7 ms·

> 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

> 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".
- dahart 4y ago
  Why be cynical and jump to negative conclusions when you can look it up? “Living Wage” was designed to be a term that helps people understand that the legal “minimum wage” is not enough for people to reasonably live on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage Given the goal, the name seems pretty descriptive, so what term would be much more descriptive? It’s fair to say this framing has an emotional component. This is perhaps a reaction to the calculatedly emotion-free arguments being used to keep the minimum wage so low that people are going hungry and homeless at increasing rates.
  - CityOfThrowaway 4y ago
    The point here is that if 60% of people are living at or below the wage level that the definition implies is not livable, then it is the definition that is wrong.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mahogany 4y ago
      Personally, I don't think the definition is wrong, or even misleading. "Living" doesn't always literally mean "to be alive". For example, the idiom "make a living" refers to making enough to keep a decent lifestyle (pay for food, rent, clothing, etc)[1]. I think most people would agree that if you have no income and you live on the street, then you are not making a living, yet you are still living. Similarly, "living" in "living wage" refers to a standard of living that is deemed decent or acceptable by some measure -- of course this will depend on some subjective determination and that can be debated. But it does not mean literally to be alive (otherwise, the living wage would obviously be $0). [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/make%20a%20living https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/make%20a%20living
    - dahart 4y ago
      This is a logical error on your part and/or misunderstanding of the term. “Living Wage” is a suggested approximate threshold recommendation based on an average approximate estimate of living expenses in the region. It is not some value calculated to be that which 100% of living people are achieving. It is not defined as the line above which you’re guaranteed that your life is livable, and it is not defined to mean that if you make less your life is not livable. It is an average, and the line is intentionally drawn to be conservative in the sense that it should work for someone without extra support or being required to cohabitate. Obviously different people have different levels of support, different living standards, different amounts of sharing. It can and does actually occur all over the world that people make less than a living wage, and still manage to live. They’re very poor, and most are unable to escape being poor, but living. They are below a living wage, but that doesn’t make them the contradiction, it is the reality of poverty - the reality is that many people really are living on means below what economists consider a minimum acceptable level.
- idontpost 4y ago
  [dead]
nemo44x 4y ago
> The "living" in the term Living Wage is about being about to actually live a life, not just survive it. A bit dramatic? We are well last the survival aspect of living standards. No one is out in the weeds living off the land and wildlife and building shelters unless they absolutely want to. There is ample food for anyone that wants it and shelter abounds. There’s a lot of help if you not able to do it on your own. But after that it’s up to you. The government isn’t going to manage your life. You need to be an active participant in your own life.
School-Cotton 4y ago
> The term is capitalised because it has an actual defined meaning beyond the etymology What is the definition?
- lucideer 4y ago
  It's defined in the New York City Administrative Code: it's linked annually to the Consumer Price Index from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. MIT have published a breakdown of it here that isn't written in the legalese of the Admin Code: https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/36 https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/36
  - evandijk70 4y ago
    4k for transportation seems like a lot for a single adult in New York.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      It's certainly a lot if you commute by public transit, which costs $2.75 each way.
      - selimthegrim 4y ago
        See also my remark up thread about dollar vans
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      This is New York State data, not NYC data, which necessitates usage of a car. Insurance, tolls, taxes, depreciation, fuel, maintenance can easily add up to $4k per year.
    - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
      RTFM: https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide-Technical-Documentation-2022-05-10.pdf https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide...
legitster 4y ago
I think to OP's point though, it's hard to construct a "Living Wage" that does not include some imposition of white, Western morality. "This is the minimum ethical standard, as determined by middle-class researchers." If you look at the methodology, they will often include things like owning your own car, a private living space, private food consumption, etc. A pertinent example is if you are from a culture that doesn't cherish individuality so much, you may be perfectly happy to put up with a shared/used car, roommates, communal cooking, etc. Which explains why we might consider wages "sub-living", but people still come from around the world and still thrive on them.
- lucideer 4y ago
  > some imposition of white, Western morality While I totally agree that imposition of white, Western morality is commonplace, applying it to the idea of economic autonomy is somewhat obscene - autonomy is universal, not culturally specific. > as determined by middle-class researchers This is a somewhat hilariously (and depressingly) circular critique given the economic barriers to entry in US education. How can the researchers be anything but middle-class if we can't even agree people should earn enough to go to / send their kids to college. > often include things like owning your own car, a private living space, private food consumption, etc. This tends to reflect local infrastructure and available amenities - which, yes, are likely governed by white Westerners, but that isn't a commentary on people needing a car for individual reasons. If the public transport is poor & my economic circumstances force me to do things I need a car to access (childcare, healthcare, work commutes), then private car ownership becomes less a cultural choice and more a local white-Western-imposed necessity. > if you are from a culture that doesn't cherish individuality so much This is the most ridiculous part - bringing up individuality here is so odd, when the whole resistance to mutual support provided by regulated living wages is about individualistic ideals of "everyone fending for themselves". > people still come from around the world and still thrive on them Citation needed. Sure, you will always find some individual who'll claim that they're "thriving", particularly if they were also subsisting in their country of origin (NY isn't the only place where people are struggling - out of the frying pan, etc.), but stating this is universally the case is obvious nonsense. Keeping in mind many such folk send income home, making their overall needs even greater.
PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> 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. And what are your ethics? And why are you so sure you've got them right? If people are living so poorly in New York, they are free to leave, and yet they choose to stay there. There is no "human right" to live in New York. I certainly don't want to live there, and cost of living is only one of many reasons. Most importantly, it is certainly neither compassionate, nor wise, nor good, to subsidize people living there with other people's money, or, even worse, money we have to print from scratch or borrow from others, further driving inflation and national debt, which consequences affect the future and security of everyone. Stop and consider that you may not be the compassionate hero you think you are. The great swindle of our times is to convince people to do very bad things in the name of empathy or compassion, all the while allowing them to feel good about themselves.
- lucideer 4y ago
  > it is certainly neither compassionate, nor wise, nor good, to subsidize people living there with other people's money If you genuinely believe this to be true, then I think we can be sure my ethics are not aligned with yours. Do you pay taxes? If you do, are you one of these folk that believes your contributions should only be spent on amenities for you to avail of, personally? God forbid any cent of what you "earn" should ever have any communal benefit for any of the other beings you share the planet with.
  - mantas 4y ago
    Should people low-cost-of-life areas pay taxes to subsidise people in high-cost-of-life areas? If one area gets stupidly expensive to live at, maybe people should get their affairs in order accordingly?
  - Pigalowda 4y ago
    Your ethics are weak! The ethical thing to do is take tax dollars from NYC and judiciously use these scarce resources to help even poorer populations elsewhere. Are you one of those people that think your tax dollars should only be spent where you are locally?

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".
dahart 4y ago
Why be cynical and jump to negative conclusions when you can look it up? “Living Wage” was designed to be a term that helps people understand that the legal “minimum wage” is not enough for people to reasonably live on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage Given the goal, the name seems pretty descriptive, so what term would be much more descriptive? It’s fair to say this framing has an emotional component. This is perhaps a reaction to the calculatedly emotion-free arguments being used to keep the minimum wage so low that people are going hungry and homeless at increasing rates.
- CityOfThrowaway 4y ago
  The point here is that if 60% of people are living at or below the wage level that the definition implies is not livable, then it is the definition that is wrong.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - mahogany 4y ago
    Personally, I don't think the definition is wrong, or even misleading. "Living" doesn't always literally mean "to be alive". For example, the idiom "make a living" refers to making enough to keep a decent lifestyle (pay for food, rent, clothing, etc)[1]. I think most people would agree that if you have no income and you live on the street, then you are not making a living, yet you are still living. Similarly, "living" in "living wage" refers to a standard of living that is deemed decent or acceptable by some measure -- of course this will depend on some subjective determination and that can be debated. But it does not mean literally to be alive (otherwise, the living wage would obviously be $0). [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/make%20a%20living https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/make%20a%20living
  - dahart 4y ago
    This is a logical error on your part and/or misunderstanding of the term. “Living Wage” is a suggested approximate threshold recommendation based on an average approximate estimate of living expenses in the region. It is not some value calculated to be that which 100% of living people are achieving. It is not defined as the line above which you’re guaranteed that your life is livable, and it is not defined to mean that if you make less your life is not livable. It is an average, and the line is intentionally drawn to be conservative in the sense that it should work for someone without extra support or being required to cohabitate. Obviously different people have different levels of support, different living standards, different amounts of sharing. It can and does actually occur all over the world that people make less than a living wage, and still manage to live. They’re very poor, and most are unable to escape being poor, but living. They are below a living wage, but that doesn’t make them the contradiction, it is the reality of poverty - the reality is that many people really are living on means below what economists consider a minimum acceptable level.
idontpost 4y ago
[dead]

nemo44x 4y ago

> The "living" in the term Living Wage is about being about to actually live a life, not just survive it. A bit dramatic? We are well last the survival aspect of living standards. No one is out in the weeds living off the land and wildlife and building shelters unless they absolutely want to. There is ample food for anyone that wants it and shelter abounds. There’s a lot of help if you not able to do it on your own. But after that it’s up to you. The government isn’t going to manage your life. You need to be an active participant in your own life.

School-Cotton 4y ago

> The term is capitalised because it has an actual defined meaning beyond the etymology What is the definition?

lucideer 4y ago
It's defined in the New York City Administrative Code: it's linked annually to the Consumer Price Index from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. MIT have published a breakdown of it here that isn't written in the legalese of the Admin Code: https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/36 https://livingwage.mit.edu/states/36
- evandijk70 4y ago
  4k for transportation seems like a lot for a single adult in New York.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    It's certainly a lot if you commute by public transit, which costs $2.75 each way.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      See also my remark up thread about dollar vans
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    This is New York State data, not NYC data, which necessitates usage of a car. Insurance, tolls, taxes, depreciation, fuel, maintenance can easily add up to $4k per year.
  - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
    RTFM: https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide-Technical-Documentation-2022-05-10.pdf https://livingwage.mit.edu/resources/Living-Wage-Users-Guide...

legitster 4y ago

I think to OP's point though, it's hard to construct a "Living Wage" that does not include some imposition of white, Western morality. "This is the minimum ethical standard, as determined by middle-class researchers." If you look at the methodology, they will often include things like owning your own car, a private living space, private food consumption, etc. A pertinent example is if you are from a culture that doesn't cherish individuality so much, you may be perfectly happy to put up with a shared/used car, roommates, communal cooking, etc. Which explains why we might consider wages "sub-living", but people still come from around the world and still thrive on them.

lucideer 4y ago
> some imposition of white, Western morality While I totally agree that imposition of white, Western morality is commonplace, applying it to the idea of economic autonomy is somewhat obscene - autonomy is universal, not culturally specific. > as determined by middle-class researchers This is a somewhat hilariously (and depressingly) circular critique given the economic barriers to entry in US education. How can the researchers be anything but middle-class if we can't even agree people should earn enough to go to / send their kids to college. > often include things like owning your own car, a private living space, private food consumption, etc. This tends to reflect local infrastructure and available amenities - which, yes, are likely governed by white Westerners, but that isn't a commentary on people needing a car for individual reasons. If the public transport is poor & my economic circumstances force me to do things I need a car to access (childcare, healthcare, work commutes), then private car ownership becomes less a cultural choice and more a local white-Western-imposed necessity. > if you are from a culture that doesn't cherish individuality so much This is the most ridiculous part - bringing up individuality here is so odd, when the whole resistance to mutual support provided by regulated living wages is about individualistic ideals of "everyone fending for themselves". > people still come from around the world and still thrive on them Citation needed. Sure, you will always find some individual who'll claim that they're "thriving", particularly if they were also subsisting in their country of origin (NY isn't the only place where people are struggling - out of the frying pan, etc.), but stating this is universally the case is obvious nonsense. Keeping in mind many such folk send income home, making their overall needs even greater.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

> 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. And what are your ethics? And why are you so sure you've got them right? If people are living so poorly in New York, they are free to leave, and yet they choose to stay there. There is no "human right" to live in New York. I certainly don't want to live there, and cost of living is only one of many reasons. Most importantly, it is certainly neither compassionate, nor wise, nor good, to subsidize people living there with other people's money, or, even worse, money we have to print from scratch or borrow from others, further driving inflation and national debt, which consequences affect the future and security of everyone. Stop and consider that you may not be the compassionate hero you think you are. The great swindle of our times is to convince people to do very bad things in the name of empathy or compassion, all the while allowing them to feel good about themselves.

lucideer 4y ago
> it is certainly neither compassionate, nor wise, nor good, to subsidize people living there with other people's money If you genuinely believe this to be true, then I think we can be sure my ethics are not aligned with yours. Do you pay taxes? If you do, are you one of these folk that believes your contributions should only be spent on amenities for you to avail of, personally? God forbid any cent of what you "earn" should ever have any communal benefit for any of the other beings you share the planet with.
- mantas 4y ago
  Should people low-cost-of-life areas pay taxes to subsidise people in high-cost-of-life areas? If one area gets stupidly expensive to live at, maybe people should get their affairs in order accordingly?
- Pigalowda 4y ago
  Your ethics are weak! The ethical thing to do is take tax dollars from NYC and judiciously use these scarce resources to help even poorer populations elsewhere. Are you one of those people that think your tax dollars should only be spent where you are locally?