3 ms·

I think "living wage" is a good term. It communicates (to me, at least) exactly what it needs to: this is how much you need to be able to live; if you're paid l

by gjm11 11y ago

I think "living wage" is a good term. It communicates (to me, at least) exactly what it needs to: this is how much you need to be able to live; if you're paid less than this, you are going to need further assistance besides what you earn. The government in the UK recently started using the words "living wage" but what they mean by it falls short of what other people consider a living wage. (No argument that being paid just barely enough to live is a pretty wretched existence.)

stegosaurus 11y ago
But you don't need the living wage to exist. You can always push further down the ladder; live out of the back of a van; bunk-beds; perform heroic cycling or driving feats from the North daily, etc. Perhaps it's just my odd take on things. I feel that security of housing* is a clear benchmark, whereas below that, you're kind of arbitrarily deciding on what level of comfort to accept. *(A caravan on a small plot of grass that you own would be acceptable to me, if that were a situation you could legally get away with in London!) Why housing, and not say, food? Because of the nature of how it generally works in Western countries. Housing is less fungible/liquid (lacking a good term here). If I want food, I can work for a bit, go begging, whatever, get a few quid, go and buy some food, eat it. Housing is fundamentally different; we enter into contracts to put a roof over our head and there's a reasonable expectation that it's the same roof each day/week/month. Housing is also priced differently... there's a discrete cliff-edge beyond which you go from 'roof and 4 walls' to 'tent/car/under a bridge'. Food scales back much more continuously; you can go all the way down to eating bread and dripping and experience a small degradation each step along the way. I'd much rather have a secure roof over my head, a place to call home, and have to hustle for food/electricity/whatever, than all the food and toys in the world but nowhere to stay. I think most people would agree (nomadic lifestyles excepted here because they're generally incompatible with the premise of working for a wage)

by gjm11 11y ago

stegosaurus 11y ago

But you don't need the living wage to exist. You can always push further down the ladder; live out of the back of a van; bunk-beds; perform heroic cycling or driving feats from the North daily, etc. Perhaps it's just my odd take on things. I feel that security of housing* is a clear benchmark, whereas below that, you're kind of arbitrarily deciding on what level of comfort to accept. *(A caravan on a small plot of grass that you own would be acceptable to me, if that were a situation you could legally get away with in London!) Why housing, and not say, food? Because of the nature of how it generally works in Western countries. Housing is less fungible/liquid (lacking a good term here). If I want food, I can work for a bit, go begging, whatever, get a few quid, go and buy some food, eat it. Housing is fundamentally different; we enter into contracts to put a roof over our head and there's a reasonable expectation that it's the same roof each day/week/month. Housing is also priced differently... there's a discrete cliff-edge beyond which you go from 'roof and 4 walls' to 'tent/car/under a bridge'. Food scales back much more continuously; you can go all the way down to eating bread and dripping and experience a small degradation each step along the way. I'd much rather have a secure roof over my head, a place to call home, and have to hustle for food/electricity/whatever, than all the food and toys in the world but nowhere to stay. I think most people would agree (nomadic lifestyles excepted here because they're generally incompatible with the premise of working for a wage)