If you put in 8 hours/day every week, should you receive a wage you can live upon?

[yllus]

I'll take a controversial stance for the sake of discussion: I'll say that if you put in a solid 40 hours of honest work a week, you should be able to put food on your own table and a pay for a roof over your own head - no matter what your job title is. That would be the rule even for the least-paid but most-popular jobs such as retail salesperson, cashier, waiter or janitor.

 

[First]

I would say that minimum wage jobs should probably be indexed to inflation, though honestly I haven't studied the issue enough. Most low wage retail jobs, restaurant, salesperson, etc. jobs have incredibly high turnover because they tend to be so low skilled that eventually people transition away from them naturally as they build experience. Lower skilled workers tend to not take risks either so it's even more difficult to convince them to move to another industry or move up to higher paying jobs.

 

[Oyeve]

Nurses get paid too much to be acting like twats all the time.

 

[BUnit1701]

If you can have a comfortable life flipping burgers, what is the motivation to go to school and learn real skills?

 

[Squeetard]

Anybody putting in 40 hours a week should make a comfortable living wage. One that allows some spending and vacation money too.

 

[Atreus21]

I'll take a controversial stance for the sake of discussion: I'll say that if you put in a solid 40 hours of honest work a week, you should be able to put food on your own table and a pay for a roof over your own head - no matter what your job title is. That would be the rule even for the least-paid but most-popular jobs such as retail salesperson, cashier, waiter or janitor.

What constitutes a wage you can live on?

In my case, it happens to be exactly my yearly salary. Amazing coincidence.

What we're doing here is trying to impose our definition of fair into an exchange we have no rightful part in.

If we are to allow people to succeed, we must allow them to fail.

 

[Corn]

What kind of roof what kind of food?

I believe that an employee should be paid whatever wages they negotiate with their employer. Don't take a job that doesn't pay what you feel is a fair wage. Simple really.

 

[Zaap]

Yeah we do have to do something about all those min wage people who don't have a roof over their head and don't eat.

I've been driving around trying to find what street corner they're all hanging out starving to death on... but oddly I couldn't find them. They've either already died of starvation... or are indoors somewhere or something.

 

[nehalem256]

Funny, I started a thread on the issue of a living wage 2 months ago. http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2351785&highlight=

A living wage for Minneapolis(and surrounding suburbs) for a single adult is listed as $9.69/hr or $20,147/year. http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/27053

9 out of 10 jobs on the list pay that much or more.

Note: Minneapolis appears to have an above-average cost of living http://www.infoplease.com/business/economy/cost-living-index-us-cities.html

 

[Veliko]

If you can have a comfortable life flipping burgers, what is the motivation to go to school and learn real skills?

By the time people have got a job flipping burgers, they've already been through school.

 

[boomerang]

Anybody putting in 40 hours a week should make a comfortable living wage. One that allows some spending and vacation money too.

So you would propose pay scales suited to the region in which one works?

 

[BoberFett]

Wages are based on the value they create, not what a person "should earn". The two numbers of nothing to do with one another. If you mandate a "living wage" (which is a meaningless phrase thrown around by people who aren't willing to actually use a hard number) then jobs that produce less than that value will simply be eliminated.

 

[Lithium381]

Depends, do you have skills that are valuable enough to pay a living wage? It's up to the individual to develop those skills. If they have a valuable skill, then yes, they should search out a job that pays them enough to live on. If not they'll either have to make sacrafices like live with a roommate or get another skill.

 

[nehalem256]

Wages are based on the value they create, not what a person "should earn". The two numbers of nothing to do with one another. If you mandate a "living wage" (which is a meaningless phrase thrown around by people who aren't willing to actually use a hard number) then jobs that produce less than that value will simply be eliminated.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/27053

Oh someone came up with a hard number
$9.69/hr for a single adult
$26.09/hr for a single mom with 2 kids

Since the same people whining about a "living wage" usually are referring to a living wage for a single mom it should be obvious why they are so reluctant to give a hard number.

 

[Lithium381]

And really, MOST people working min-wage jobs aren't supporting a family and i further doubt they're even supporting themselves fully. min-wage jobs are preciely that because they're for individuals with very little value(within the context of working in a particular industry). . . your first job in highschool or while in college maybe, or maybe someone who's retired and looking for something to do?

it's scary that people think that if you hold a job, the company that employs you is required to make sure you're comforatable, have enough to pay for that new car you wanted, buy you a house, and pay for your kids college. None of those are the company's problem!

 

[Lithium381]

http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/27053

Oh someone came up with a hard number
$9.69/hr for a single adult
$26.09/hr for a single mom with 2 kids

Since the same people whining about a "living wage" usually are referring to a living wage for a single mom it should be obvious why they are so reluctant to give a hard number.

If she has a useful college degree then that's not far out of reach at all!

 

[nehalem256]

it's scary that people think that if you hold a job, the company that employs you is required to make sure you're comforatable, have enough to pay for that new car you wanted, buy you a house, and pay for your kids college. None of those are the company's problem!

Sounds a bit like slavery. Typically you would be expected to make sure that your slaves are fed, watered, clothed, housed, and provided with transportation to work. They even provide employment for your children!:biggrin:

 

[MiniDoom]

Live where? Beverly hills, NYC or Montana? location of where one lives has more to do with than wages.

 

[boomerang]

it's scary that people think that if you hold a job, the company that employs you is required to make sure you're comforatable, have enough to pay for that new car you wanted, buy you a house, and pay for your kids college. None of those are the company's problem!

Elections have consequences. Get enough people in office that see a political advantage to an all-providing nanny state and that's what we'll have. They're right here in this thread and ignoring the rational posts within it. How they 'feel' about the issue is more important than the feasibility of what they desire.

 

[Brovane]

Yeah we do have to do something about all those min wage people who don't have a roof over their head and don't eat.

I've been driving around trying to find what street corner they're all hanging out starving to death on... but oddly I couldn't find them. They've either already died of starvation... or are indoors somewhere or something.

The issue is that usually they don't because we don't allow people to starve etc. we will provide subsidized housing like Section 8 and we also provide food stamps etc. So the government is then subsidizing the living for people that is indirectly allowing corporations to pay low wages.

 

[Brovane]

What constitutes a wage you can live on?

In my case, it happens to be exactly my yearly salary. Amazing coincidence.

What we're doing here is trying to impose our definition of fair into an exchange we have no rightful part in.

If we are to allow people to succeed, we must allow them to fail.

What happens when because of that exchange the corporations are able to pay a low wage that results in the person applying for government assistance so we are then indirectly subsidizing the corporations ability to pay a low wage? I kind of feel as part of that exchange now because my tax dollars are subsidizing it.

 

[cbrunny]

Minimum wage = minimum quality of life. Period.

That means minimum amount/quality of food. Minimum quality of housing. Minimum luxury items (tv, internet, cell phones? Nope.).

Minimum = Minimum. Prioritize food & shelter over a cell phone or tv or internet, or a pet, or a drug habit, or alcohol, or fast food, or a new car, or a car at all in some cases, or pretty much anything else.

Edit: for the sake of this thread, I voted 'Yes' - I sincerely believe that a minimum wage job should support one person's minimum quality of life.

 

[yllus]

If you can have a comfortable life flipping burgers, what is the motivation to go to school and learn real skills?

I think that a "living wage" would still not constitute anything that someone would be delighted to be earning. It'd just allow them to not have to work three jobs to make ends meet.

What constitutes a wage you can live on?

We could easily arrive at a reasonable figure, per region, for what a living wage would be. It isn't the wage you want to make, it's a wage that would minimally sustain you.

 

[senseamp]

Free market will decide whether people will get living wages through work or wealth redistribution by government.

 

[Rakehellion]

If you can have a comfortable life flipping burgers, what is the motivation to go to school and learn real skills?

Tell that to the PhD's working at Starbucks.