4 ms·

The older I get the more I realize how fraught the idea of a "living wage" is. Through mid life, your financial health is not as determined by wages, but by yo

The older I get the more I realize how fraught the idea of a "living wage" is. Through mid life, your financial health is not as determined by wages, but by your family/connections. Do you have access to a grandmother who can babysit? A decent second-hand car? A good roommate situation? Just look at the expense table - any one of these things could be worth up to 20% of your income! And you see that literally right here - are any of us actually comfortable with the idea that the value of your labor should be determined by your marriage status and number of children? It's kind of telling that countries with "successful" minimum wages either don't have one and just institutionalize collective bargaining, or they do some fancy calculations that start with prevailing median wages and welfare eligibility. The idea of trying to get this number from the bottom up by building expenses just doesn't seem very robust.

usui 9mo ago
It needs to be because the US has leaned further into individualism relative to other countries. If society's golden metric of success means being able to acquire all of these luxuries or services purely through monetary means as transactional individuals, don't be too surprised when the expenses rack up.
- thewillowcat 9mo ago
  Just because the wider society encourages it, your family doesn't have to lean into individualism, and many don't. We got by when I was a kid with a lot of help from friends and family, when I am absolutely sure we didn't have a living wage under this definition.
  - zozbot234 9mo ago
    Did you fairly compensate your friends and family members for that "help"? Systematic reliance on wholly unpaid labor is not exactly something to be proud of.
    - brendoelfrendo 9mo ago
      Um, sometimes people help each other because they want to, or because they understand that those less fortunate than them need it, or because they understand that they may need help someday and so it doesn't make sense to make a big deal of "compensation" now. It's called community, and I think it is something to be proud of.
    - nomel 9mo ago
      I help my kids, but I don't expect them to help me. I want them to save their money to help their kids, otherwise I'm just taking from my grandkids. Same when I help my siblings. If they pay me back, now I'm taking away from my nieces and nephews. Within friends/family, I think it's completely reasonably if the money flows "downhill". This is the fundamental concept of the vast majority of taxes, including those that feed the poor/unemployed: that money is gone, somewhere between little and no personal return, but that usually makes sense, increasingly so with income.
- legitster 9mo ago
  I think it also reflects a lense of US academia. It kind of assumes a sanitized, formal, self-sufficient life, detached from others - and then assumes anything other than that is an aberration. It's kind of like the physics joke about assuming a spherical cow in a vacuum.
raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?” Should we index on a single person living alone? A teenager living with their parents? A single mom of three kids? A single mom with a single disabled kid? Private industry should concentrate on paying people their market wages. Government should tax industries and individuals and provide a safety net. Let me tell you from first hand experience what happens when unions get involved with manufacturing industries where they can pick up and go elsewhere - they do. Growing up, the city I lived in had 5 factories - all but one left because of fights with unions. Where I use to live in the burbs of Atlanta, according to the website, the living wage is $45 an hour. Should we have a minimum wage there of $45 an hour?
- harshalizee 9mo ago
  What happens when private industry colludes to decide what "market" wages are? This has literally happened even in Big Tech, leading to lawsuits within the last decade. If a business can't pay a person working full time to satisfy their basic needs, their business model is not viable. If they can and don't pay so, it's plain exploitation. Ex. Walmart employees can't support themselves and rely on social services despite having a full time job.
  - raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
    Do you feel the same way about all of the companies that are not profitable and only are in business because they have a website with “.ai” and they can get funding from YC? While the first generation American has to scrounge up for a franchise that only nets $70K a year?
    - harshalizee 9mo ago
      That's comparing Apples to tortoises. If an investor wants to invest/gamble on a startup, it's their prerogative. Same as if Bob's uncle wants to give him a small loan to buy into a franchise. I still expect both of them to pay rightful living wages to their employees. Owner's business problems are not the employees problem

usui 9mo ago

It needs to be because the US has leaned further into individualism relative to other countries. If society's golden metric of success means being able to acquire all of these luxuries or services purely through monetary means as transactional individuals, don't be too surprised when the expenses rack up.

thewillowcat 9mo ago
Just because the wider society encourages it, your family doesn't have to lean into individualism, and many don't. We got by when I was a kid with a lot of help from friends and family, when I am absolutely sure we didn't have a living wage under this definition.
- zozbot234 9mo ago
  Did you fairly compensate your friends and family members for that "help"? Systematic reliance on wholly unpaid labor is not exactly something to be proud of.
  - brendoelfrendo 9mo ago
    Um, sometimes people help each other because they want to, or because they understand that those less fortunate than them need it, or because they understand that they may need help someday and so it doesn't make sense to make a big deal of "compensation" now. It's called community, and I think it is something to be proud of.
  - nomel 9mo ago
    I help my kids, but I don't expect them to help me. I want them to save their money to help their kids, otherwise I'm just taking from my grandkids. Same when I help my siblings. If they pay me back, now I'm taking away from my nieces and nephews. Within friends/family, I think it's completely reasonably if the money flows "downhill". This is the fundamental concept of the vast majority of taxes, including those that feed the poor/unemployed: that money is gone, somewhere between little and no personal return, but that usually makes sense, increasingly so with income.
legitster 9mo ago
I think it also reflects a lense of US academia. It kind of assumes a sanitized, formal, self-sufficient life, detached from others - and then assumes anything other than that is an aberration. It's kind of like the physics joke about assuming a spherical cow in a vacuum.

raw_anon_1111 9mo ago

Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?” Should we index on a single person living alone? A teenager living with their parents? A single mom of three kids? A single mom with a single disabled kid? Private industry should concentrate on paying people their market wages. Government should tax industries and individuals and provide a safety net. Let me tell you from first hand experience what happens when unions get involved with manufacturing industries where they can pick up and go elsewhere - they do. Growing up, the city I lived in had 5 factories - all but one left because of fights with unions. Where I use to live in the burbs of Atlanta, according to the website, the living wage is $45 an hour. Should we have a minimum wage there of $45 an hour?

harshalizee 9mo ago
What happens when private industry colludes to decide what "market" wages are? This has literally happened even in Big Tech, leading to lawsuits within the last decade. If a business can't pay a person working full time to satisfy their basic needs, their business model is not viable. If they can and don't pay so, it's plain exploitation. Ex. Walmart employees can't support themselves and rely on social services despite having a full time job.
- raw_anon_1111 9mo ago
  Do you feel the same way about all of the companies that are not profitable and only are in business because they have a website with “.ai” and they can get funding from YC? While the first generation American has to scrounge up for a franchise that only nets $70K a year?
  - harshalizee 9mo ago
    That's comparing Apples to tortoises. If an investor wants to invest/gamble on a startup, it's their prerogative. Same as if Bob's uncle wants to give him a small loan to buy into a franchise. I still expect both of them to pay rightful living wages to their employees. Owner's business problems are not the employees problem