5 ms·

Minimum wage != Livable wage I don't think it's worth considering the comparison. But sure, maybe working at a distribution center pays well enough where you'

Minimum wage != Livable wage I don't think it's worth considering the comparison. But sure, maybe working at a distribution center pays well enough where you're located. Likely that's not the case where these strikes are happening. It's expensive out there. Also, what you wrote gives the impression of "I've got mine already so I don't care what happens to you."

abduhl 2y ago
Define what a livable wage is then. Is it $25/hr? $50/hr? $100/hr?
- mbauman 2y ago
  $20/hr fulltime is ~40k/yr or ~$3300/mo. As just one benchmark: can you find housing in your area for $1100/mo?
- philipov 2y ago
  To start with, any definition that ends with a constant number is wrong. The living wage in an area depends on the cost of living in that area. I don't have that number on hand, but I expect it to be included in any discussion of what people should get payed. After that, we need to ask how much profit a person should be allowed to make on their labor.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
    Okay everyone recognizes this is true. Please share a reasonable number for a medium COL city, ballpark.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  Healthcare, decent sized apartment, 5 weeks of paid vacation, free or easily affordable pre school, overtime pay, decent schools and free college, is a good start. Then some left over on top after essentials so you aren't living paycheck to paycheck.
  - aio2 2y ago
    Yea no. I understand the sentiment and agree with it, but not exactly feasible for a lot of companies, especially for the type of job they offer
    - Hikikomori 2y ago
      So you acknowledge that the job should be done but the people doing it deserve to live in squalor even though they work a full time job. Just for corporate profit and your convenience. Just so you know, all things I listed are things most people in Western Europe already have. Including employees of Amazon and McDonald's.
      - aio2 2y ago
        Here's my perspective. Not exactly related, but I hope you understand how I think: If I am a small shipping company, and all I need is someone to wrap boxes and store them, and the load isn't much, then should I be paying them full time for the job? Heck, should I pay them a living wage? No. I pay them the value of the job. Obviously, we need a certain minimum wage because nobody deserves to get scammed and make 10 cents a day, but at the same time, this push for all these benefits isn't realistic. I wish it was, but it isn't. Obviously, my example is different from Amazon, but this is more a business owner perspective.
        int_19h 2y ago
        If they are working for you full time, but you aren't paying them living wage, how exactly are they supposed to make ends meet?
        aio2 2y ago
        I don't know, but I think it is unfair to put all responsibility onto the business owner. In theory, a job is an agreement where you work for someone, and they pay you. Certain benefits may be required depending on circumstances, but making companies provide so many benefits is not a fair option. Keep in mind, I'm not opposed to companies providing benefits, but I think regulating this would create more trouble than good.
- greesil 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - abduhl 2y ago
    No. Guess we're at an impasse on this topic.
    - greesil 2y ago
      I find it funny that people are trying so hard to explain something to someone who really just wants an argument.
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  It’s not like this is an unstudied concept. Here is one calculator: https://livingwage.mit.edu/pages/methodology https://livingwage.mit.edu/pages/methodology
SoftTalker 2y ago
Everyone deserves the opportunity to earn a livable income, but not all jobs can or should be paying a "living wage." Some jobs by their nature are part time and some people only want to work part time.
- greesil 2y ago
  Uh sure. Then why are they striking? I honestly don't know.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    Some large number of them have been "agitated". You can't acknowledge that propaganda exists which is capable of manipulating people into doing things they wouldn't do on their own (or that they shouldn't do), and then say that the left does not create that sort of propaganda. They're striking not for better wages, but so that some local or state politician wins an election in 2026.
    - EarlKing 2y ago
      Yeah, they're being agitated alright... by horrible working conditions, declining real wages, and the people who apologize for it and pretend they're all bots or something rather than real people with real interests that are every bit as deserving of respect as some corpo's bottom line. Anyone thinking this is a one time thing and is going to blow over hasn't been paying attention.
- sumOne00 2y ago
  Negative. All jobs should be paying liveable wages. One off type of jobs for 'this and that' sure, but showing up every day and expectation for deliverables or being on time? Absolutely, pay a liveable wage. Too many Ferrari, BMW, new speed boat from the PPP loans greed to show that employees mean nothing. All jobs deserve liveable wages. We should be advocating for a more peaceful society.
- bangaloredud 2y ago
  [flagged]

abduhl 2y ago

Define what a livable wage is then. Is it $25/hr? $50/hr? $100/hr?

mbauman 2y ago
$20/hr fulltime is ~40k/yr or ~$3300/mo. As just one benchmark: can you find housing in your area for $1100/mo?
philipov 2y ago
To start with, any definition that ends with a constant number is wrong. The living wage in an area depends on the cost of living in that area. I don't have that number on hand, but I expect it to be included in any discussion of what people should get payed. After that, we need to ask how much profit a person should be allowed to make on their labor.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- DiggyJohnson 2y ago
  Okay everyone recognizes this is true. Please share a reasonable number for a medium COL city, ballpark.
Hikikomori 2y ago
Healthcare, decent sized apartment, 5 weeks of paid vacation, free or easily affordable pre school, overtime pay, decent schools and free college, is a good start. Then some left over on top after essentials so you aren't living paycheck to paycheck.
- aio2 2y ago
  Yea no. I understand the sentiment and agree with it, but not exactly feasible for a lot of companies, especially for the type of job they offer
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    So you acknowledge that the job should be done but the people doing it deserve to live in squalor even though they work a full time job. Just for corporate profit and your convenience. Just so you know, all things I listed are things most people in Western Europe already have. Including employees of Amazon and McDonald's.
    - aio2 2y ago
      Here's my perspective. Not exactly related, but I hope you understand how I think: If I am a small shipping company, and all I need is someone to wrap boxes and store them, and the load isn't much, then should I be paying them full time for the job? Heck, should I pay them a living wage? No. I pay them the value of the job. Obviously, we need a certain minimum wage because nobody deserves to get scammed and make 10 cents a day, but at the same time, this push for all these benefits isn't realistic. I wish it was, but it isn't. Obviously, my example is different from Amazon, but this is more a business owner perspective.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        If they are working for you full time, but you aren't paying them living wage, how exactly are they supposed to make ends meet?
        aio2 2y ago
        I don't know, but I think it is unfair to put all responsibility onto the business owner. In theory, a job is an agreement where you work for someone, and they pay you. Certain benefits may be required depending on circumstances, but making companies provide so many benefits is not a fair option. Keep in mind, I'm not opposed to companies providing benefits, but I think regulating this would create more trouble than good.
greesil 2y ago
[flagged]
- abduhl 2y ago
  No. Guess we're at an impasse on this topic.
  - greesil 2y ago
    I find it funny that people are trying so hard to explain something to someone who really just wants an argument.
kasey_junk 2y ago
It’s not like this is an unstudied concept. Here is one calculator: https://livingwage.mit.edu/pages/methodology https://livingwage.mit.edu/pages/methodology

SoftTalker 2y ago

Everyone deserves the opportunity to earn a livable income, but not all jobs can or should be paying a "living wage." Some jobs by their nature are part time and some people only want to work part time.

greesil 2y ago
Uh sure. Then why are they striking? I honestly don't know.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  Some large number of them have been "agitated". You can't acknowledge that propaganda exists which is capable of manipulating people into doing things they wouldn't do on their own (or that they shouldn't do), and then say that the left does not create that sort of propaganda. They're striking not for better wages, but so that some local or state politician wins an election in 2026.
  - EarlKing 2y ago
    Yeah, they're being agitated alright... by horrible working conditions, declining real wages, and the people who apologize for it and pretend they're all bots or something rather than real people with real interests that are every bit as deserving of respect as some corpo's bottom line. Anyone thinking this is a one time thing and is going to blow over hasn't been paying attention.
sumOne00 2y ago
Negative. All jobs should be paying liveable wages. One off type of jobs for 'this and that' sure, but showing up every day and expectation for deliverables or being on time? Absolutely, pay a liveable wage. Too many Ferrari, BMW, new speed boat from the PPP loans greed to show that employees mean nothing. All jobs deserve liveable wages. We should be advocating for a more peaceful society.
bangaloredud 2y ago
[flagged]