4 ms·
>Because of everything you state: it is unpleasant to have to think about how you'll feed and house yourself. But it does not require riches (in western living
by toomanydoubts 5y ago
>Because of everything you state: it is unpleasant to have to think about how you'll feed and house yourself. But it does not require riches (in western living context) to be able to stop worrying about that.
This is false. Let's look at at Brazil. The minimum wage is R$1212. According to DIEESE, the ideal minimum wage should be at least R$6000. This is a salary that would allow you not to worry about rent, food, recreation, education, transportation and overall a live a decent life.
If you are making R$6000, that puts you in the top 4% richest. Let that sink in, having a salary that allows you living with dignity means you're in the top 4%. Tell me again that riches are not required to live without worrying about food and housing.
Just for comparision, a senior software engineer in Brazil with 10+ years of experience is usually making something in between 8-15k/mo. That 15k/mo BRL salary is equivalent to 31k USD/year(assuming no taxes!).
I guess my point is that the USA does not fully represent the "western context", and people from first world countries usually have a very very skewed view on how life goes elsewhere.
- sokoloff 5y agoAlternative possibility: According to DIEESE, the ideal minimum wage should be higher than what 95% of people make today and therefore they’ve got something wrong in their logic or their priors. Their conclusion is not economically realistic.
- toomanydoubts 5y agoIf it's not economically realistic to pay people an actual living wage, then one could argue that there's something very broken with the economy.