Where does this "average person" live? Living expenses vary GREATLY across our nation. Around here,(cnetral Indiana), about $400 per week , take home would do it, for a SINGLE PERSON, not sharing expenses.
FFS there is nothing arbitrary about the notion of a living wage. it is a well known concept and is basically a wage level which allows the worker to pay for adequate shelter, food and all the things considered the necessities of life in a given society. It should be enough to ensure that no more than 30% is spent on housing costs (and this is reflected in borrowing levels allowed by reputable financial institutions). It should be sufficient for workers to earn enough income for what is considered by the society in general to be a reasonable standard of living.
OK, so where you are, you think $10 per hour is reasonable for a single person. so you would be happy with $10 per hour, and if the union were to negotiate for higher wages, you would refuse to accept any wage incraese which came about through those negotiations, because you don't need it, or want it.
So $10 an hour for a single person, not married, no kids. Okay, just wanted to know what you thought was a living and decent wage that you would support all Americans making at least that.
Woops, I forgot taxes and social security...you were saying take home. So $13 an hour? (Redid my calc to be fair)
good point - he did say take home ... lols here that would be regarded as poverty, but that may relate to cost of living. a basic one bedroom apartment here would be approx 1200 per month. be interesting to compare food prices as well - I think these are lower in the US, which is probably why our minimum wage is above Grokky's reasonable wage.
That is actually the definition of poverty line. Do you think that the most basic worker should only earn a poverty level of income?
Please point out the provision in any right to work law that prohibits workers from forming a union or otherwise engaging in voluntary collective action.
interesting .... and true, I guess looking at the poverty line I carry an assumption thatthere may be lower expectations of what is considered reasobable in terms of the items other than housing. the poverty line income should be sufficient to provide a basic nutritious diet, whereas the "living wage" might include a few minor luxuries I guess. this wiki article talks about both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
A "living wage", much like the minimum wage, will just increase unemployment. What's more, this rise in unemployment will disproportionately impact low-skilled laborers. That's basic economics and is supported by a mountain of empirical research.
I'd like to see the real research on that. it hasn't been borne out in reality in countries where "a living wage" is considered important. for example, our minimum wage is above $13 per hour, but we have lower unemployment than you do. Finland also has pretty good wage laws, and they have lower unemployment as well.
No a living wage would include rent, electric, water, trash. I would also include phone, car payment, car insurance; Things you need in order to work in most places. It wouldn't include crack because thats not considered something NORMAL people need. Understand the difference between NEED and WANT.
You would pay one a living wage and two a living wage plus extra for luxuries to pay for his greater skill set and value.
What good is it to have a job when you can't afford to pay rent and have to sleep in the streets, shower at truck stops in order to keep up your appearance to keep that job. A job that won't pay enough to provide a place to (*)(*)(*)(*), shower, and shave, shouldn't exist and the employer should raise his rates until he can afford to pay the living wage or go out of business.
Yes. Because that is what the market forces demand. No (*)(*)(*)(*)ing fast food worker should be living the same quality of life as his manager.
Remember that the next time a poverty level worker in a hamburger joint is preparing your food and hasn't washed his hands after using the bathroom; you get what you pay for in this country.
What makes you think that giving that same poor-hygiene slob an extra $50 a week will make him suddenly clean up his behavior and start washing his hands?
I can see you are going to go reeaal far in the world. You are a spoiled brat with some kind of sick entitlement complex and obviously afraid to do what it takes to succeed in a globalized economy. As young as you are, you are a dinosaur. Enjoy extinction.
Who said that they should? I think most people are saying that they should at least make enough so they don't have to live off their parents.
Collectivist and union [redundant] mentality revolves around emotional and actual extortion.... a "protection racket", if you will... If you don't give to government to give to the poor... the poor will commit crime and violence against you. If you don't give to government to fund contraceptives and abortions... there will be more poor... who, if you don't give to government to feed and house, will commit crime and violence against you. If you don't give to government to fund UHC, you will go bankrupt and become poor, and millions of poor will die in the street.... but they will commit crime and violence against you before they perish. If you don't give to government to fund premium foods, children will become fat and stupid and ultimately poor... who, if you don't give to government to give premium foods and housing, will commit crime and violence against you. If you don't comply with union demands, you will be subject to shut downs, violence and vandalism and become poor... rinse/repeat If you don't pay "a living wage", the working poor will tamper with customers food, sabotaging your business and cause you to become poor...rinse/repeat. If you don't give to government to support unions, you will be enslaved to evil capitalists and be poor...rinse/repeat. If you don't give to unions to support government, you will be enslaved to evil capitalists and be poor...rinse/repeat. If you don't.... If you don't.... If you don't.... The one thing the emotional and actual extortionists never. ever. suggest... is that if you do graduate from school, if you do avoid parenthood when you can't afford to feed yourself, if you do avoid laziness, drugs, alcohol, gangs and crime.... if you do live responsibly... you...and society as a whole....are far less susceptible to needing collectivist union mafia "protection"... or alms from their 'benevolent' big government central planners....which ultimately shrinks the "need" and authority of both. and we simply can't have that.
So, paying union dues and being forced to work alongside someone who does not pay union dues yet earns the same salary is slavery. I guess the union's contention is that their money, ie union dues, is being used to benefit someone else without their express permission. I wonder if these union people feel that my being forced to give money I earned to the government without my expressed permission so that it can be given to someone else who has not earned it and thereby benefit them at my expense is also a form of slavery.
told this story to friend of mine who is a senior corporate attorney. His theory is some hack lawyer convinced the union that this was a good idea and to give him a hundred thousand or so. His opinion is it will be tossed out of court as soon as the judge hearing it stops laughing and recovers his breath
Iowa today is like the antebellum South? Who knew? Clearly the meme likening right-to-work is a flat-out lie. Not only that it is a corrosion of the language and the culture that acts to lessen the horror of real slavery.