5 ms·

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

by abduhl 2y ago

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.
        robtherobber 2y ago
        We let businesses exist for one reason, so people can actually live (and I say let, because it is society - that is, its individuals - that has a put a system in place whereby such entities can exist and do what they do). If a job doesn't pay enough for that, the business isn't worth keeping around from the society's point of view. Workers should be paid decently, no matter what — profits or no profits. If an industry or company can't afford to pay fair wages, it’s not worth having, plain and simple. On top of fair pay, companies owe their employees more. Businesses don't exist in a vacuum—they're tools we use to make life better for everyone. The entire economy is just a system we built to serve people, not the other way around. Right now, companies often act like mini-dictatorships, where the tradeoff — giving up freedoms in exchange for money — ends up hurting society even if it props up the economy. In short: if a company isn't contributing positively, it's failing at its purpose and should either disappear, or forced to fulfill its role.
- drawfloat 2y ago
  Right, but we're talking about Amazon who make billions annually not "lots of companies".
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    So 6 weeks of vacation, then?
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

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

by 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.
        robtherobber 2y ago
        We let businesses exist for one reason, so people can actually live (and I say let, because it is society - that is, its individuals - that has a put a system in place whereby such entities can exist and do what they do). If a job doesn't pay enough for that, the business isn't worth keeping around from the society's point of view. Workers should be paid decently, no matter what — profits or no profits. If an industry or company can't afford to pay fair wages, it’s not worth having, plain and simple. On top of fair pay, companies owe their employees more. Businesses don't exist in a vacuum—they're tools we use to make life better for everyone. The entire economy is just a system we built to serve people, not the other way around. Right now, companies often act like mini-dictatorships, where the tradeoff — giving up freedoms in exchange for money — ends up hurting society even if it props up the economy. In short: if a company isn't contributing positively, it's failing at its purpose and should either disappear, or forced to fulfill its role.
drawfloat 2y ago
Right, but we're talking about Amazon who make billions annually not "lots of companies".
- ssl-3 2y ago
  So 6 weeks of vacation, then?

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