2. Jgeffert1 - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:14 AM PT
Please define "living" for me Mr. S. I am really not as stupid as my two cents worth in your wonderful "Language" thread. I am very new to this sort of thing though. In fact as of today I am only computer able about 5 weeks. I will behave myself here, I promise.
3. IrvingSnodgrass - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:21 AM PT
The idea is for the participants of this thread to define the term, jgeffert. See if we can arrive at some kind of consensus as to how much is needed to live a reasonable life. What do you think is a reasonable living wage?
4. Ronski - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:28 AM PT
A published report this week (darned if I remember where) estimated that a living wage in the Borough of Manhattan in NYC was almost $25.00 an hour.
5. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:28 AM PT
I contend that the level of income defined as the poverty level is sufficient to purchase a standard of living higher than that enjoyed by virtually everyone in the year 1500. I think the only question is whether the King enjoyed a standard of living higher than today's poverty level.
Questions:
• Is this correct?
• Is this relevant to the discussion?
• Am I contributing positively to the discussion, or dragging it into a partisan gutter?
6. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:29 AM PT
My main gripe with living wage laws is that what is needed to live on varies for everyone, depending on where they live, number of dependants, etc.
I would much rather avoid living wage laws in favor of more progressive taxation policies, explicitly based on the categories which determine need.
However, I have frequently gotten into nasty arguments with people about how much one needs to live, particularly for single people. I often point out that back in college, my total income, including loans, was about 12k a year, and 4k of that went for tuition and books. I wasn't rich, but I certainly wouldn't have called myself impoverished.
7. Ronski - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:30 AM PT
And if anyone is tempted to say (as I would be) that no one *has* to live in Manhattan, there are many New Yorkers who think there is a Providence-driven right to do just that, witness recent and past debates over the rent control and rent stabilization laws.
8. Jgeffert1 - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:31 AM PT
A living wage IMO is societally determined. Beans, bread, water and a box on the street do take care of food and shelter, but that having been said, it is our need to 'improve' that lot in life that becomes on some level the invention mother. It would seem that if you live in a country where famine is rampant then 'living' would mean access to food and shelter. Got to go. Work calls
9. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:33 AM PT
FTC: standards for what is livable change as the capacity for society to deal with poverty changes. It is of course ridiculous to assume that Tudor England should have worked hard to get people up to the current poverty level. It would have been impossible.
However, given that we now have a per capita income well over the current poverty level, we don't have that excuse. Similarly, the threshold for poverty will be much higher 100 years from now (assuming current trends continue).
10. elliot803 - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:34 AM PT
Not only can we provide everyone with a living wage, we could pretty much eliminate poverty in the U.S. and provide the basic necessities of life to everyone else in the world, too. All we lack is the will. We make excuses for not doing what we clearly could do. From a recent article by Gregg Easterbrook in The New Republic:
"Knowing that reform still works should grant us courage to strive for change in areas where progress now seems "impossible." For instance, the greenhouse effect may seem unstoppable today, but that's only because we have not yet tried to stop it. There is no reason we need accept poverty: it can be bested. Polls show that, far from thinking society spends too much to lift up the poor, 60 percent of Americans think the country should take more action against poverty. So let's--because it will work!
Consider an astonishing figure: The United Nations estimates that it would cost $40 billion per year to provide the basics of life--adequate food, clean water, health care, shelter, and literacy--to every person on the planet. That works out to $151 per American. Every one of us would gladly write that check, if only there were a way to be sure the money were properly used. All that's stopping us from attempting reform of this noble magnitude is the false belief that life is rolling irrevocably downhill.
It's not, and the proof gets stronger each day."
11. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:39 AM PT
The UN figure is obviously stupid. Even if we assume conservatively that there are a billion poor people on the planet, that ends up being $40 a person! How is that enough to provide food, water, healthcare, shelter & literacy? $40 represents about 5% of Pakistan's per capita income.
12. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:43 AM PT
Somewhere along the line, we have to define what the current level of poverty should be. I have seen poverty defined by income percentiles, meaning by definition the number of people in poverty never change.
My standards include:
1) Safe, sanitary housing (you might need a few room-mates though) with basic essentials (electricity, plumbing)
2) ability to purchase and consume a well balanced diet
3) access and ability to afford basic medical care
4) ability to purchase sufficient clothes to fend off the elements
TV, access to transportation, etc. are luxuries.
13. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:45 AM PT
The above is not meant to be exclusive, but is off the top of my head. Pseudo mentioned education, which I would certainly include as well.
14. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:48 AM PT
What mechanism is actually meant to produce this "living wage" anyway?
I assume by a "living wage" one means some kind of direct pay, in the form of a minimum wage or a negative income tax, not indirect benefits like the provision of additional social services like education and national healthcare. Is that correct?
If that is the case, why is a "living wage" preferable to providing lots of additional social services? I think the latter is better.
15. elliot803 - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:49 AM PT
I don't know how the U.N. figure was calculated. If it's been quoted accurately, it is unlikely to be "obviously stupid." It does not seem unreasonable to me, if certain assumptions are true. But I'm not interested in arguing about it. Even if it were wrong by a factor of ten, the basic point is still valid.
16. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:51 AM PT
Look
The official poverty thresholds in this country for 1993 were the following:
$7400 - for a single individual
$9400 - for a two person household
$15000 - for a family of four
To give you some perspective, someone who works 40 hours a week and earns the minimum wage ($5.25/hour) makes about $10,500 a year.
Now, depending on the local cost of living, that's either empoverishment or a barely sustainable living. Tell me, where in this country one can live on that income, afford a house and own a car (two basics our society thinks are the benchmark of the American Dream)?
17. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:52 AM PT
I have only seen "living wage" used in public policy proposals to describe the amount of money people receive in their paycheck. The current trend in municipalities is for city councils to pass laws that require any company with a state contract (if company is over size X, and contract is over amount Y) to pay their employees a "living wage". The amount varies, usually in the $7-10 range.
18. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:53 AM PT
Message #15
Even if the figure is accurately quoted, either it is stupid, or the assumptions are stupidly restrictive.
And of course the factor of the error matters.
19. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:55 AM PT
Message #17
So what, the advocates of a living wage want the minimum wage to rise to, say, $10? Or more?
20. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:56 AM PT
MsIT: Cost of living varies dramatically. I lived on a minimum wage job for a year, living in a modest one bedroom Minneapolis apartment (which I shared with my then-girlfriend) and owned a junk car. No way one could do this New York, but I'm sure it isn't tough in Little Rock.
Home ownership is out of reach, and the family income thresholds are certainly out of whack.
21. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT
Pseudo: (re: msg 19) In effect, yes. But they tactically are working through city governments, since councils are usually quite liberal and sympathetic to anti-poverty crusades.
22. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 9:58 AM PT
Rask reMessage #12
Access to transportation (as opposed to owning one's own) is a necessity if one is to work. The problems people have attempting to gain employment without their own tranportation are many, that is, they are eliminated from a large pool of jobs. But without access to ANY transportation they have no hope of working at all.
23. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:00 AM PT
MsIT: well, people can often choose to live near work, but you are right, access to transportation, whether it be a cheap car or the local bus, is a necessity in modern life.
24. CoralReef - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:03 AM PT
It seems to me that if the minimum wage is to be a living wage it would have to vary by region. After all, the living expenses in a city like New Orleans are a fraction of the cost of living in Manhattan. And many rural areas would be far less still.
Has there been any serious proposal to make the minimum wage dependent on the state of the local economy (within the U.S.)?
25. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:06 AM PT
Coral: states are free to set their own minimum wages above and beyond the federal rules, so the ability to adjust based on locality is certainly there. And I could swear I have heard of certain cities having their own minimum wages...
26. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:06 AM PT
Rask
You surely wouldn't have maintained any type of committment to work if that had been the full range of your prospects. Your condition was temporary, however, many individuals working at the minimum wage face this as their permanent income.
I think, as a society, we can do better than this for those individuals working full-time. Gad, since when have we wanted people to spend their time working and barely meeting some minimum living standards?
27. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:08 AM PT
I wish I had saved an article from the Wash Post from about 2-3 years ago. The article recounted the story of a married couple in the DC metro area whose annual income totalled $20K. His job paid about 20 cents over the minimum wage and she was able to work only part-time due to a medical problem.
Anyway, the thrust of this piece was that people at the lower fringe of the income scale often have problems that prevent, or at least make very difficult, the transition to a more secure income. It is often very easy to say that one should pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get educated, get training, sacrifice, etc. Often, these are not viable options.
28. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:09 AM PT
elliot803
Please read your own posts.
You claimed that every American would gladly write a check for $151. Now you claim that your argument is equally valid if you are off by a factor of ten. The median household (assuming four family members) now must write a check for $6000 over and above what they pay for taxes. I'll bet I can find more than a few who would disagree with you.
29. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:14 AM PT
well, my "impoverished" college years were some of the best in my life. Granted, there is no way I would consider starting a family at that income. But my understanding is that the vast majority of minimum wage earners are quite young, and eventually move on to better jobs, like I did. (If I am wrong in this, I am sure you will correct me). I don't see a huge need to spend lots of dollars improving the standard of living of single 18-25 year olds.
30. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:18 AM PT
Basically, I prefer a large expansion of the EITC for working families, as opposed to a drastic rise in the minimum wage.
31. hcaulfield - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:20 AM PT
MsIT (26) -- There's your solution; it isn't time to raise the minimum wage, it's time to lower the poverty line.
32. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:23 AM PT
Working 40 hours per week means that one is working less than a quarter of the available hours. I cannot think of a person (primary provider) I know who works 40 hours or less.
Before anyone protests that some people cannot work more hours because of medical constraints, I contend that those people are special cases. We, as a society, need to make provision for those who are unable to work at all, or unable to work the necessary hours to sustain themselves. I assume that this discussion is about able people. I suggest that we save the discussion of the unable, or less able, for another discussion, or one insists that it belongs in this discussion, take care to identify the group of people under discussion.
I think we need to discuss an important subtopic: how do we deal with people who have sufficient income to purchase the items ticked off by Rask, but whose education is so deficient that they choose to buy MacDonalds instead of making chicken soup?
33. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:33 AM PT
Raskolnikov
I don't disagree with your statement about the need for transportation, but it is ironic that I do not have a car, except on weekends. I walk to work, and virtually everywhere I go during the week. One of my co-workers is in the same situation. I tried to talk him into driving down here next weekend, so we could have a car, but he couldn't see the advantage. I didn't think of myself as deprived, but perhaps I should rethink it. I don't want to push this point too hard; undoubtedly there will be a situation where I will need transportation, and I will come up with it rather easily. I just thought it was ironic.
34. TabouliJones - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:34 AM PT
FTC:
I suppose it was inevitable: Someone says, lets talk about the viability of a "living wage", then someone else smugly says, "Hey, lets take this opportunity to denigrate the poor."
35. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:37 AM PT
CoralReef
Why should the minimum wage be a living wage? There are lot's of people interested in working who do not have to purchase from their own earnings the items identified by rask as constituting “living”.
36. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:38 AM PT
TabouliJones
I'm sorry, I missed the post. Who did that?
37. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:41 AM PT
FTC: yeah, there are times in my life when I rarely used transportation, but they were mercifully brief. I basically agreed with MsIT not so much because it is impossible to live without a car or mass transit, but rather because it would be impossible for all of the poor to live without it. Frequently, the cheapest housing is furthest away from where the jobs are.
38. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:42 AM PT
who is denigrating the poor? Considering FTC's libertarian leanings, I thought he was being very pleasant and reasonable.
39. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:43 AM PT
Rask, I agree.
40. TabouliJones - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:45 AM PT
Actually, FTC I thought you did with the following:
"I think we need to discuss an important subtopic: how do we deal with people who have sufficient income to purchase the items ticked off by Rask, but whose education is so deficient that they choose to buy MacDonalds instead of making chicken soup?"
However, I think I either read your post with too much haste or simply read into it an aspersion which I (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be invitable, given your libertarianism.
41. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:48 AM PT
What has education to do with choosing to buy McDonald's rather than make chicken soup?
I can't believe there is even some dispute that for all practical purposes it is impossible to live without a car or public transportation in the United States.
42. elliot803 - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:49 AM PT
FTC:
"Please read your own posts."
Ah, it wouldn't be a FritoCheese post if it didn't start off with a condescending jab.
"You claimed that every American would gladly write a check for $151."
No I didn't.
"Now you claim that your argument is equally valid if you are off by a factor of ten."
The "basic point" that we can easily provide the basic necessities of life to everyone on the planet is valid even if the U.N. figure is off by a factor of ten.
43. DocBrown - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:53 AM PT
PseudoErasmus brought up a good point in Message #14
> . . . why is a "living wage" preferable
> to providing lots of additional social
> services? I think the latter is better.
One difference between paying a direct wage and providing a social service is where the power of decision lies. If we pay a wage to an individual they get to allocate that money however they like. When we provide a social service the individual has less influence. I see no evidence that these individuals make the best decisions.
44. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:54 AM PT
Pseudo: we are all agreeing that a car or public transportation is necessary
45. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:54 AM PT
TabouliJones
I've reread it, and fail to see the denigration. Can you enlighten me?
If I added that I suspect the percentage of people unable to make chicken soup is larger among the rich than the poor, does this mean:
That I am denigrating the rich in addition to the poor or
I am no longer denigrating the poor, or
some other possibility
Does it need to be said that I don't literally mean chicken soup in the narrow sense, but the general ability to cook inexpensive and nutritious meals?
46. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 10:59 AM PT
"I see no evidence that these individuals make the best decisions."
Hell's bells, that could be said of the majority of all individuals in one way or another.
Certainly then, we should not provide corporations and wealthy individuals with subsidies since many of them make bad investments, mismanage organizations, and waste billions of taxpayer dollars on "unproductive" activities.
On second thought, I advocate very high taxes on the rich and corporations, and then having the federal government provide "services" to these groups to compensate for their inability to make good decisions.
47. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:01 AM PT
elliot803
FTC"You claimed that every American would gladly write a check for $151."
Elliot” No I didn't.”
Then please explain how I misunderstood your Message #10 where you said: “That works out to $151 per American. Every one of us would gladly write that check, if only there were a way to be sure the money were properly used.”
(Note that I did not quibble with your assertion that there is a way to ensure that it is properly used. For the sake of argument, I grant you that.)
48. TabouliJones - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:03 AM PT
FTC,
Note, I said:
"However, I think I either read your post with too much haste or simply read into it an aspersion which I (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be invitable, given your libertarianism."
Also:
The last part of your post was out of left field and its relevance was vague. Care to elaborate re. your chicken soup comment.
49. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:04 AM PT
MsIT: Doc may very well agree with you, which is why I didn't make the same point you did.
50. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
pseudoerasmus
I could be laboring under a misconception. I assume that if people choose to buy MacDonalds, then claim they don't have enough money to provide adequate food for their family, that they don't know how to make decent food. Perhaps my assumptions are wrong. Help me out if you can. (I'll add that I assume there are some people claiming they do not have enough money, or else there is hardly any point for this thread.)
51. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
Rask
Hahahaha. Yes, I know what you mean.
In any case, that has always been a selectively applied criterion of "deservedness" wrt public policy.
I see nothing wrong with the idea of a living wage, but I agree with CR that it should be thought about as a local labor market benchmark. I think any attempt to federally legislate such a beast would create more problems than it was worth.
52. DocBrown - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:16 AM PT
Raskolnikov: I do agree with MSivorytower's sarcastic suggestion. Individuals make crummy decisions, even when they are wealthy.
I don't have a problem with a person whose job *earns* a living wage, as determined by the job market, but if I am going to subsidize someone's wage then I do not want that person to have unlimited freedom in allocating that subsidy. Food Stamps are an example of a reasonsble compromise here.
53. FreeToChoose - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:18 AM PT
TabouliJones
The last part of my post was a different point. Perhaps I should have placed it in a separate post. I meant to clarify that MacDonalds and chicken soup are allegorical references to over-priced, nutritionally deficient foods, and inexpensive, nutritious foods respectively. The clarification shouldn't have been directed to you personally, but in general.
54. DocBrown - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:20 AM PT
Msivorytower, could you elaborate on Message #51? Are you suggesting that all workers should earn at the very least some (locally determined) living wage?
55. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:21 AM PT
And I must commend MsIT on a good choice of words. The phrase "hell's bells" is criminally underused in this day and age.
Doc: yeah, I feel the same way. I have enough compassion to want to help them out, but I certainly don't wish to pay for a drug/gambling/Nintendo habit, although I do think the frequency of abuse is vastly overstated.
56. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
Proper nutrition is a function of education. The vast majority of Americans, rich and poor, lack a fundamental grasp of the health and economic aspects surrounding proper nutrition.
57. CalGal - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
This seems so obvious that I wonder if I'm missing something. Why on earth would anyone want to raise the minimum wage to a "living" wage? As has been pointed out by several, the necessary amount varies by region. There are many people working who don't need a living wage (teenagers, part-timers, etc.). It seems to be a ridiculously broad solution to a problem that can be addressed far more specifically by the method that Rask and Pseudo suggest--subsidizing those who need the boost, whether it be through the EITC or through other social services.
It seems that there are two different issues floating about whenever this subject is raised:
1) helping those who live in poverty
2) the general feeling that people have to work too hard for minimum wage while those at the top make too much doing too little. In this approach, the purpose of the living wage isn't so much to prevent poverty as to equalize distribution of income.
The second is often espoused by Philistine and Resonance--and I'm sure I'm misstating it, so apologies in advance. It also hasn't been brought up yet, so I'm anticipating.
Is there anyone here who can make an argument for increasing the minimum wage to benefit those living in poverty that *can't* be addressed as easily by subsidizing the poor through other means?
Or is this actually about #2--that we *should* be paying people more, dammit? With those in poverty being brought up as a distraction of sorts? I am not suggesting deliberate distraction. Just trying to figure this out
58. BoomerJeff - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:28 AM PT
Elliot is a fool for believing this bit of lunacy…
"Consider an astonishing figure: the United Nations estimates that it would cost $40 Billion per year to provide the basics of life—adequate food, clean water, health care, shelter, and literacy—to every person on the planet. That works out to $151 per American."
It's not astonishing. It's ludicrous. If this really comes from the UN it's nothing more than propaganda designed to persuade national governments to donate more $$ to the bottomless UN rat-hole.
For the cost of $151 per American, we'll support all the world's people INCLUDING all Americans???!!!
Elliot continues with…
"All that's stopping us from attempting refomr of this noble magnitude is the false belief that life is rolling irrevocably downhill."
Your proposal to Americans in order to support everyone else in the world is NOT noble. It is contemptible. What do you mean by "life is rolling irrevocably downhill?"
If it were possible to care for the world's poor only, not the whole world, It would be easy to raise the equivalent of $151 per American via voluntary charity.
59. TabouliJones - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:29 AM PT
FTC,
I understood the non-literal components of your reference. What was not clear was why you put this "point" forth as an "important sub-topic" wrt the "living wage" issue. I assumed that you were making an oblique reference to a general inability of the poor to make reasonable life-style decisions and then positing this inability as an (again oblique) argument to the effect that a legislatively mandated "living wage" would either constitute a misallocation of resources or a subsidy to a class of people that does not deserve it. It seems from your latest posts that I was at least partially correct.
60. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:31 AM PT
The strongest argument in favor of a minimum wage instead of an EITC is political. My favorite policy prof once defined politics as "the art of giving to the grateful at the expense of the oblivious". An EITC requires taxes to go up, or something else to get cut. a Minimum wage has costs which are much more difficult to count, and are hidden behind the prices at the tax register, so people tend to think of it as a free lunch.
61. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT
Brown, Rask
What's this compassion stuff? You think this is some welfare issue? What transfer of payments scheme is involved in the living wage movement?
No, I think you confuse public assistance with a living wage.
The movement, as I understand it, is to raise the minimum wage locally, to some level so that someone working 40 hours a week would not be essentially living at the poverty level.
And before some other idiotic comment is made about the 40 hour a week benchmark, let me remind everyone that the AVERAGE number of hours worked per week by all full time workers in 1991 was 43 hrs. For women working full-time, the figure was about 42 hrs per week, for males, the figure was at about 44 hrs per week.
If you break out the distribution of full-time workers according to hours worked per week (using the CPS 1991 - what I have available right at the moment on my computer) it looks like this:
35-40 hrs per week - 62%
41-50 hrs per week - 22%
51-60 hrs per week - 11%
61+ hrs per week - - 5%
62. TabouliJones - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:39 AM PT
Dumb question from a non-American here: what does EITC stand for?
63. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT
Without doubt, an EITC is more efficient.
However, there is a practical side to the minimum wage; chances are, the people at the lower end of the income scale likely lack budgeting and personal finance skills. Getting a check once a year that pushes those people over the poverty line probably is not conducive to keeping those folks over the poverty line for the year. An increased minimum wage provides a bit more in the way of forced fiscal discipline.
64. jexster - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
If Rupert Murdock can pay Kevin Brown 100 mil + a private jet, all Americans can be guaranteed a living wage. In San Francisco, the proposal before the Bd of Supes is 14.20/hr for all citizens employed by private firms who have contracts with the City.
65. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:44 AM PT
MsIT: I don't like the Living Wage. I prefer to have the poverty problem dealt with through transfer payments.
Tabouli: EITC = Earned Income Tax Credit, a program started by Reagan, and expanded significantly by Clinton, which serves as a negative income tax for working families. I qualified for it once, and instead of owing any taxes that year, I was refunded all I had paid in, and they added about $350 to the amount.
66. jexster - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:45 AM PT
Since the Fray is populated by liberal wimps for whom Sports Knownothingism is a badge of honor.
K. Brown is a killer pitcher now with Rupert's LA Dodgers.
Go Giants! Go Living Wage!
67. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:46 AM PT
Jade: It is currently possible to have your expected EITC payments added to your paychecks.
68. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
Message #64
A $14 minimum wage! Hahahahahaha!
69. jexster - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
Of course, FTC and Tom DeLay back the Slave Wage. DeLay's concept = .70/hr. slave labor in US Saipan as a way of circumventing those socialists who demand that Nikes not be made by slave child labor.
70. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
Jex reMessage #66
That would be me.....
Rask
I prefer providing incentives for the working poor to continue working and holding out for them, the possiblility that, with hard work, they can live a decent life.
71. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
Although I don't know the particulars of how this gets set up. But if they can automatically deduct taxes from each paycheck, it can't be any more difficult to add a credit.
72. CalGal - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
Rask,
So the reasons for pushing minimum wage increases are tactical? That makes sense, since it not only benefits those living in poverty, but those who work for minimum wage. And though conservatives and others wail about the effect on the economy, it seems that employers plan for reasonable bumps in the minimum wage (no matter how much they growl) and it hasn't been affecting the economy(? that's a guess, corrections welcome).
The problem is that a *huge* bump in the minimum wage--a "living" wage of $7--10--would not be affecting the oblivious, but rather the employers. And I can't help but think this would affect the economy as well. But that's just a guess. So why is there any argument at all for a living wage, as opposed to occasional pushes in the minimum wage?
73. JaDeGoLd - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
Rask: Oooops.
Nevermind.
74. BoomerJeff - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
TabouliJones
EITC stands for "Earned Income Tax Credit." It is a welfare program administered by the IRS. People who meet certain criteria based on income and the number of children in the family receive cash from the government.
It's euphemistically called a "tax credit" because it is administered by the IRS in conjunction with annual tax form filings. But the amount of cash one receives from the government is not in any way a function of the amount of tax one owes. So, unlike other tax credits that are offered to people who actually owe tax if they'll do something the government thinks is desirable, the EITC is merely a cash hand-out.
75. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
MsIT: How does that dictate a preference for living wages over the EITC? Or am I misunderstanding you?
$14 for SF is quite high. Santa Clara California has the highest living wage law I know of, at $10.
Pseudo: keep in mind that only contractors who do business with the city would have to comply with it. So far, contractors have been pretty clever in either refusing to do business with the cities, jacking up their prices appropriately, or doing and end run by contracting out the work themselves, avoiding the presence of any employees. There are also huge compliance problems. A lot of contractors just ignore them with impunity.
76. pseudoerasmus - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
TabouliJones: The Earned Income Tax Credit.
77. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:54 AM PT
Oh, I don't think increasing the minimum wage 20% in many markets currently would have much impact on economic activity at all right now. Certainly jumps of 40%, 50% or 100% would be difficult to absorb in the local economy, but gradual movements over time to some of those levels is possible (100% is doubtful).
However, it depends on local economic conditions. I can't see a local "minimum" wage of much more than $7-$8 being absorbed (even in the current robust environment) without some clearly observed adverse effects on employment and local prices.
78. TabouliJones - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:57 AM PT
Thank you Rask, PE, and Boomer for the defintion re. the EITC.
79. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 11:58 AM PT
Rask
It doesn't necessarily, except that the EITC is seen more as a "paternalistic" handout (rightly so) than is any minimum wage. After all, the employer determines whether the worker is productive enough for the job, even if the wage has a floor. The public has a way of perceiving itself as "giving" the poor the EITC, however, and, personally, it is more denigrating to me.
80. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
MsIT: I guess it is a matter of perception. I see nothing more denigrating in the EITC than I see in the progressive income tax structure, or even the minimum wage. In all three situations you are getting more money for your work than you would have in the absence of government intervention.
From a public perception standpoint, you may be right. I do note that Boomer called the EITC welfare, which is an adjective I have never seen applied to the minimum wage. So, this is one more tactical reason in favor of the minimum wage.
81. CalGal - Jan. 28, 1999 - 12:12 PM PT
Ms,
If the primary reason you support a boost is because of the poor, why support a solution that will pay everyone more, whether they are actually poor or not?
Suppose that the boost causes a small drop in employment. Tiny. Miniscule. How would you guarantee that a teenager would be laid off or not hired, rather than someone who is genuinely poor?
Why not use the EITC? Yes, it has the unappealing, but accurate, nature of a handout--but it ensures that only those that need the extra money will benefit. And it doesn't have the risk of harming those it is intended to help.
82. CalGal - Jan. 28, 1999 - 12:13 PM PT
Rask,
Yeah, but BJ probably opposes the minimum wage, too.
83. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 12:17 PM PT
Calgal
My understanding of the living wage movement, or at least how *I* support the idea, is that the minimum wage would increase for those working in the "full-time" range. That is, employers who higher individuals for essentially full-time work and pay the minimum wage.
Certainly jobs that are 20 hours a week or less can be exempt from such controls, and those are the jobs that most teenagers have.
The living wage concept clearly would not solve the problem of the working poor entirely, there would still be the necessity of having such things as the EITC in place as well. I simply think it is a better incentive to work, people being rational and preferring an extra dollar now than in 1 year.
84. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 12:18 PM PT
Jaysus
substitute hire for higher.....
85. CalGal - Jan. 28, 1999 - 12:24 PM PT
Ms,
Actually, teenagers these days are working around the clock, it seems.
In any event, what about the obvious workaround that all employers will take--namely, change all of their jobs to part-time positions to avoid paying the higher rate? They are already doing a great deal of that to avoid paying insurance benefits, are they not? Or at least there are many complaints about that (oddly enough, from many of the same who support a living wage).
And Rask has already pointed out that EITC payments can be received throughout the year.
86. elliot803 - Jan. 28, 1999 - 12:34 PM PT
Boomerjeff:
"For the cost of $151 per American, we'll support all the world's people INCLUDING all Americans???!!!"
No, that's not what he says. Read the quote again.
"Your proposal to Americans in order to support everyone else in the world is NOT noble. It is contemptible."
Why is it "contemptible" for the world's richest nation to spend a small amount of its wealth to ensure that everyone in the world has the basic necessities of life?
87. msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 12:36 PM PT
Calgal
There are always going to be perverse effects emerging out of public policy. That is a given.
However, if the wage is first instituted through public contracts, then the requirement can be that a certain percentage of the minimum wage jobs be full-time.
I already stated my reasons for preferring wage increases over subsidy increases, and being on the public dole (EITC) is not an incentive to work harder and view oneself as independent and capable. Regardless of how one receives the check, it is seen as a public subsidy, whereas minimum wages are not.
I'm impressed at how many people want to see the poor "penalized" for their condition by assuming they cannot make their own decisions or are undeserving of higher wages.
We do NOT have fully competitive labor markets in this country. NO ONE earns a wage that fully reflects their productivity, although I'd argue that wages are linked to productivity. The idea that people who earn a higher wage are paid so because they are more deserving of it than someone else who works hard and does a very good job (given the parameters of their skills) is more than just a little self-serving.
I'd venture to say that half the people at this site waste their employers time. I'd venture to say that more than half the people at this site, highly educated though they may be, do not work at their full capacity. I'd venture to say that more than half the people at this site believe they are entitled to the wage they earn simply because they made the "right" educational investments, regardless of their measured productivity.
88. CalGal - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:01 PM PT
Ms,
Message #87
You have switched from arguing living wage to help the poor to saying, essentially, "why NOT pay them more? It's not like anyone *else* is getting paid competitively!"
That is utterly irrelevant to our particular debate. I have not argued against it for reasons of market fairness, competitive rates, or who deserves what. My concern is merely that the living wage method seems to be an incredibly inefficient method of accomplishing an end. Worse, it could potentially harm the people it is intended to benefit.
You have not made any argument against this that I can see. Other than to admit that yes, there might be unintended negative consequences and to assert that if it started in the public contracts arena, this can be worked around. Rask has already posted at least one example of how badly that failed, and there are others.
And this all begs the point--whereas the "living wage" *might* work, returning the money to those who need it through subsidies or EITC *will* work and is unlikely to hurt the economy, provided that tax increases to support it are reasonable. (I have no idea what qualifies as reasonable, of course.)
Your only objection that is unanswerable is the fact that wages are preferable to subsidies. True in a perfect world. But not if the solution of raising wages has the risk of harming the people it is intended to help--to the possible benefit of those who don't need help. You haven't successfully addressed the problems that could potentially occur. Perhaps PseudoErasmus can. I have no real knowledge that the problems I'm concerned about *would* occur--but you have granted their likelihood as well. You just don't think they are relevant in contrast to the satisfaction that someone would get in being paid real money, if I understand you.
89. DocBrown - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:30 PM PT
Msivorytower said:
> The idea that people who earn a higher
> wage are paid so because they are more
> deserving of it than someone else who
> works hard and does a very good job
> (given the parameters of their skills)
> is more than just a little self-serving.
A compensation administrator / economist once explained to me that no company in the world pays a person. They pay a job. It is the most basic law of compensation theory; an unchangeable absolute.
Some companies try to pretend that when they write a paycheck they write it to a person, but these companies are deluded.
They are not people. They are jobs.
90. DocBrown - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:39 PM PT
Within her corporation (or any organization) it is common for a manager to ask for a subordinate to get a raise because he/she "deserves" it.
Manager: "I want Betty to have a raise. She deserves it."
Compensation Administrator: "But Betty is already at the top of her salary range."
Manager: "So what? She is very good at her job."
Comp. Admin.: "Betty is a Doofinkle Analyst. The range on Doofinkle Analysts is from $35K to $47K, and Betty is already at the top of her range."
Manager: "But she works so hard!"
Comp. Admin.: "Good for her. She can never have a raise, unless the whole range changes."
Manager: "Then change the whole range."
Comp. Admin.: "I can't do that. Only the job market can change the range. The best Doofinkle Analyst in the world is only worth $47K."
91. Msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:41 PM PT
"My concern is merely that the living wage method seems to be an incredibly inefficient method of accomplishing an end. Worse, it could potentially harm the people it is intended to benefit."
First, the living wage is not "incredibly inefficient", and if you believe it to be so, what evidence do you have for it?
Second, even if it is somewhat inefficient, it would be hard to show it is any MORE inefficient than the way wages are already determined in the market. The inefficiency associated with the living wage (or at least some minimum wage that allows a full time worker to live above the poverty level) is no more or less inefficient than lots of other policies already in effect.
Third, whether it would "harm" the people it is intended to help more than it helps them would be an empirical question, not one solved by simple observation and ancedotal evidence (all you seem to ever come up with).
Forth, I haven't switched gears, the living wage movement is all about "why not pay them more?". That is essentially the argument behind the minimum wage, as well. It is not to just help the working poor, it is to ensure everyone has a decent wage in this country, since, after all, we can. And the argument about how others get paid is central to the argument for why we should pay workers at the bottom of the wage scale more.
92. MizPhys - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
Several people have asserted that an increase in minimum wage should go only to full-time workers. I find this quite objectionable. In my community, many women of young children work part time as a financial necessity. The family cannot afford to be without her income, yet at minimum wage, they can't afford decent day care. The solution is that the woman works part time when her husband is not working and is therefore available to care for the children. These families don't deserve a living wage? In the case of teenagers, I don't understand why they should not receive a decent wage either. Many are supporting themselves (perhaps with children), contributing to support, or saving for their education. Why does their age justify their exploitation?
93. DocBrown - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:44 PM PT
Society's organizations do not pay people. They pay jobs. For this reason any time you have a minimum wage you are providing a subsidy.
As I said before, I am not against subsidies. I simply don't like the recipients to have the freedom to spend this windfall willy-nilly.
94. Msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:49 PM PT
"And this all begs the point--whereas the "living wage" *might* work, returning the money to those who need it through subsidies or EITC *will* work and is unlikely to hurt the economy, provided that tax increases to support it are reasonable."
No, it does not beg the point. Again, there is no question that the living wage would work for those who fall within its regulation. You are tilting at windmills by arguing that the policy must affect all the low wage workers for it to work.
In addition, your argument can be turned on its head and would exactly explain how the living wage could work. That is, it would have little or no adverse effect on the economy given reasonable ranges of what one defines as a living wage. The two are approximately the same wrt their impact on the economy (higher taxes versus higher local prices) at least until we can show otherwise empirically. The studies I've seen on the minimum wage show minimal effects on the economy, particularly when it's robust. In fact, studies I've seen on raising taxes can show a more onerous effect depending on who pays the tax and how much it is.
"But not if the solution of raising wages has the risk of harming the people it is intended to help--to the possible benefit of those who don't need help"
You need some evidence here, or you need to reconsider the extremity of your position. There is no evidence presented here yet that suggests such a thing. It is purely based on your conjecture, which, really, has only your own preferences as the base.
95. bubbaette - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:51 PM PT
Oh come on, Phys. You know all wimmins only work for pin money. They'll just waste it if you pay them more.
96. Msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:52 PM PT
"You haven't successfully addressed the problems that could potentially occur. Perhaps PseudoErasmus can"
Believe it or not, I actually know about as much as PE does wrt to labor markets, although it appears you have a preference for hearing about such things from him. Perhaps PE will oblige you.
The problems have already been outlined. They are potential unemployment effects, which, if we are to believe minimum wage studies, can be kept to a minimum depending on HOW HIGH one is talking about taking the wage rate.
There are potential problems of shifting from full-time to part-time employees, however, this is more likely to occur with small companies (employers) than with medium or large ones. Here, the costs would have to be empirically measured. That is simply a fact, we cannot determine this in advance, since raising minimum wages are not analogous to insurance benefits, which represent much higher costs to the employer over time.
Again, these effects can be mitigated somewhat in the way the laws are written.
97. Msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:55 PM PT
MizPhys
A reasonable argument.
98. Raskolnikov - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:57 PM PT
Miz Phys: How are teenagers being exploited? My argument for not subsidizing their work is that single childless young adults by and large are perfectly capable of living perfectly well on a minimum wage salary, in all but a few localities. This is different from a family of two or three, who has children to feed. Since the minimum wage largely helps young adults, I view a raise in the minimum wage as inferior to proposals which target financial assitance to those who need it most. However, I do prefer a minimum wage to nothing at all.
99. Msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 1:57 PM PT
And it would eliminate the problem of "shifting" from full-time to part-time workers. Then the effects would be predominantly in the area of potential unemployment.
100. Msivorytower - Jan. 28, 1999 - 2:01 PM PT
Rask
This is the second time you've referenced the notion that the minimum wage primarily affects young workers. What evidence do you have for this? I've looked as some census data and I can't see that the lowest income workers are overwhelmingly between 18-24, although they do comprise about one-quarter to one-third of those at the minimum wage rate, from what I've gathered so far.
Do you have some sources?