You can fix the figure at any point you like above welfare - but the massive variety in how people handle that money, means there is no point which can be 'correct' for all. If even welfare can be lived on (by the responsibly frugal), then nothing above that welfare figure can be declared a necessary minimum. It would be a completely false premise. Furthermore, this 'living wage' has only arisen BECAUSE some people are claiming they cannot live on minimum wage. Since we know that isn't true via the evidence of those who DO live on welfare or minimum wage, the entire thing is built on nothing more than a sector of people who simply refuse to adjust their standard of living to their means.
Once again ... I have friends who need $2000 a week to live on, while others live on $2000 a month. Which one is the 'living wage'?
By WHOSE "definition", Golem...? The same international Socialists who gave us the diktat, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"? You're the self-proclaimed 'research expert' who wrote, "A living wage is whatever somebody needs to earn to fulfill their basic needs (clothing, food, shelter, ....) I couldn't give a rat's ass how that is calculated." And, in the same post, you go on to inform us, "I know that it's more than $7.25, and maybe right now close to a bit less than $15 here in Florida. But even that is more detail that we need to understand the point of this thread." You "know" that -- HOW? You say you don't give a "rat's ass" how such mundanities are calculated, so how do you assume you "know" anything -- other than speculation that if everybody is just given more money for doing whatever it is that they do, everything will be just fine -- at least, ostensibly, until inflation gobbles all the 'wonderfulness' up and all the bottom-feeders are right back in the 'toilet' of what their 'worthiness/earnings' ratio provides.... You enjoy postulating absolutes, so consider one with a foundation in both human history and REALITY: You get what you are worth in a society -- any society that survives and thrives for any demonstrable period of time! You seem allergic to the idea of a person earning what he's worth in a 'free-market' society, so, consider even the fluctuations in human history during monarchies, feudalism, communism, fascism, capitalism, et al... 'BOTTOM-FEEDERS' GET LESS COMPENSATION BECAUSE THEY'RE WORTH LESS COMPENSATION, regardless of the "cost of living" and its theoretical, concomitant, "living wage".... Truly, your "living wage" paradigm is probably similar to what Orwell described in his masterpiece, "1984" -- for the PROLES!
You have two options. You can ask an economist. Or you can open a thread and ask the forum. Maybe (just maybe...) I might take the time to answer that for you. But maybe not... You won{t know unless you open the thread.
By the definition I sent to the poster in the conversation you jumped into. Which is the one I'm using in this thread. But it makes absolutely no difference to this thread what definition you use. So long as you don't just make up your own.
Oh, that 'definition'? The one in which you brilliantly postulated that "everyone can live on a living wage"...? Such erudite, well-researched aphorisms leave one breathless.... I'll try to return the favor by offering one of my own -- although substantiated only by admittedly unadorned subjectivity: If you arbitrarily give a person greater pay for doing the SAME job, which has the SAME value in a free-market economic system, all this does is increase inflation -- which completely obviates the short term 'sugar-high' that the undeserved extra handout caused in the first place. OK... your turn....
https://nypost.com/2021/10/30/fdny-firehouses-shuttered-over-vaccine-staffing-shortages/ The FDNY shut down 26 firehouses across the Big Apple as of 7:30 a.m. Saturday because of staff shortages caused by the vaccination mandate, The Post has learned.
So information from any source but your own is not acceptable. You do realize that is the absolute definition of willful blindness? No obviously you don't do due diligence. You just said as much.
You claimed EVERYONE can live on a living wage. Back that up, please. Tell us how two people with vastly different standards of living, can both live on the same amount. Now explain why an increase from minimum wage to your 'living wage' is necessary, since your premise is that there is a fixed amount suitable for all (and that amount is demonstrably at welfare level) and it already exists. The very fact that you want minimum wage increased is the evidence that you yourself don't believe EVERYONE can live on a fixed amount.
You're unlikely to get much of a response. Golem prides himself on doing extensive "research", but evidently he's highly, uh, selective about what that "research" entails....
His 'research' appears to be limited to confirmation bias. If you've already decided that everything your 'church' declares is true, you can't learn a thing.
