Who Should Decide The So-Called "Living Wage"?

Not who, but what. Labor is supposed to be evaluated by the market it occurs in. The folks that build our homes get a living wage determined by factors within the housing market.

Politicians have only one desire when fooling around within the labor force, getting votes. America is supposed to be a capitalist market based economy. Government has no business interfering in that.

Minimum wage should have the same purchasing power as it had in 1970 when the wage was set at $1.60 an hour. At that time a small apartment cost an average of $110 a month. A minimum wage earner had to work 67 hours to pay the rent. In 2010... almost four years ago, the minimum wage was $7.25 an hour. The 'average' apartment cost $600.00 a month. It took 117 hours of work to pay the rent. Today everything costs more than even four years ago, so while $15.00 an hour may seem 'high', it's more or less in the ballpark in terms of real purchasing power.

Oddly, those opposed to this kind of raise are also opposed to even a dollar or two more an hour for our army of minimum wage earners. The fast food and hotel chains that pay these low wages are okay with the added profits that low wages add to their bottom line, but 'sharing the wealth' is some kind of commie plot. These corporations also refuse to pay taxes that would help pay for some of the unaffordable services that low paid workers require. They do however seem to have enough cash money to buy up as many politicians as required to keep them safe from their ever more upset workers. How sad is that?

1. a decent wage for a decent days work

2. why not everyone, heck, if we include illegals maybe they will stop hiring them so much

3. the gov. has and does set a minimum wage... increasing it some would be a nice start... Obama is pushing for $9

4. the same way changes are always enacted... congress passes the law... president signs it...

5. lol... as defined by the company that makes a lot more money if they lowball the value? who DEFINES "what a job is actually worth" for you?

clearly, you don't agree with me already.... you believe that companies are all broke and have NO MONEY... despite all time record high profit reports on wall street...

your questions blatantly display your choice already... you chose a side... the worker is worthless the company is god...

on to the next question...nothing more to be done here...

EDIT: I think wages should be based on what the company makes and performance... if they company does well, I think he workers should see a share of it... I don't exactly think it should be mandatory, but good business practices...

and that simply isn't happening... companies are making millions and the workers still get paid the least possible...in fact, I think this is basically creating workers that are lazy and that have no incentive to work harder...

I've been at several companies where the hardest worker makes as much as the laziest worker and it doesn't help morale...or quality of product...this seems to be more the norm now than the exception..

the companies SEE NO WORTH in workers... they're just like cogs to them...and they want to get those cogs as cheap as possible and have no concern if they're living in cardboard boxed and die on average at 35 or not

I think this is a good definition:

A living wage affords the earner and her family the most basic costs of living without need for government support or poverty programs. With a living wage an individual can take pride in her work and enjoy the decency of a life beyond poverty, beyond an endless cycle of working and sleeping, beyond the ditch of poverty wages.

The living wage can be calculated by adding together the cost for an average individual or family in a certain location. The costs that need to be considered are typically: food, housing, clothing, transportation, medical, and child care if applicable. Those are the necessary elements of life in today's world.

The costs do vary by location. Living in a high cost-of-living vs low cost-of-living area pushes the cost up or down. It isn't a one size fits all calculation.

As far as who should decide, I think a panel of government and business statisticians and policymakers could set the parameters and meet regularly to evaluate and adjust the policy.

Your suggestion that a job has some absolute definable dollar worth to it sounds too farfaetched to comment on..

You probably need to reassess your erroneous assumption that only the compassionate "left" (the Liberals within the very diverse and huge Democratic party) are calling for an increase in the nation's $7.25 minimum wage.

Study the meaning of actuaries and data analyses. You might also want to review a few Census reports from the past 50 years or so, and also take note of the annual rate of inflation for those years. If you study the appalling and ever-growing disparity between CEOs salaries and those of their workers---the workers whose labors produce the profits swallowed whole by these greedy-gut overpaid CEOs---you might be able to comprehend what is a "living wage" and what is not. These same overpaid greedy-gut CEOs eventually so resent paying their workers even the insubstantial minimum wage that they move their entire operations to third-world nations like India where the average wage for workers is an appalling $300 PER YEAR! Most American workers expect a decent salary (maybe $13.00 to $15.00 to start, with periodic merit or cost-of-living increases), health care benefits for themselves and their families, a vested (company-contributing) retirement plan. Most Americans want to own a home and be able to maintain that home, put some money aside in savings and maybe some investments, send their kids to college, vacation once in a while, have enough food for themselves and their families to eat, enough money for clothes or other needs, have good transportation and good local schools for their kids. The wages should support this type of lifestyle.

Don't really favor it, but I'll have a swing at defending it.

1) Living wage is just what it sounds like. Enough money to live off of without turning to welfare.

2) If A) you work full time and B) you are over 21 with or without dependents, you qualify for the living wage.

3) A board of economists should set the wage.

4) It should be enacted through the criterion mentioned in section (2) along with a series of provisions pertaining to how this sort of thing would affect price fixing.

5) I would argue that the people with dependents who work min wage jobs and require welfare would be better off with a higher min wage, or better yet a base income. Taxpayer dollars would be saved and we could shrink down the government a bit.

1. Whatever I need to SURVIVE! That would be:

- $550 for rent

- $100 for utilities

- $200 for groceries

- $150 for clothes

_________________

So... About $12,000 annually.

2. See above. Note that cellphones, cable, internet, nor cars are included because they aren't actual needs. Neither is retirement savings, because the worker making a "living wage" should focus on now with the goal of improving their situation.

3. The market.

4. Lesse Fair

5. Demand. I'm the employer. They can take what I'm willing to pay for hit the door.

That a full time worker be paid enough to:

Afford Housing

Afford Food for themselves and their family

Afford Medical Care

Afford transportation

Afford child care.

I.E. All the things one needs to live.

The "living wage" is just another leftists attempt to deincentiviize people to work hard and stand out and be successful...they want a world were the lazy and the unskilled get paid the same as the go getters and talented.

There doesn't seem to be much disagreement about how much the "living wage" should be just how it should be paid. Should customers have pay it through higher prices or should taxpayers pay it with their tax dollars. Pick your poison.