Define "Fair Wage"

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A fair wage equals a living wage. If you can't support yourself when working full time then your not being treated fairly.

You make no sense. Treated fairly by whom? So if I'm an artist, for example, but a really bad one, society is not treating me fairly by not buying my lousy paintings? But if I'm working a 40+ hour week, putting real sweat into my lousy art, don't I deserve a livable wage?!? Where's the justice?!? :roll:

This is why I haven't voted for a democrat since Dukakis; lefties feel (a good thing), but don't think (a very bad thing).

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A fair wage equals a living wage. If you can't support yourself when working full time then your not being treated fairly.

If the business in question can't afford to pay that wage then they should close up and the manangment can go to work for someone else. That's the way "free markets" work, right??

Anything other then that is not free or fair.

But if they close up shop, the employees go from making $6/hr to $0/hr. How does that help their cause? Is it better to make no money than a paltry amount?

True, but I don't think that takes into account the big picture. In the quest to be the lowest cost provider many businesses have lost any feeling of responsibility towards their employees and the goverment is aiding and abetting them in that pursuit.

Busninesses can try and justify what is fair but if they have full time employees who are working two or even three jobs to get by then I think someday there will be a backlash and if that business has to close, I say tough tittie to them.

 

[Genx87]

Fair Wage: Wage paid that has been negotiated between the employer and employee.
Things that can influence said wage are the current market for that type of work, location, hours, or benefits.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A fair wage equals a living wage. If you can't support yourself when working full time then your not being treated fairly.

You make no sense. Treated fairly by whom? So if I'm an artist, for example, but a really bad one, society is not treating me fairly by not buying my lousy paintings? But if I'm working a 40+ hour week, putting real sweat into my lousy art, don't I deserve a livable wage?!? Where's the justice?!? :roll:

This is why I haven't voted for a democrat since Dukakis; lefties feel (a good thing), but don't think (a very bad thing).

Starving artists are all over the place. Of course, I've never met one.

I do know a lot of people who work full time, their wives work full time and they are barely surviving. If something happens to even one of them, even something fairly minor they are screwed.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A fair wage equals a living wage. If you can't support yourself when working full time then your not being treated fairly.

I think you are ignoring the fact that nobody forces anybody to work in a position where they don't feel they can support themselves.

And I think the whole system is set up to do exactly that.

Huh?

Perhaps the first thing a person should do if they feel they can't support their current lifestyle is to look at changing their lifestyle, not crying that they aren't making enough money.

 

[dullard]

To me, a fair wage is the wage that someone working full time can afford for one person:
[*] minimal shelter in that area (at least enough to keep the rain out and don't freeze to death in the winter, and no major health violations).
[*] minimal food (at least enough so the worker's productivity doesn't get harmed by the constant hunger pains),
[*] minimal clothing,
[*] minimal transportation to/from work (if the minimal housing is 20+ miles from work, one cannot expect the worker to walk every day),
[*] all this without needing to rely on government/charitable handouts.

I believe all full-time jobs should pay at least enough for those four categories. If someone wants any luxuries, or beyond minimal levels of those categories, that person must find another job or work more than full time. Obviously the costs will vary from location to location, so the fair wage will vary from location to location.

I would tend to agree with glenn1, except that history has shown otherwise. Workers in the past were charged to work, charged more than the work paid, and thus the more they worked the more debt they aquired. Workers became slaves to the employeer and faced one of two choices, (a) work for life for that employer submitting to whatever whims that employer had or (b) debtors prison. In this case, the worker no longer has freedoms to find a better paying job, and the "agreement" between employer and employee should not be legally binding since the employee was under duress.



Hmm, I just noticed I passed 10,000 posts sometime yesterday or today. 10,007 is a nice looking number. Maybe I should take today off of posting.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A fair wage equals a living wage. If you can't support yourself when working full time then your not being treated fairly.

I think you are ignoring the fact that nobody forces anybody to work in a position where they don't feel they can support themselves.

And I think the whole system is set up to do exactly that.

Huh?

Perhaps the first thing a person should do if they feel they can't support their current lifestyle is to look at changing their lifestyle, not crying that they aren't making enough money.

I've been around a couple of these arguments before. I see you are from Georgia. I'm from a very rural area and things just don't work the same here. Heck, my son has a friend who copuldn't stay out of trouble long enough to graduate high school. He moved to Atlanta and is making a real good living there selling used cars. If he still lived here he'd be working 10 to 12 hours a day in the jerky factory for $8/hr.

It just amazes me to no end that a business that can't afford to pay thier help more then $8/hr needs to work them 50 to 60 hours a week.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: glenn1
Any wage agreed to by an employer and employee absent coercion or misrepresentation is a fair wage. Anyone who says otherwise is simply trying to impose their judgement over that of the two parties actually involved.

So every profession and job is fair wage in today's marketplace?

Yes. Employees make their employers money, therefore it's a good investment for an employer. That's how I justify athletes making so much money.

The problem is there's really nothing 'unfair' on the high end - if you are worth paying X dollars, then you are - you're perfectly free to leave, and an employer is perfectly free to stop paying you.

Athletes aren't the greatest example, because despite high pay, they are still indentured labour, and there is no free market for their services in most cases, due to salary caps, restricted free agency, etc. Since most sports have only one real 'major' league, that league can engage in anti-competitive practices, and often has public support against 'greedy' athletes. Why aren't owners considered greedy for trying to usurp the productivity of their employees beyond normal business investment (you wouldn't ay someone $1million for a net profit of less than maybe $50k a year because it would be a bad investment; given the riskiness of athletes WRT injury, performance, etc, this ration is probably much higher for athlete pay).

On the low end though, people need to eat; therefore you aren't operating in a true 'free market' until anyone working at a job can afford to eat clothe themself and have a place to live. One solution to this is minimum income support from government, which I find to be much more restrictive and damaging than labour laws, though they do in fact 'work'.

The ideal for me is the least restrictive way to make sure that anyone willing to work can afford to live, while providing the maximum opportunity to do better if you are capable of doing so. I think the European model is too damaging to overall productivity, while the North American model leaves too many working poor, but I don't know what the real solution might be.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Wages can be anything people agree on but the cost of goods should vary depending on how much you earn. People who do not want to work for wages should be fed clothed and housed at government expense in exchange for labor that grows, prepares, or serves the food; makes or distributes the clothes; or builds or maintains the housing.

People who work for wages can have their wages divided into proportions for food clothing housing and basic necessities, taxes, and 10% savings such that the amounts in those fractional values will suffice for a basic level of healthy and varied diet, clean safe and modest housing, and a basic set of necessities for living. The upper cost for high wage earners can be capped at the true cost of production for goods and at whatever the market will bare for non necessity or deluxe items..

After everyone's basic needs are met those who are mentally ill with the need to accumulate wealth for the sake of wealth can go for wages that net them a large 10% and others will be similarly rewarded for doing tasks they love to do because they have real skill.

Lifetime education should be focused, means tested and paid for at state expense and specialize in the science of health physical and mental living especially in the education of raising healthy children. This would mean that all aspects of life would move to design housing and agriculture and resource management in ways that are both sustainable and conducive to mental health. This would imply the scientific study and application of creativity in all human endeavors such that all human gifts could find expression. This would include the integration of the arts into daily life. The study and means tested treatment of mental illness and criminality would receive high pay.

WTF are you on?

Read my sig. I would suggest that my deep intelligence and profound wisdom are a function, not so much of anything I have taken, but the results of having unlearned everthing you believe.