Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

irredentistdecency t1_j38dawa wrote

We really should include people who aren’t earning a living wage in the unemployment figures to more accurately reflect the state of our economy.

41

TheMcWhopper t1_j39kcjp wrote

Is there even a definition for a "living wage"

4

irredentistdecency t1_j3auozf wrote

A living wage is a wage that meets or exceeds the government’s calculated cost of living for a particular area.

No person who works 40 hours a week should earn less than the actual cost necessary to provide that labor.

Otherwise we are as a society subsidizing the operations of corporations.

15

BullAlligator t1_j39qtcz wrote

Yes. It's enough money to maintain a decent standard of living without being subsidized by the government.

The question then is what qualifies for a "decent standard of living".

7

irredentistdecency t1_j3aufi6 wrote

While I agree with your perspective, your argument adds complexity that weakens the case rather than strengthen it.

The government already calculates a “cost of living index” for every part of the country.

A living wage is simply any wage which is at or above the cost of living in that location.

Should we, as a society aim for the higher standard of a “a decent wage”? Absolutely, & I’d define a decent wage as a wage that allows a person to cover the basic costs of living + 10% of their income in discretionary spending & another 10% in savings.

I find it amazing that the idea that corporations have to make a profit from their efforts is considered obvious but the idea that a worker also should profit (profit being income minus expenses) is considered communism.

3

BullAlligator t1_j3d7tna wrote

Yeah I think it's disturbing how most people live with well below the standards I have for a decent wage and wealth is very unevenly distributed.

6

JoelyMalookey t1_j3bxlh6 wrote

There are a bunch of U numbers at the bureau of labor and statistics website.

2