What is a livable wage and should Government be responsible?

[nextJin]

Seen this alot lately, can someone explain to me what you feel is a livable wage? Is the theory that we should give any worker doing any job (Fast Food, ditch diggers, janitors, etc.) a minimum wage of 15 dollars an hour or something?

I just fail to understand how someone can hold a Walmart, or a McDonalds responsible for peoples choice to work there. Kids in college and high schoolers don't complain about the wages, only the grown adults who have worked in these jobs their entire lives complain.

These are unskilled jobs, like literally UNSKILLED jobs. They flip burgers or use a shovel, they have a real market worth and it's not much. Increasing the minimum wage to the numbers I have heard on the news (requests by those employees) being done across the board would have extremely serious consequences.

Are they targets because of the "record profits" they see?

 

[Anarchist420]

The term "livable wage" is very nebulous.

Are they targets because of the "record profits" they see?

That may be one excuse. It's misguided though, because if Walmart paid every employee $6k/year more than they currently do, then they'd have no profits.

 

[soundforbjt]

The term "livable wage" is very nebulous.
That may be one excuse. It's misguided though, because if Walmart paid every employee $6k/year more than they currently do, then they'd have no profits.

Not true...see CostCo for an example.

 

[Veliko]

Whether those jobs are unskilled or not misses the point.

We have a big problem with the distribution of wealth and things like minimum wage/living wage are ways to address that.

On their own they won't be overly effective at redressing that balance but these things have to done in steps - there's simply far too much resistance to things like this from those at the top.

 

[diesbudt]

The real issue is, if wages were just raised at random, it would break the structure of our already weak and feeble economic build.

If working a job that doesn't even need a high school degree can give a salary for every employee that believes a lot of "high level" wants and not needs are a need.

This then devalues secondary schooling. So the offset this, wages would have to increase even more to make them value again. OR Money stops flowing to institutions and the great tuition bubble burst happens and government loses a lot of money.

Now if secondary schooling degrees (important ones, not those silly "art" or "music" ones) start making more so in comparison a degree vs non degree is still about the same gap. Prices will more or less likely go up to compensate OR the company eats the cost, loses investors, starts to head towards a negative value and then bankrupts a few years later and no one has jobs.

In either scenario, inflation makes it so we are back at square 1 and that new salary is no longer livable again. Or There are now plenty of less jobs and the middle class slowly dissolves and the economic structure breaks down and in approx. 100-140 years a revolution will need to take place or we will crash as a country.

And as Veliko said. We need to find the right way to do it, in steps. Not just forcing more money to "unskilled labor" without a complete adjustment of the system.

 

[fskimospy]

The term "livable wage" is very nebulous.
That may be one excuse. It's misguided though, because if Walmart paid every employee $6k/year more than they currently do, then they'd have no profits.

I saw an analysis recently that said it would cost a Walmart customer approximately $0.46 per shopping trip in increased costs for Walmart to pay a living wage.

 

[nextJin]

I saw an analysis recently that said it would cost a Walmart customer approximately $0.46 per shopping trip in increased costs for Walmart to pay a living wage.

What's a livable wage and what happens when Target has lower prices and Walmart starts losing customers?

 

[diesbudt]

What's a livable wage and what happens when Target has lower prices and Walmart starts losing customers?

or what happens if other stores cannot compete with wages and thus have to raise theirs up just as high?

 

[nextJin]

No one has answered the question on whats a livable wage, is it 15 an hr? 25? Should those in lower cost of living areas reap the benefits of 25 dollar an hour jobs? Who shops at these places that have these "nonlivable" wages and what happens to them when they increase their costs?

 

[nextJin]

or what happens if other stores cannot compete with wages and thus have to raise theirs up just as high?

Won't happen, there will always be people to do these jobs. Those companies that were forced to give higher wages would just be much more selective in their hiring. (Only High School graduates instead of anyone for example)

 

[poofyhairguy]

Any person could "live" on minimum wage. Rice and beans. Heck, a lot of the world lives on much less.

Where the problem comes is when you have a lot of wealth in a nation, people aren't comparing themselves to the average person that ever lived. They compare themselves to what they feel is an "average American" (who is in the top 5% of human history in regards to a material standard of living) and come up short.

Forcing companies to pay more for these workers is not a solution- you just increase the costs of goods for EVERYONE. For places like Wal Mart and McDonalds the patrons are on average lower class and these price increases are a regressive tax which just makes the situation worse.

What is more palatable is to subsidize these people through government programs- aka Medicaid, foodstamps, etc. That way those at the top are subsidizing those at the bottom. What those at the top get in return is a lack of social unrest that could tank the markets and ruin their investments. The trick is to not take too much so that its cheaper for the rich to pay accountants to hide the money.

At the end of the day, a living wage is another way of saying that because you were born on this side of the imaginary line we call a border, you are guaranteed a certain standard of living.

 

[Texashiker]

Seen this alot lately, can someone explain to me what you feel is a livable wage? Is the theory that we should give any worker doing any job (Fast Food, ditch diggers, janitors, etc.) a minimum wage of 15 dollars an hour or something?

I think the lowest wage and the highest wage of a company should be linked, something like 1:10 ratio should be good.

If the CEO makes 1 million a year, the lowest paid employee should make 100,000 a year.

Problem solved.

Livable wage, minimum wage,,, and all other wages are debatable.

 

[fskimospy]

What's a livable wage and what happens when Target has lower prices and Walmart starts losing customers?

I don't make shopping location decisions based on $0.46. That's a rounding error.

On a related note, I DO attempt to avoid patronizing stores such as Wal-Mart that treat their employees like this.

 

[Doppel]

I think the lowest wage and the highest wage of a company should be linked, something like 1:10 ratio should be good.

If the CEO makes 1 million a year, the lowest paid employee should make 100,000 a year.

Problem solved.

Livable wage, minimum wage,,, and all other wages are debatable.

this really is too absurd. You want to take for example a company with 20,000 employees at which the lowest guy makes $18k/year and pay the CEO under 200k? Even though his guidance may have increased profits by 20% in two years? And if you think "no he can keep his $3m salary but the janitor needs 300k now" where is that money going to come from?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The term "livable wage" is very nebulous.
That may be one excuse. It's misguided though, because if Walmart paid every employee $6k/year more than they currently do, then they'd have no profits.

It would not necessarily be that they would not have profits per say however the added costs would be shifted elsewhere in their business, i.e. higher prices, reduce benefits, etc. Of which if prices climb that would put Wal-Mart in competition with stores like Target or Costco who do not actively seek to provide goods and services for the bottom half of the US. Additionally the decrease in ROI on some stores via higher prices would mean that increased worker costs would see some of these stores shut down or not open at all in some areas.

Additionally I agree that the term a "living wage" is indeed a distorted term. Its used to cloud up the conversation for the lack of job creation of skilled jobs in the marketplace by insinuating that no-low skill jobs are on par with jobs which require actual skilled and/or academic knowledge to justify their higher wages.

As for the OP:

Does a ditch digging job or working at McDonalds mean you should earn enough to raise a family? Are these the types of jobs we are reduce to promoting? If so then this economy is in a sad state of affairs despite the cherry picked commentary that the economy is "on the mend".

Additionally raising wages for such low skilled jobs inevitably means you push out people who once could attain these jobs without having to provide too much in the way of qualifications. Furthermore you'd also see a drastic reduction in the amount of job listings for these types of jobs in the marketplace as employers seek to do without the added costs of hiring another employee at a higher wage rate.

So suddenly you'll have more and more people competing for these jobs at a higher wage rate if and when they come onto the marketplace due to these jobs now being more costly for the employer to fill. Which also means employers will be forced to find alternative methods to sift through the glut of potential workers and again that means these jobs which were once plentiful (as most people did not view these jobs as being able to raise a family on in the past but now they do via higher wages) for certain groups of people in society will now become off limits for them as competition for those jobs heats up.

So in the end people who espouse a "living wage" for unskilled or low skilled jobs are doing a horrible disservice to future unskilled or low skilled workers because as I stated above, once these jobs start to pay more in that you can actually raise a family on the wages the competition heats up for these jobs. So people with significantly more job skills or experience will be the first in-line to be considered for these types of jobs. Additionally these jobs will also start to dry up as employer costs rise and again more and more people compete for these jobs.

So if the goal is to push minority, teen and elderly unemployment rates higher well by all means go right ahead and provide a "living wage". However if this is not the actual goal then maybe people might want to stop and think about what exactly they are demanding when they push the term "living wage" for a burger flipping job and also stop think about how significant wage increases (i.e., "living wage" so as to be able to raise a family on while working a no-low skill job) will play out for these businesses who provide these types of jobs that literally can be filled by anyone off the street and additionally what job market for these jobs will look like in the long term.

 

[Veliko]

this really is too absurd. You want to take for example a company with 20,000 employees at which the lowest guy makes $18k/year and pay the CEO under 200k? Even though his guidance may have increased profits by 20% in two years? And if you think "no he can keep his $3m salary but the janitor needs 300k now" where is that money going to come from?

Try responding to his general point rather than the exact numbers he gave.

 

[soundforbjt]

I don't make shopping location decisions based on $0.46. That's a rounding error.

On a related note, I DO attempt to avoid patronizing stores such as Wal-Mart that treat their employees like this.

Agree, haven't set foot in a Walmart for years.

 

[Texashiker]

this really is too absurd.

Its really simple. And its the only real answer to our nations wage problem.

If the CEO wants more money, everyone else makes more money as well.

I think the idea of a liveable wage is an abstract idea. What might be liveable to a single mom will be different to a wall street banker.

Wages and livability need to be relative to each other.

 

[PrinceofWands]

The core issue is that costs rise faster than wages, which must eventually topple society. However we go about finding equilibrium, we either do it or perish.

 

[Nintendesert]

Profits should simply be capped at a certain % of revenue and then the rest distributed to the employees with management prevented from receiving any of that.

 

[exdeath]

Livable wage does not include iPhones, BMWs, and Blurays while working at McDonald's.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I think the lowest wage and the highest wage of a company should be linked, something like 1:10 ratio should be good.

If the CEO makes 1 million a year, the lowest paid employee should make 100,000 a year.

Problem solved.

The only thing such a law would achieve is pad the pockets of accountants, insurance reps, etc. who do backflips every night hiding the CEO's compensation in every loophole the law leaves open.

If you somehow magically did succeed creating such a law without loopholes (almost impossible) then you will just push these CEOs to move the company overseas so they can "remain successful by paying competitive prices for leadership." Bye bye all that corporate tax revenue.

 

[Texashiker]

These are unskilled jobs, like literally UNSKILLED jobs. They flip burgers or use a shovel, they have a real market worth and it's not much.

Jobs that society as we know it can not exist without.

The only thing such a law would achieve is pad the pockets of accountants, insurance reps, etc. who do backflips every night hiding the CEO's compensation in every loophole the law leaves open.

If you somehow magically did succeed creating such a law without loopholes (almost impossible) then you will just push these CEOs to move the company overseas so they can "remain successful by paying competitive prices for leadership." Bye bye all that corporate tax revenue.

The problem we are faced with is companies do not want to pay a liveable wage, so the government has to raise taxes to fill the gap. We are looking at reaching a breaking point in the near future as society will no longer be able to subsidize low wages.

Tax payers can only be taxed X amount before they can not longer afford basic essentials. How much more can the middle class be taxed before we slip into poverty?

The choices are, force a company to pay their fair share and they move offshore, or the middle class is taxed into poverty.

That is a heck of a choice.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't make shopping location decisions based on $0.46. That's a rounding error.

On a related note, I DO attempt to avoid patronizing stores such as Wal-Mart that treat their employees like this.

You also avoid answering the question of what a livable wage is

 

[poofyhairguy]

The problem we are faced with is companies do not want to pay a liveable wage, so the government has to raise taxes to fill the gap. We are looking at reaching a breaking point in the near future as society will no longer be able to subsidize low wages.

Tax payers can only be taxed X amount before they can not longer afford basic essentials. How much more can the middle class be taxed before we slip into poverty?

The choices are, force a company to pay their fair share and they move offshore, or the middle class is taxed into poverty.

That is a heck of a choice.

My answer? Guilt the rich to pay up.

I think the top 100 tax dodgers should be posted online. Where they live, what they look like, everything. Put out a big marketing campaign that "Tax evasion is stealing America's future (with a kid crying on the commercial)." Make it so these people can't even buy a Beemer without being spit on or cursed at.