Talk:Living wage

The opening line of this article "Living wage is a term used to describe the minimum hourly wage necessary for a person to enter the wealthy or affluent range." is hideously biased. Living wage has never had anything whatsoever to do with wealth or affluence, it was originated so that people did not work full time and suffer homelessness and starvation.

from Webster's Dictionary

living wage Function:noun Date:1860 1 : a subsistence wage 2 : a wage sufficient to provide the necessities and comforts essential to an acceptable standard of living

52.129.8.47 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)bjl610@comcast.net

Yeah, this really reads like an encyclopedia entry. Trey Stone 05:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction

Doesn't there seem to be a problem here?

"San Francisco, California, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Madison, Wisconsin have notably passed very wide-reaching living wage ordinances."

"Living wage laws typically only cover businesses that receive this type of assistance or have contracts with the government. epi.org"

Salvor Hardin 13:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no contradiction - most ordinances are contractor and business assistance only. A few are area-wide. Thus the "typically" in the epi quote.

Ok, but that seems like a pretty lame response to the criticism when it offers counterexamples earlier in the article.

Salvor Hardin 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Opposition/Criticism

I feel that there should be a section on criticism of the living wage concept. Many people are critical of it. Some criticisms include that each person's living wage is different, that the living wage can change rapidly (depending ones lifestyle), and that many politicians attempt to define the minimum wage at unrealistic rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.218.36 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Living wage is being defined without regard to the an individual's ability to choose other employment or travel to obtain better employment. It's primary tenet seems to be that any job, regardless of skill level or experience required, should pay enough to raise a family. No consideration is given to the very real possibility that as minimum "living" wages increases, so too will the cost of goods and services produced by those people enjoying such a wage. People of education and experience will then, unsurprisingly, demand higher wages for themselves. Leading to inflation - and higher expenses for those making the new wage. Which they will then be unhappy with....ad nauseum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.3.95 (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Chart Removal?

Should the charts be removed? They deal with Minimum Wage, not Living Wage - which is quite different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.53.167 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Living wage and minimum wage are, economically, identical. Non-economists tend to use the term "living wage" when they mean a minimum wage that attains a basic standard of living. Wikiant (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC):

I agree with removal. The living wage concept is not primarily an economic one, but a concept of justice. The charts do not address the consequences of a minimum wage that is calculated as a "living wage". Pustelnik (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether the wage is forced above its equilibrium in the name of justice or in the name of economics is irrelevant to the result. The charts highlight two questions re justice: (1) does the increase in the wages of some justify the disemployment of others; (2) does the increase in the wages of some justify a disproportinate disemployment among the less skilled vs. the more skilled? Wikiant (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Professor Kim Swales's work

Someone has removed the material I put in on this. Why? It seems apposite, and unless there is a sound reason, if I reinstate it and it gets removed again, that sounds like vandalism. P.M.Lawrence203.194.54.27 (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the edit summary, you'll see that I removed the passage and asked that you submit a (reputable) journal reference. The passage looks like ego-spam. Wikiant (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It would have been more constructive to raise the matter here, rather than going by your impressions. See Talk:Minimum wage for a fuller reply. P.M.Lawrence 203.221.28.105 (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Economists' Views

There has been some disagreement as to whether or not this passage from the citation: "Similarly, 90 percent of economists agreed that “a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers.”" supports the sentence, "The majority of economists argue that basic economic theory suggests a mandated minimum price for labor, a "living wage," is harmful to low-wage workers and increases unemployment." I don't understand the problem with this. Wikiant (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have trouble understanding the concept that this Living wage article only concerns the topic of "living wage" rather than the topic of "minimum wage", then perhaps you're out of your league in making edits here. J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It baffles me why people who are likely otherwise reasonable and respectible folk become incredibly rude when sitting behind a keyboard. Please note the passage in question, "...economists argue that basic economic theory suggests a mandated minimum price..." A "mandated minimum price" for labor is, by definition, a minimum wage. Wikiant (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your response is horribly condescending and totally unhelpful, Mr. J.R. His point is a totally fair and valid one. I also see you as being willfully misunderstanding, for the sake of being argumentative and disagreeable. The concept of a living wage (this is in the article as well) is a concept that there is a certain wage required for a person enjoy a standard basket of necessities like housing, food, etc. As the article goes on to point out, advocates for this living wage see workers as entitled to this wage as a measure of social justice. Wikiant correctly points out that advocating laborers receive at least a living wage is exactly equivalent to raising the nominal minimum wage; one must identify what the living wage is and make sure workers are not consistently getting compensated below this level. You arguing this is conceptually different from a minimum wage makes yourself look foolish, and "living wage" advocates as sorely misunderstanding of the science of economics. 76.230.209.70 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you and J.R. Hercules are the ones being unnecessarily rude. Whether Wikiant is right or wrong, you should assume it is a fair mistake and not call him "foolish" or be telling him to pick another field.J1812 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Social Teachings

Should how a living wage relates to Catholicism be the FIRST section on this topic? While I agree that it is significant, I don't think it is the primary focus of the concept of a living wage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ochbad (talk • contribs) 06:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

fixed Hugh (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Recentism

There's a fair bit of recentism creeping into the article, and a lack of international perspective. This article isn't "US advocacy for a living wage", but "Living wage". Scholar demonstrates that there is plenty of material to consult. Searching "Harvester living wage" is illuminating. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Subsistence wage" usage by economic historians

Economic historians use the term to mean literal, biological subsistence. This is roughly 3 dollars a day in real wages, multiple families in one room, clothes of rags, minimum calories and so on. This "biological" subsistence is a tiny fraction of the "subsistence wage" in real terms.

I'd like to see this difference clarified, the difference between subsistence as economic historians use it and subsistence as this article seems to use. Perhaps they could be separate articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1812 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed that term "subsistence wage" is unsourced, and all the sources use "living wage" as their title. So the easier solution might be to contest it, assuming that it's usage here is a mistake.J1812 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Can a living wage work? We can plug in a good example into models to find out for sure...

By definition, a living wage is such a wage that is set up to provide a minimum level of pay regardless of employment status.

It is a hotly debated concept since it ties into capitalist beliefs and concerns with minimum wage observations. Here's how we might test the concept to see if it does work.

The best way in computer terms of implementing a concept like a minimum living wage is to divide the populous earning income as follows:

0 income is covered by top 1% earners

bottom 1-2% earners covered by top 2-1% earners

bottom 2-3% earners covered by top 3-2% earners ....

if minimum standard of living is equal to, say, 20,000 US dollars, works out to equation:

E (sum of squares), i = 0, n = 99;

function() = if (avg_income(i) <= 20,000) [total_income(n-i)/(((20,000-avg_sal(i))*pop(i))/pop(n-i)]

Results in pop(n-i)'th taxation to cover pop(i)

As we can run this on top of a tax structure, we can plug it into any economic model, make adjustments, and see the results until all models suggest a satisfactory outcome.

I assume you all can handle the computational programming required to easily do this, so testing this should be no problem for us. What I would assume you will find is that if living wages are handled by taxation along these lines, the entire economic system would benefit - not just the poor folks recieving the 'povert payments...'

Of course, nations could always mandate education attendance or retraining requirements as long as that is also provided free, and you could use a similar tax structure as this to enable that...

In any case, I am showing you that you can plug in this tax in combination with any nation's economic models and tax structures and this will validate for you whether or not a living wage is a viable solution. It is my assumption capitalist societies will at least need something like this the more technology and robotics (as Bill Gate lauds proudly) displaces human labor and effort... Computers are useful like that...97.88.168.200 (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)