3 ms·

How would you measure that? "Enough to get by on" is very different in different situations (single, family, young, old, etc).

by edanm 9y ago

zwieback 9y ago
Economists usually use the (local) cost of a "basket of goods" to figure that out. What goes into the basket is a political choice, though.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  That would be income adjusted for PPP, similar to adjusted for inflation. Still not quite what the OP wants, I suspect. I think we means "how many people earn enough to live decently, but that's hard. I might be a 20 to student in Paris living on €1,200, consider myself fairly well off. House-sharing, couch surfing holidays, €1 drinks every Tuesday ..student living. A 40 yo might consider this a poverty income. "Getting by" generally seems objective enough at first glance (rent on basic accomodation, etc), but culture and expectations play a big role. Also expectations about the future and stuff. Basically , it's complicated. ..and outside the scope of an "measure," imo. I think it's more useful to construct a picture from several simpler, more objective sources. Add up "living costs" to get your "minimum decent living' and then see how many people/households/workers have that much income. It's never gonna be a real measure though, because "decent living" depends on circumstances.
- edanm 9y ago
  An answer to you and to most of the other comments in this thread: This isn't what I was getting at. Take for example university students. Their earning power is significantly smaller than more experienced people. They also tend to need a lot less money, because they're usually single, don't often have a mortgage, live in a small apartment or in their parent's house, etc. Many students work part-time in a restaurant or similar. For them, this will probably be a "livable wage", whether because their needs are smaller as discussed, or because they're relying to some extent on their parents. Take another person of the same age, but who has a family and no parents for support, and assume they earn the same. For them, this same wage is not livable. How would you statistically separate these cases? I'm not saying there isn't a way, I'm just wondering what it is!
dredmorbius 9y ago
Karl Marx: "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that one with another they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an ablebodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine." Oh, silly me, Adam Smith, again. Wealth of Nations. https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/Chapter_8 https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_... There's a further bit on socially-determined necessities, beginning at: "By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without...." https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_V/Chapter_2 https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_...
rhizome 9y ago
Savings rate?
falcolas 9y ago
Perhaps: Employed at less than 50 hours a week on average, and not on welfare or other government or private assistance. I'm certain there are some rather rich people who average over 50 hours a week, but its a starting point.

How would you measure that? "Enough to get by on" is very different in different situations (single, family, young, old, etc).

by edanm 9y ago

How would you measure that? "Enough to get by on" is very different in different situations (single, family, young, old, etc).

zwieback 9y ago

Economists usually use the (local) cost of a "basket of goods" to figure that out. What goes into the basket is a political choice, though.

dalbasal 9y ago
That would be income adjusted for PPP, similar to adjusted for inflation. Still not quite what the OP wants, I suspect. I think we means "how many people earn enough to live decently, but that's hard. I might be a 20 to student in Paris living on €1,200, consider myself fairly well off. House-sharing, couch surfing holidays, €1 drinks every Tuesday ..student living. A 40 yo might consider this a poverty income. "Getting by" generally seems objective enough at first glance (rent on basic accomodation, etc), but culture and expectations play a big role. Also expectations about the future and stuff. Basically , it's complicated. ..and outside the scope of an "measure," imo. I think it's more useful to construct a picture from several simpler, more objective sources. Add up "living costs" to get your "minimum decent living' and then see how many people/households/workers have that much income. It's never gonna be a real measure though, because "decent living" depends on circumstances.
edanm 9y ago
An answer to you and to most of the other comments in this thread: This isn't what I was getting at. Take for example university students. Their earning power is significantly smaller than more experienced people. They also tend to need a lot less money, because they're usually single, don't often have a mortgage, live in a small apartment or in their parent's house, etc. Many students work part-time in a restaurant or similar. For them, this will probably be a "livable wage", whether because their needs are smaller as discussed, or because they're relying to some extent on their parents. Take another person of the same age, but who has a family and no parents for support, and assume they earn the same. For them, this same wage is not livable. How would you statistically separate these cases? I'm not saying there isn't a way, I'm just wondering what it is!

dredmorbius 9y ago

Karl Marx: "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that one with another they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself. But one half the children born, it is computed, die before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an ablebodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above mentioned, or in any other, I shall not take upon me to determine." Oh, silly me, Adam Smith, again. Wealth of Nations. https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/Chapter_8 https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_... There's a further bit on socially-determined necessities, beginning at: "By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without...." https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_V/Chapter_2 https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_...

rhizome 9y ago

Savings rate?

falcolas 9y ago

Perhaps: Employed at less than 50 hours a week on average, and not on welfare or other government or private assistance. I'm certain there are some rather rich people who average over 50 hours a week, but its a starting point.