4 ms·

What you’re saying totally makes sense from an intuitive sense. But how do we reconcile that with the ability for someone to be able to live on a certain wage,

by atonse 5y ago

What you’re saying totally makes sense from an intuitive sense. But how do we reconcile that with the ability for someone to be able to live on a certain wage, given there are only so many hours they can work? Yes the market value might be lower but their bills don’t get lower. I’m genuinely asking how we square those two.

wheels 5y ago
Squaring those things mostly involves deciding if there's moral value in work. If there is, you effectively create a subsidy for low-paid work by supplementing it via welfare or tax credits. If you don't believe that there's moral value in work, you accept that those jobs will of necessity be moved to lower-waged places on the planet, replaced by automation, or deemed to be not be viable (and probably end up providing living costs via the social safety net).
unpolloloco 5y ago
In one word: move. The living wage for a single adult in SF with no kids is $28/hour(1). That's not a realistic wage for someone in most unskilled jobs (which is why there's basically no manufacturing there and only the bare minimum of service jobs!). We should subsidize moving. The other point to make here is that labor constraints are largely a good thing right now. We went 50 years where the power balance was on the corporate side. Now that it's shifting, labor is finally seeing the benefits of increased productivity over that time. All it took was a global pandemic to push a few million boomers into finally retiring... (1) https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075
ghastmaster 5y ago
Define "live" Assuming it means plenty of food, shelter, healthcare, affordable children, and care for them. There is no reconciliation when it comes to minimum wage. Additionally, how do we define the expectations of a minimum wage salary when establishing it? What should the person be able to afford with the earnings? Everyone has a different answer to this question. Minimum wage will never be set high enough because human nature has us desire more. "Give a mouse a cookie..." Unskilled labor is typically for people who are first entering the market in their teenage years and have subsidized expenses by their parents. Everyone I've met in my life aside from some disabled people are capable of developing skills. Once The skill is developed and marketed they no longer need to depend on "minimum wage" earnings. For the sake of this conversation let us ignore disabilities. For a healthy person, working 80 hours in a week is completely feasible. 80x7.25=$2,320 a month(decent where I live). Many people choose to work this many hours and more for financial gain. Once they have done this for a short period of time, they can use their savings to pay for education that will give them skills. Savings is the key to success. Wages x hours worked - expenses = savings. Too much energy is focused on one part of that equation, considering the importantance of choices made by individuals regarding how many hours to work and what to spend savings on.

by atonse 5y ago

wheels 5y ago

Squaring those things mostly involves deciding if there's moral value in work. If there is, you effectively create a subsidy for low-paid work by supplementing it via welfare or tax credits. If you don't believe that there's moral value in work, you accept that those jobs will of necessity be moved to lower-waged places on the planet, replaced by automation, or deemed to be not be viable (and probably end up providing living costs via the social safety net).

unpolloloco 5y ago

In one word: move. The living wage for a single adult in SF with no kids is $28/hour(1). That's not a realistic wage for someone in most unskilled jobs (which is why there's basically no manufacturing there and only the bare minimum of service jobs!). We should subsidize moving. The other point to make here is that labor constraints are largely a good thing right now. We went 50 years where the power balance was on the corporate side. Now that it's shifting, labor is finally seeing the benefits of increased productivity over that time. All it took was a global pandemic to push a few million boomers into finally retiring... (1) https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075 https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075

ghastmaster 5y ago

Define "live" Assuming it means plenty of food, shelter, healthcare, affordable children, and care for them. There is no reconciliation when it comes to minimum wage. Additionally, how do we define the expectations of a minimum wage salary when establishing it? What should the person be able to afford with the earnings? Everyone has a different answer to this question. Minimum wage will never be set high enough because human nature has us desire more. "Give a mouse a cookie..." Unskilled labor is typically for people who are first entering the market in their teenage years and have subsidized expenses by their parents. Everyone I've met in my life aside from some disabled people are capable of developing skills. Once The skill is developed and marketed they no longer need to depend on "minimum wage" earnings. For the sake of this conversation let us ignore disabilities. For a healthy person, working 80 hours in a week is completely feasible. 80x7.25=$2,320 a month(decent where I live). Many people choose to work this many hours and more for financial gain. Once they have done this for a short period of time, they can use their savings to pay for education that will give them skills. Savings is the key to success. Wages x hours worked - expenses = savings. Too much energy is focused on one part of that equation, considering the importantance of choices made by individuals regarding how many hours to work and what to spend savings on.