I see that after having taken the time to look up the definition of "living wage" for you, you still struggle to understand it. Sorry... I can't help you with that. And it would be a waste of time to try to debate any of this with you if you can't even grasp the most basic concepts.
When you mash all the air-bubbles out of it, it boils down essentially to one thing -- once the government began the process of paying people not to work -- more and more, over and over, the whole country began sliding down that proverbial "slippery slope" into a dysfunctional abyss where those who have been conditioned simply to sit on their asses with their hands out slowly become a majority. And remember -- THAT MAJORITY RETAINS THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN ALL ELECTIONS! You saw the effect of this during the Obama regime and after the last election a year ago. Now, it will continue for as much longer as this "republic" exists.... . "We had the COVID virus, too... but we didn't fall into any "dysfunctional abyss"...."
Assumptions, once again, really don't make you look good, at all. You might want to stop making them, since you are very far off the mark. Incorrect. If an employer pays 'low wages' (whatever that undefined quantity is) it is because that is the value of the production. If other employers are paying more for the same work, the employees wont stay. With this 'great resignation' you keep referring to, how many of these people are working at all? Have they found that elusive employer that is willing to pay more for the same job? If they actually made intelligent use of their lockdown time, maybe they improved their skillset. You know 'growth', lol. Then they could ask for more money, but likely in a different field. Low wage workers are usually in the 'unskilled' labor group, so if someone has found an online course in burger flipping and fry dropping, they may have increased their value. The wage paid for a particular position is based on the value to the company. It may be a position that doesn't generate revenue, but supports those that do generate revenue. What is their value to the company? And in direct labor (those actually generating the revenue) it's based on the value of their production. Does someone who generates 6 widgets and hour 'deserve' the same pay as someone who produces 8 widgets an hour? Please quote where I have said anything involving this horse puckey. And if they do the job well, they deserve a raise. If you want to call it 'a living wage' then by all means, please do, but to say that someone 'deserves' it when you can't even define it, is rather counter productive. If you want to fix the value of production before the employee can prove their ability to produce that value, then you likely get what you pay for, and no more. And that is what is unfortunately prevalent in many workers today, doing the bare minimum to fill their hours, no initiative to do anything more.
I don't think you're trying. How much the "living wage" is can most definitely be determined. But it's irrelevant to this thread. Here in Florida, $8.65 (which I think is the current minimum wage) is NOT a living wage, and $15 is. What in between is the exact number is something that economists can determine, but we're sure it's probably $8.65 and it's probably less than $15 right now. However... again: irrelevant. For now, while we are in the middle of The Great Resignation, the living wage is whatever people are willing to work for without having to take more than one job. Unlike the last 4 decades or so, right now the unskilled worker has some influence in determining what their wages are. And I think that's great for workers (unskilled and otherwise), it's great for the country,... and I think many business are realizing that it's great for them also.
I don't see a down side to that. If companies can pay higher wages above a minimum living wage, that allows them to pick and choose the most efficient workers. Which incentivizes workers to BE more efficient. So it's good for the workers, good for the company and good for the country. Less efficient workers can STILL obtain a living wage at companies that don't have that much cash. And completely ineffective workers are not going to find a job until they get better at it.
I see it as less of a need for workers, and that will not be helpful. In the end, workers are going to need more than one skill and that is happening even now.
I don't think you are trying. The number of jobs an unskilled worker must work is directly related to the quality of life they would like to attain. You aren't very good at this.
You want to know the truth? They 'pull it out of their ass' from day-to-day... and what's "true" in one month may not be true the next month -- and most certainly, not the next YEAR.
Help me out, then. Explain exactly how a set figure (your living wage) will be 'enough to live on' for every individual, despite the fact that every individual has a different cost of living.
It's as meaningless as the welfare rate. While there has to be a minimum, making it any higher than the lowest possible amount upon which someone can survive when doing everything possible to reduce costs (and it's a surprisingly low figure - when you do it right) is an abuse of the tax payer, and encourages a refusal to do everything possible.
The cost of living in Macon, Mississippi is entirely different from the cost of living in La Jolla, California. The whole concept of a national "minimum wage" is as ridiculous as it is unfair -- to everyone. I've said a million times -- in a free-market economy YOU EARN WHAT YOU ARE WORTH. And, if an employee feels cheated or abused, then they're free to quit and go find a different job somewhere else! It's no more complicated than that....
The value of the POSITION. Not the value of the person, like you claimed before. The basic entry-level salary DOES NOT depend on the effort of the person you hire. Anybody who has ever run a business (which I do)... or has even been in upper management dealing with Human Resources knows that. So what I said is definitely not an assumption. In any case, that's besides the point. The point is that workers whose income is nearest to a minimum wage right now are able to negotiate a fair salary which is closer to a "living wage" thanks to The Great Resignation. And that's a good thing for the worker, for the country.... And I think many businesses will start realizing that it's good for them too. And, as a side note to this, I commented that workers who work full time and are not paid a living wage are being exploited. It may be legal, and some employers might not realize this... but if a company can only profit from the difference between a living wage and what they actually pay their employees, that's exploitation. And this appears to be changing.
I don't see a down side to having more than one skill. But this thread is mostly about workers with NO skills. They are now making us aware of how necessary they are. They are demanding to be paid a living wage. And they are doing this using the capitalist instrument of offer and demand. And one would think that both left-wingers and right-wingers would be thrilled. But not extremists. Both communists on the left and fascists on the right see one of their favorite weapons evaporate.
Yes it does. If the person who comes in unskilled at MW, and cannot even perform the minimum activities required for the position, then they don't have a job. If they perform the minimum activities with no increase in their skills, they don't get a raise or promotion. 10 years as an Office Manager, HR and Full Charge Bookkeeper, and another 10 as a Financial Controller of a company that makes 56M+ a year says you made an assumption. While there are a very small part of the workforce (prior to the lockdowns and closure of a great many businesses) that actually 'make' MW, most groups that start at MW don't stay there. Even the most unskilled labor (first job) improve their skills, and move out of that category. Please post data to support your claim that employers 'only' make a profit based on what they pay their workers. I don't know a single one. They wouldn't stay in business long either. Workers who work full time and haven't increased their value and aren't making more than minimum wage are responsible for their own position.
No. You are not following. The "quality of life" that everybody wants (and is entitled to if you believe there is such a thing as a right to live) is, at a minimum, one that allows the to LIVE. Before The Great Resignation, they needed to work 2 or 3 jobs. Now, with The Great Resignation, they can achieve it with one. And that's what this thread is about. Read again. Try to focus.
One thing you say here is quite true, and it always has been so -- people with little or nothing to offer in a free-market economy earn far less compensation than those who do. At the moment, this free-market economy has a pressing need for people to move commodities around from one place to another, so, for the moment, they can, and should demand more compensation. Fair enough.... Then, after nearly all these temporary bottlenecks are solved by much greater implementation of artificial intelligence, automation and robotics, those with little or nothing to offer but the willingness to move a 'box' from 'Point A' to 'Point B' will be right back in the bottom of the 'barrel'. Fair enough...?
Don't know... don't care. That's their problem. All I know is that, here in Florida at the moment, it's more than $8.65 but probably less than $15. In any case, not the topic of this thread.
Living wage is not the same as cost of living. You seem intent on having me explain to you the concept of living wage. I commend you for trying to educate yourself. But it's such a basic concept. And I think you are the only one in this thread that doesn't understand what it is. There are many sources online. I just don't have the time or inclination to explain it to you in detail.
OK, taking the 'high road'...? Well, then, "The Global Living Wage Coalition" (whatever that actually is) states at their webpage that a "living wage" is "The remuneration received for a standard workweek by a worker in a particular place sufficient to afford a decent standard of living for the worker and her or his family. Elements of a decent standard of living include food, water, housing, education, health care, transportation, clothing, and other essential needs including provision for unexpected events." This org uses a calculus they call the "Anker Methodology" to demonstrate how a 'living wage' should be formulated: https://www.globallivingwage.org/about/what-is-a-living-wage/ Here are two representative slides depicting 'Anker-thought' -- Notice that nowhere in any of this information is any reference made to the qualifications, education, experience, or ability of the hypothetical worker (generalized throughout the entire world). Instead, there are numerous references made to completely subjective terms like "decent", "quality of life", "acceptable housing", and, interestingly, "unseen events".... Is this the kind of thing you base your often-mentioned 'research' concerning a 'living wage' upon, @Golem ...? Just curious.
!00% I've lived in La Jolla. I've lived in Henderson, NV. Even with only 4.5 miles apart, there is a huge difference.... as there should be. There is limited space in La Jolla with a world class climate and view. Now, I did have a view of the Las Vegas strip from Henderson, and while nice... not the same thing. Yet, we have Democrats trying to force the same wage. They are trying to force Low Income housing into premier places. That's not a market, that's how to screw up the market.
Exactly!!! And if you don't have a job, you don't have ANY wages. Not minimum, not living wage, .... none. So OBVIOUSLY that's not who this thread is about. It's about people who CAN do the minimum activities AND are hired. Those are now able to negotiate a living wage thanks to The Great Resignation. And that's great! Great for them, great for the country, and great for businesses. Though some of those businesses may not have realized this yet. Especially those with a lousy employee heading their HR department.... which is another example of businesses that are bound to fail in today's environment, if they refuse to adapt... See? It wasn't so hard... Now, with that being understood you can re-read the OP, and let us know if you have any comments that ARE related to it.
