7 ms·

This ivory tower definition of a "Living Wage" must be wrong if 60% of the people living in NY don't hit the standard. If the city was populated by 60% people w

This ivory tower definition of a "Living Wage" must be wrong if 60% of the people living in NY don't hit the standard. If the city was populated by 60% people who do not earn enough to live, there would be chaos. We should look at things from the other direction... what are people in the city actually earning? How are they living? What trade-offs did they make? Are they satisfied with their life? Which trade offs are they most unhappy about?

chadlavi 4y ago
Guess what pal, everyone's up to their eyeballs in debt and living check to check.
- mshake2 4y ago
  That's the intention. Suggesting that there is something wrong with that is implying that it is not designed to be that way. People barely struggling to stay afloat means the system is close to an optimized state. If people have any excesses, it means there's more fat to trim away.
  - DesiLurker 4y ago
    except for the folks at the top .001% who own everything, right? for them its just investment capital. you know the most disheartening thing I see in these discussions is that common people who are basically 'labor' to the core (maybe ahead of other labors by a bit) defending 'capital'. where its quite clear its a war between labor & capital and we are getting our ass handed to us in last 40 years.
- swarnie 4y ago
  No, most of us on this forum aren't. If anything i would assume we have a disproportionately high number of people totally unaffected by the last three years.
lucideer 4y ago
> a "Living Wage" > enough to live The term is capitalised because it has an actual defined meaning beyond the etymology derived from its component words. If you think everyone earning just enough to keep themselves physically alive is a sufficient standard to strive to for modern society, then I would question your ethics. The "living" in the term Living Wage is about being able to actually live a life, not just survive it. > We should look at things from the other direction... There is nothing about the Living Wage that precludes doing that: it's a quantitative metric to be accompanied by your qualitative suggestions, not to supplant them.
- dumpsterlid 4y ago
  facepalm yah like what kind of dystopia do we live in where people bring up the fact that workers in the US earn dirt for money and the response from other people is "yeah, but it must be enough because they aren't dead yet, so what is the problem?".
- cycrutchfield 4y ago
  Cynically, one might think the term “Living Wage” was selected to intentionally be confusing and result in drastic-sounding headlines like the above. Certainly they could have picked a much more descriptive name, but I suppose it wouldn’t have the emotional impact that this one apparently does.
  - lucideer 4y ago
    I consider myself pretty cynical but you seem to be reaching a new level here. What alternative term would you suggest?
    - CityOfThrowaway 4y ago
      "Wage Requisite for a Single Mother to Support an Entire Family with No Other Income Earners", which is a radically different benchmark than "living wage" which implies "for anybody, in all familial situations".
  - 4y ago
unglaublich 4y ago
[...] (T)he estimated living wage for a single adult with one child in New York County (Manhattan) is $43.18 [...] So you can 'live' below this if for example: - You work more than 40hr/week, have a second job - Have no children - Commute long distance
- austenallred 4y ago
  Or - Spend less on stuff than they assumed is necessary in a hand-wavy calculation
  - eatsyourtacos 4y ago
    Yeah like healthcare, emergency funds, basic entertainment, education, food that isn't going to ruin your body, the ability to take medical leave / time off so you don't burn yourself out. You know.. the hand-wavy stuff.
    - austenallred 4y ago
      The stuff isn’t hand-wavy, the number of “this is a living wage” is
PicassoCTs 4y ago
Lets not look at roman slavery as abhorrent, lets reframe it instead, as living organisms, getting a meal, having a roof and occasionally warmth in the winter. Suddenly, the nightmare is not so horrific anymore. And we should ask ourselves, how we can normalize a downfall like this even further. Maybe, this is what humanity always wanted all along. A boot to the face.
lumost 4y ago
As with all economic metrics, it's only relevant in context. If you define a living wage standard that others agree is useful - it's useful to understand what portion of your population fits this category. Alternately, it's useful to assess a static standard over time to see if equality problems are getting worse or better. Having seen both sides of this equation, It's increasingly unclear to me whether wealth inequality has crossed the takeoff threshold where outcomes no longer correlate with Merit. Observationally, I encounter many in high status fields who got their due to familial wealth + guidance on pathway. I worry that we are seeing more people who are wealthy because their parents were wealthy, potentially to the point where labor is no longer required beyond perception maintenance. Such an arrangement is fundamentally anti-productive to the economy. It removes capital from skilled individuals to support leisure. It reshapes the economy to support the leisurely whims of a few individuals. I don't think its a coincidence that as wages and inflation rose GDP growth rose. It's a reallocation of capital from unproductive sectors to productive sectors.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
> If the city was populated by 60% people who do not earn enough to live Earning enough to live is a fuzzy idea. I'm not satisfied unless I'm maxing multiple retirement accounts, have a year of saved income, insurance, etc. I think the figure is believable if you're fine with not saving, not having insurance, dodging taxes, etc. An alarming number of people are okay with this.
matbatt38 4y ago
Don't you think it is chaos already? I mean there's literally two murders a day and 100k homeless ppl
lr4444lr 4y ago
I haven't dug into the methodology, but for example, a lot of apartments in NYC are rent stabilized. There is universal preK. Many receive Medicaid. Also, did they check whether the household has a living wage or just each of its working age inhabitants? I'm not defending these mitigating factors as a good solution to people's money problems in NYC, but like you say, "living wage" is a fraught term that conjures up vague and charged imagery inappropriate for a rigorous analysis.
mminer237 4y ago
Looking at the calculator they're using[1], I spend probably 15% less than they say is a living wage for my city, even though I spend more on rent and food. In my case, transportation and healthcare are both estimated too high, and "Civic" and "Other" make up most of the difference. [1]: https://livingwage.mit.edu/ https://livingwage.mit.edu/
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  That calculator is way too optimistic for my area. My girlfriend makes the stated "living" wage, has 20% lower rent (for odd reasons), doesn't pay for a car, and STILL barely makes enough to keep going.

chadlavi 4y ago

Guess what pal, everyone's up to their eyeballs in debt and living check to check.

mshake2 4y ago
That's the intention. Suggesting that there is something wrong with that is implying that it is not designed to be that way. People barely struggling to stay afloat means the system is close to an optimized state. If people have any excesses, it means there's more fat to trim away.
- DesiLurker 4y ago
  except for the folks at the top .001% who own everything, right? for them its just investment capital. you know the most disheartening thing I see in these discussions is that common people who are basically 'labor' to the core (maybe ahead of other labors by a bit) defending 'capital'. where its quite clear its a war between labor & capital and we are getting our ass handed to us in last 40 years.
swarnie 4y ago
No, most of us on this forum aren't. If anything i would assume we have a disproportionately high number of people totally unaffected by the last three years.

lucideer 4y ago

> a "Living Wage" > enough to live The term is capitalised because it has an actual defined meaning beyond the etymology derived from its component words. If you think everyone earning just enough to keep themselves physically alive is a sufficient standard to strive to for modern society, then I would question your ethics. The "living" in the term Living Wage is about being able to actually live a life, not just survive it. > We should look at things from the other direction... There is nothing about the Living Wage that precludes doing that: it's a quantitative metric to be accompanied by your qualitative suggestions, not to supplant them.

dumpsterlid 4y ago
facepalm yah like what kind of dystopia do we live in where people bring up the fact that workers in the US earn dirt for money and the response from other people is "yeah, but it must be enough because they aren't dead yet, so what is the problem?".
cycrutchfield 4y ago
Cynically, one might think the term “Living Wage” was selected to intentionally be confusing and result in drastic-sounding headlines like the above. Certainly they could have picked a much more descriptive name, but I suppose it wouldn’t have the emotional impact that this one apparently does.
- lucideer 4y ago
  I consider myself pretty cynical but you seem to be reaching a new level here. What alternative term would you suggest?
  - CityOfThrowaway 4y ago
    "Wage Requisite for a Single Mother to Support an Entire Family with No Other Income Earners", which is a radically different benchmark than "living wage" which implies "for anybody, in all familial situations".
- 4y ago

unglaublich 4y ago

[...] (T)he estimated living wage for a single adult with one child in New York County (Manhattan) is $43.18 [...] So you can 'live' below this if for example: - You work more than 40hr/week, have a second job - Have no children - Commute long distance

austenallred 4y ago
Or - Spend less on stuff than they assumed is necessary in a hand-wavy calculation
- eatsyourtacos 4y ago
  Yeah like healthcare, emergency funds, basic entertainment, education, food that isn't going to ruin your body, the ability to take medical leave / time off so you don't burn yourself out. You know.. the hand-wavy stuff.
  - austenallred 4y ago
    The stuff isn’t hand-wavy, the number of “this is a living wage” is

PicassoCTs 4y ago

Lets not look at roman slavery as abhorrent, lets reframe it instead, as living organisms, getting a meal, having a roof and occasionally warmth in the winter. Suddenly, the nightmare is not so horrific anymore. And we should ask ourselves, how we can normalize a downfall like this even further. Maybe, this is what humanity always wanted all along. A boot to the face.

lumost 4y ago

As with all economic metrics, it's only relevant in context. If you define a living wage standard that others agree is useful - it's useful to understand what portion of your population fits this category. Alternately, it's useful to assess a static standard over time to see if equality problems are getting worse or better. Having seen both sides of this equation, It's increasingly unclear to me whether wealth inequality has crossed the takeoff threshold where outcomes no longer correlate with Merit. Observationally, I encounter many in high status fields who got their due to familial wealth + guidance on pathway. I worry that we are seeing more people who are wealthy because their parents were wealthy, potentially to the point where labor is no longer required beyond perception maintenance. Such an arrangement is fundamentally anti-productive to the economy. It removes capital from skilled individuals to support leisure. It reshapes the economy to support the leisurely whims of a few individuals. I don't think its a coincidence that as wages and inflation rose GDP growth rose. It's a reallocation of capital from unproductive sectors to productive sectors.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

> If the city was populated by 60% people who do not earn enough to live Earning enough to live is a fuzzy idea. I'm not satisfied unless I'm maxing multiple retirement accounts, have a year of saved income, insurance, etc. I think the figure is believable if you're fine with not saving, not having insurance, dodging taxes, etc. An alarming number of people are okay with this.

matbatt38 4y ago

Don't you think it is chaos already? I mean there's literally two murders a day and 100k homeless ppl

lr4444lr 4y ago

I haven't dug into the methodology, but for example, a lot of apartments in NYC are rent stabilized. There is universal preK. Many receive Medicaid. Also, did they check whether the household has a living wage or just each of its working age inhabitants? I'm not defending these mitigating factors as a good solution to people's money problems in NYC, but like you say, "living wage" is a fraught term that conjures up vague and charged imagery inappropriate for a rigorous analysis.

mminer237 4y ago

Looking at the calculator they're using[1], I spend probably 15% less than they say is a living wage for my city, even though I spend more on rent and food. In my case, transportation and healthcare are both estimated too high, and "Civic" and "Other" make up most of the difference. [1]: https://livingwage.mit.edu/ https://livingwage.mit.edu/

mrguyorama 4y ago
That calculator is way too optimistic for my area. My girlfriend makes the stated "living" wage, has 20% lower rent (for odd reasons), doesn't pay for a car, and STILL barely makes enough to keep going.