Those types of jobs are supplemental incomes at best.

Want to earn a living wage, get a degree or a special skill set and work in a particular field. i.e computer, medical, manufacturing, Airline industry etc...

I've found one of the biggest problems in my area is the recruitment agencies, pretty much every job I see around here is controlled by them and pays sub par wages regardless of the position or type of work required, because you have to go through them to get a job you have little choice in whether you are getting minimum wage or not.

I was browsing a job site the other day and saw two managerial jobs for Boots and Body Shop (both big companies in this country) that required several years experience, a long list of qualifications and only paid £7 per hour. Both of these jobs were through recruitment agencies and would warrant a £25k+ wage if they were not.

I agree with the comments people have made that you can of course can by on a low wage like that but then your just existing and living to work, if you have just enough money to pay your bills and that's it then how can you have any fun or enjoy any of the little things that make life worth living?

Ah, now it is clear...

With my $2.00 spare income a month, I should move... buy a $500,000 dollar house in a new state and get a new job!!

Simple.

Now, let me calculate how long it would take me to save the money needed........