3 ms·

Cynically, one might think the term “Living Wage” was selected to intentionally be confusing and result in drastic-sounding headlines like the above. Certainly

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]

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]