What standard of living do you consider "livable" and what percentage of the 7.7 Billion people on the planet actually live at that standard?
The "living wage" thing is a marketing weasel phrase. It's intentionally non-specific and encourages the listener to fill in their own idea of what kind of lifestyle a "living wage" entails. I would encourage everyone to ignore "living wage" marketing weasel-speak and only listen to concrete, specific goals.
Try at the very minimum matching to inflation, and adjusting the current wage to what it would be if it were. Then all you have to decide is whether the minimum wage should’ve been a thing in the first place.
I feel like there's a lot of assumptions in that suggestion that I don't necessarily accept. The biggest is the assumption that the minimum wage sets the market rather than the market setting the minimum wage. I believe the market conditions during a period of time have heavy influence on the legislated minimum wage.
Imagine if 50 years ago you could easily import millions of impoverished people willing to work for a lower wage and could also force your local worker to compete against a $0.15/day ($1 in 2019 adjusted for inflation back to 1970) foreign worker. Do you think that would have impacted 1970s minimum wage regulations? I do.
The market doesn’t set the minimum wage. The market actively pushes wages down, as we’ve seen even with a very small unemployment rate wages haven’t gone up.
What do you think the market is aside from the cumulative actions of all of the individuals in the economy such as workers (voters) and businesses?
Why do you believe workers/voters were able to demand a higher minimum wage 50 years ago? I explained what I think changed, I'm curious to know your thoughts.
When I read "living wage" I parse it very literally. It sounds like something close to "capable of purchasing just enough food calories for one person to live." It certainly would not afford you luxuries like having children.
I'm sure that's not what most people are intending to communicate, but I think that's a good starting point to demonstrate how meaningless the phrase "living wage" really is.
So should we force companies to pay a “livable income” for the teenager staying at home? The couple with two small kids and the mom staying at home to raise them? The single mom who has to raise three or four kids on her own? The single person in the story who needs expensive medical care to stay alive?
Yes. Because people who need jobs to live shouldn’t have to suffer for those people you mentioned. All those people you mentioned it’s a fucking optional thing - don’t optimize for the optional.
She should get a living wage. The kids should take less hours so they have more time to do things other than being a wage slave. Everyone who works should get a living wage.
If everyone has a living wage, the businesses will do better because people will have more money to spend. That’s the point of investment. Our economy is built off of the consumer, who has been stagnating for decades. We could be doing far better with a stronger middle class.
So since the living wage is different for a single mom with two kids than a single person living alone, should the minimum wage be different for one than the other?
So now when you apply for a job they should base your pay on your household situation? If one person is single and the other is a single mom with three kids, the company should pay more?
Should they also get paid more if one has a medical condition and the other doesn’t?
It’s the role of the economy for someone to get a livable income if that’s what they’re seeking. If it’s not working then it needs a nudge.