Some questions to those who advocate for a guaranteed living wage

[Revanchist]

First off, this isn't trolling it's just some of the reasons why I have trouble with the concept and why I don't think it is feasible.

The first question that always enters my head I read about ensuring a living wage for every worker is do they want a flat rate for everyone? I ask this first because of how the cost of living can fluctuate wildly depending on what part of the country you live in. A living wage for some one in a small rural town wouldn't be nearly enough for someone in a large city like San Francisco so will the amount you get take this into effect?

Second do you want a living wage just for adults or does every person in the country get a check? A living wage for a person with no dependents will not be enough a single mother with 2 children or a family with 5. If it's per person and not just working adult does everyone get the same amount? Does a toddler need the same guaranteed income as a teenager? What about couples? It's less expensive for two people to live together than just one so should that be a consideration?

While I think the concept of everyone getting a living wage in a noble concept, I have a hard time seeing it being implemented.

[ZombieHorde]

1. I am not sure what you are talking about.

Are you talking about a minimum wage?

[Revanchist]

2. More like how some are talking about a guaranteed minimum income

There are some here (and some countries are doing it) that claim that everyone should always make a minimum amount of money with the government providing the deficit if the job pays less than that amount. That way everyone gets a "living wage" that covers things like housing, food, etc.

[ZombieHorde]

3. Aha! If was to implement this idea,

I would first examine how other countries do it. What parts work, what parts don't work, and who falls through the cracks.

[Revanchist]

6. I think it's easier in alot of those other countries because of there size

Here were have states bigger than many of those countries and I think that causes some of the wide variations we have.

[Wounded Bear]

10. Bogus argument....

Everyone likes to say "We have too many people to do that!" and glosses over the fact that we have a much larger pool of resources (people) to tax for the revenue required.

It's kind of like the whole ACA debate about how "We're too large for UHC" when it is the very large population base that is the basis for insurance pools to begin with. More people putting in, the more we can use for the common good.

[Revanchist]

12. i'm not say it wasn't possible to do it here

Just that I'm not sure that we could just take another country's plan and simply upscale it to match our population size.

[Wounded Bear]

15. I don't think anybody is proposing that...

But it is a RW meme to proclaim "We're the Best!" and use that as an excuse to ignore all of the advances made in other countries. Hell, the ACA has roots in, IIRC, the Swiss and German models.

But any proposal even remotely hinting at solutions to problems like these get attacked as European Socialism by the RW echo chamber. Their favorite line seems to be, "It'll never work here" when the only reason that is true is because they have the political power to block it.

Having a minimium living wage would do more to stimulate a bottom up economy than any corporate welfare I could imagine. If we taxed the holy living shit out of the corporate "job creators" to finance it, I think it would get them on board with some real job creation.

[xchrom]

5. the government makes up the diff as it is.

between subsidies to low wage workers and subsidies to the corporate employers -- the tax payr is getting soaked.

you designing things to actually work isn't rocket science.

we design failure or ineptitude into a lot of our policies -- it's really a matter of choice we don't have to do that.

[B Calm]

13. Exactly, tax payers are being soaked. Look at all the Walmart

employees on food stamps because their employer won't pay a liveable wage. It's not like Walmart isn't making a healthy profit.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. Different rates for different localities, based on X family size. nt

[doc03]

8. So you are saying a married person should make more than a single person working the same job

or a married person with to kids should be paid more than a couple with no kids? That certainly is not right in my opinion.

[hedgehog]

9. I think the concept of a guaranteed wage is to ensure that every human

has what is required to survive. It's not earned by anything more than breathing. Thus each person gets their own payment. If two people, married, unmarried, causal acquaintances or whatever want to share living quarters to save some money, that's their business.

A parent or guardian would be responsible for ensuring a minor's cash is spent to support that minor.

The idea is everyone gets a base standard of living. If you want more than that, it's up to you to earn it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. No, and I think you may have meant "two"

A liveable wage is nothing more than requiring minimum wage to be set to an amount that will let someone get by just working that job for 40 hours. So you set the wage by locality, and you base it on (just as an example) a single parent with one child and a one-bedroom apartment. Figure out how much that costs in an area, and don't pay anyone less than that wage. If there are two parents, 8 kids, whatever, you've set the minimum wage based on starting assumptions.

[tabbycat31]

29. So with that logic should Jim Bob Duggar make more than me for the exact same work?

I'm single, no kids.

Jim Bob Duggar has 19 kids (18 to support). Should that make a difference in our wages?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

30. No. Not what I meant.

X needs to be defined and set. A minimum wage could be set based on, for example, the amount required for a single person raising one child in a one-bedroom apartment. The minimum (living) wage is the same for everyone in that locality, but the person in this scenario would have a reasonable chance of getting by on that minimum wage.

[zipplewrath]

7. Answers

Family size doesn't matter, and it's not about "household income".
The wage (much like a minimum wage) would vary by geography.
18 years old and above.
It would be based upon a 36 hour work week.
(And the controversial part) some of it could be accounted for in various "benefits".

[Revanchist]

14. So then how much would it be?

Enough for a single person, a single mother with a child, two children? What is the benchmark?

If it was enough would we be able to eliminate programs like SSI or food assistance programs like WIC or food stamps? These are the things I think about when people bring up the living wage or minimum income for all points.

[CJCRANE]

17. I think that's the idea.

And as it's a universal benefit, there's less bureaucracy (or at least simpler bureaucracy).

[zipplewrath]

35. About $50K

If you ask me, it should be about $50K a year. But most estimates have it in the $20/hour range.

[CJCRANE]

16. I think you're mixing two things: a "living wage" and a "guaranteed minimum income".

A "living wage" is similar to the minimum wage in that it only applies to people who collect a wage from working in a job.

A "guaranteed minimum income" is a universal benefit: a set amount that every adult receives and that takes the place of most other welfare payments.

[Revanchist]

18. I'd like to thank everyone that replied to my questions

there were some good answers here. Also, I'd like to thank everyone for remaining civil, one of the reasons I hesitated in asking this before was the fear it would turn into some sort of flame war due to differing opinions.

[Demo_Chris]

19. Excellent Questions...

I am going to assume that you are referring to a government 'handout' here.

The first question that always enters my head I read about ensuring a living wage for every worker is do they want a flat rate for everyone? I ask this first because of how the cost of living can fluctuate wildly depending on what part of the country you live in. A living wage for some one in a small rural town wouldn't be nearly enough for someone in a large city like San Francisco so will the amount you get take this into effect?

I think you would need to assume a flat rate. A 'living wage' would allow everyone the freedom to migrate away from higher cost of living areas.

Second do you want a living wage just for adults or does every person in the country get a check?

In practical terms everyone would have to get a check. Now whether or not that check takes the form of a child subsidy or some such, the impact would be about the same.

[RainDog]

22. great point

If an expensive, major city wanted to maintain employees, those cities would have to decide to zone for affordable housing within those cities. On the other hand, there are a lot of places that offer many of the same, tho not to the same extent, cultural benefits of major cities and people could choose to live in more affordable places with more greenspace. Some of these cities are already working on sustainable living practices, etc. so people would not be forced to live in a place that offers jobs but with a lower standard of living for the middle class.

One of the really positive things about a minimum income is that it would serve as a "union" of sorts for all workers in relation to various jobs.

On the other hand, those who were willing to work in jobs that offer lower wages because of the job satisfaction would be able to do so more easily.

[CJCRANE]

20. Bear in mind, that most of us, even middle class and rich people

get money from the government in one form or another, whether tax credits, tax refunds, subsidies (I'm not an expert in these things but you get the idea) so it's not as far-fetched as it seems for the govt. to give everyone a standard payment.

And don't forget that the guaranteed minimum income is just a baseline. Whatever you earn on top of that is yours to keep as it is now, subject to the usual taxes etc.

And the people who survive on just the minimum income are still job creators because they have to spend that money on local businesses. (The current global financial slowdown is due the fact that most of the cash in the world has accrued to the 1% who hoard it because they don't need to spend it).

[RainDog]

21. here are some links that talk about this

A basic minimum income has support from both the left and the right, in various forms - but for different reasons, often - or diff. emphasis. One benefit of such a program would be the ability to eliminate the patchwork of agencies/programs that exist - streamline govt. - this could save costs, but, equally importantly, it would help to keep people from "falling through the cracks."

Others note that we already pay people from all levels of income in society through tax deductions for things like home ownership for the middle class, etc. - and, again, this program would make those income tax complications unnecessary.

Simplifying the tax code, in and of itself, would reduce the size of govt. that oversees so many of these aspects of society. Beyond American society - if the UN got behind the idea of a basic income for people within all nations - this would make offshoring less attractive because corps would have to pay more money - tho other nations might still have lower or higher basic miniumums for income.

http://basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html

Here in the U.S. -

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/08/05/universal-basic-income-how-much-would-it-cost/

Not only the left, but libertarians can also get behind this (as well as mainstream conservatives)

http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/26/scrap-the-welfare-state-give-people-free

Here's a Marxist writing about the same -

http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plcdib/imprints/vanparijsinterview.html

and, as noted, MLK moved to embrace this idea in his last book.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/18/936021/-MLK-s-Other-Dream-Economic-Justice-and-a-Guaranteed-Annual-Income

[libtodeath]

23. For anyone not to have the basic comforts of life is criminal

there is more then enough money in this country to make sure we all have a shelter,decent food,access to healthcare and information.
Fuck the notion that has to be earned,people like the koch brothers will see you die of starvation if it means another dollar in there pocket,that is what has to end.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. a living wage means you will not be in poverty if working full time

it isn't just feasible, it is the norm.



You seem to think that the world did not exist before Reagan became President. We were a capitalist country and a superpower back before the failed experiment of supply side economics began.


All we really want is to admit that this experiment failed and to go back to what worked.

[RainDog]

25. A living wage is different than a basic income, tho

Basic income would become a living wage, if tied to inflation, etc. as part of a bill for this.

Switzerland is voting on this idea. Every citizen, there, would receive something like 24k as a basic income. Of course, if you have a lot higher income, some of your basic minimum would be paid for out of taxes on that other income, or through a corporate tax.

It was tried in a city in Canada in the past and people still worked - it didn't provide a disincentive to work. The only people who opted out of the workforce were students, who were able to spend more time on studies, and mothers with small children.

[Motown_Johnny]

33. Agreed, this is about the working poor. Not unemployed or disabled.

The OP does not seem to realize that.


Any link to what happened in that city in Canada? I would love to read more about that.

[RainDog]

34. here ya go

http://www.sott.net/article/235840-A-Town-Without-Poverty-Canadas-Guaranteed-Income-Experiment

For a four-year period in the '70s, the poorest families in Dauphin, Manitoba, were granted a guaranteed minimum income by the federal and provincial governments. Thirty-five years later all that remains of the experiment are 2,000 boxes of documents that have gathered dust in the Canadian archives building in Winnipeg.

Until now little has been known about what unfolded over those four years in the small rural town, since the government locked away the data that had been collected and prevented it from being analyzed.

But after a five year struggle, Evelyn Forget, a professor of health sciences at the University of Manitoba, secured access to those boxes in 2009. Until the data is computerized, any systematic analysis is impossible. Undeterred, Forget has begun to piece together the story by using the census, health records, and the testimony of the program's participants. What is now emerging reveals that the program could have counted many successes.

And from the CBC -

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty-experiment-called-a-success-1.868562

[grahamhgreen]

26. I agree with you. People should not make enough working to pay for basic necessities.

I mean, obviously, you agree that if you're working full time you should be able to make a decent living.

[Lint Head]

27. If a person or corporation cannot pay a person a living wage who works for them they should not be

in business. New businesses do not get a break when it comes to paying slave wages just to get the business started. The employee is not an investor. Comparing our wage structure with other countries should be based on the 'noble cause' that all people who work should be paid a living wage based on their particular country's cost of living.

[FarCenter]

28. The other question is how you pay it out - yearly, monthly, weekly, daily?

[Liberal In Texas]

31. The living wage is about what an employer should pay for a job:

A fast food restaurant should pay a wage good enough so the employee doesn't have to go on welfare.

And that wage is paid whenever the restaurant pays it's employees.

This is not a government stipend, it's what employers should pay.

Now do you understand?

[FarCenter]

32. I was thinking of the guaranteed minimum income.