5 ms·

"Living wage"? Are you suggesting that uber and other drivers are all dead? \s (I know "living wage" is the hip buzzword, but it is a poor phrase, is hyperbol

by ancap 10y ago

"Living wage"? Are you suggesting that uber and other drivers are all dead? \s (I know "living wage" is the hip buzzword, but it is a poor phrase, is hyperbolic, and creates a false picture that when these workers finish their shift they are going to go find some secluded gutter to die in from malnutrition)

emodendroket 10y ago
No it doesn't.
- xapata 10y ago
  Frankly, I think that was the intention of the person who coined the term "living wage". But that's perfectly fine. It's like saying "pro-life" instead of saying "anti-choice". Use whatever phrase helps you get your message across. I'm not in the habit of saying "living wage," but if I wanted to say, "a person can't live on 5 dollars an hour" in a pithy manner, that's what I'd say. A literal-minded person might get annoyed at that, but most people understand that it's an ethical statement, not a literal one.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    Many workers not making a living wage receive some form of government assistance, so saying that they aren't all dying in a gutter seems beside the point.
    - jschwartzi 10y ago
      And the point of forcing employers to pay a living wage is so that we don't have to subsidize their businesses via government assistance to their workers.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        Well, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's the entire point, but it is definitely a compelling reason.
      - ancap 10y ago
        Whether there are good intentions(1) or not, the inevitable consequence of a "living wage", minimum wage, or whatever you call it, is unemployment among the least skilled--typically minorities and youth. (1) There is plenty of evidence that unions pushing for increases in minimum wage is anything but good intentions and is a desire to boost the demand for union labor. This is especially evident by the fact that in many cases the increase in the minimum wage specifically excludes labor unions.
        emodendroket 10y ago
        https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster > Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. > Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."
        ancap 10y ago
        The "academic literature" purporting that the minimum wage has no affect on unemployment has deep flaws and has all been disproven. If not so, why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour? If it has no affect on unemployment, lets stop pussyfooting around and lets eradicate poverty, right?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        The literature I've seen does not purport that no conceivable change in the minimum wage would have any effect on unemployment levels. It instead concludes that changes within certain specified ranges have not, and should not be expected to, have significant effects on unemployment. (And, much of that academic literature reaching those conclusions is pointing to the actual results refuting earlier models which projected stronger responses.)
sp332 10y ago
If you're not making a living wage and you're not getting some form of welfare, then... yeah? I mean you might live as a homeless person for quite a while if you make enough for food but not rent.
- ancap 10y ago
  There are all sorts of living arrangements which don't include welfare, that are affordable and attainable for most everyone. That being said, if housing is not affordable for 99.999% of the population the most glaring culprit is not employers, but local government leaders who prevent the construction of affordable housing.
Symbiote 10y ago
A hip buzzword from the 1930s, or earlier? "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." — President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage
- ancap 10y ago
  Being old does not preclude it from being a hip buzzword. At any rate, even if that wasn't the best adjective for it, the term "living wage" was just as nonsensical in 1933 as it is today.

by ancap 10y ago

emodendroket 10y ago

No it doesn't.

xapata 10y ago
Frankly, I think that was the intention of the person who coined the term "living wage". But that's perfectly fine. It's like saying "pro-life" instead of saying "anti-choice". Use whatever phrase helps you get your message across. I'm not in the habit of saying "living wage," but if I wanted to say, "a person can't live on 5 dollars an hour" in a pithy manner, that's what I'd say. A literal-minded person might get annoyed at that, but most people understand that it's an ethical statement, not a literal one.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  Many workers not making a living wage receive some form of government assistance, so saying that they aren't all dying in a gutter seems beside the point.
  - jschwartzi 10y ago
    And the point of forcing employers to pay a living wage is so that we don't have to subsidize their businesses via government assistance to their workers.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      Well, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's the entire point, but it is definitely a compelling reason.
    - ancap 10y ago
      Whether there are good intentions(1) or not, the inevitable consequence of a "living wage", minimum wage, or whatever you call it, is unemployment among the least skilled--typically minorities and youth. (1) There is plenty of evidence that unions pushing for increases in minimum wage is anything but good intentions and is a desire to boost the demand for union labor. This is especially evident by the fact that in many cases the increase in the minimum wage specifically excludes labor unions.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster https://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster > Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. > Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."
        ancap 10y ago
        The "academic literature" purporting that the minimum wage has no affect on unemployment has deep flaws and has all been disproven. If not so, why not raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour? If it has no affect on unemployment, lets stop pussyfooting around and lets eradicate poverty, right?
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        The literature I've seen does not purport that no conceivable change in the minimum wage would have any effect on unemployment levels. It instead concludes that changes within certain specified ranges have not, and should not be expected to, have significant effects on unemployment. (And, much of that academic literature reaching those conclusions is pointing to the actual results refuting earlier models which projected stronger responses.)

sp332 10y ago

If you're not making a living wage and you're not getting some form of welfare, then... yeah? I mean you might live as a homeless person for quite a while if you make enough for food but not rent.

ancap 10y ago
There are all sorts of living arrangements which don't include welfare, that are affordable and attainable for most everyone. That being said, if housing is not affordable for 99.999% of the population the most glaring culprit is not employers, but local government leaders who prevent the construction of affordable housing.

Symbiote 10y ago

A hip buzzword from the 1930s, or earlier? "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." — President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

ancap 10y ago
Being old does not preclude it from being a hip buzzword. At any rate, even if that wasn't the best adjective for it, the term "living wage" was just as nonsensical in 1933 as it is today.