Living wage calculator (s/o soooo many threads)

[shinyhappypeople]

My car is almost 15 years old.  I only have the type of insurance that covers anything I do to someone else or if I get hurt.  They wouldn't give me any money if something happened to my car (so I'm saying cheap insurance).  DH's car is about 12 years old.  He has comprehensive coverage.  We pay about $550 a year which is pretty dirt cheap really.  We paid a lot more when we lived in CT (car insurance varies wildly by state).  I don't think it's possible to get insurance that cheap here anywhere.

 

We have 2 cars, paid for, about 15 years old but they still run great. Neither of our cars is worth more than $2,000.   Obviously it's totally not worthwhile to purchase anything besides liability/uninsured driver coverage in our situation.  We are in CA, have GEICO and pay $700ish per year. 

 

 I understand why others choose differently, it just annoys me that a "living wage" standard for transportation is based on the more expensive (but not usually necessary) choice of car payment plus more expensive insurance.   Make sense?  I want "living wage" standards to be based on the basic, simple choices.

[shinyhappypeople]

I just took a second look at the site and realized that the minimum required income they list is before taxes.  In that case our income is about $4,000/yr below a "living wage."

 

Oh, spare me.

 

The only thing that annoys me more than professional victimhood is politicians and academics trying to convince to adopt that mindset.

 

 

[LucyStoner]

By the way, I just looked it up: We have Geico, which is the third least expensive auto insurance available in Florida. The average cost of insuring a vehicle in our part of the state is $1,400 annually.

 

Apparently, we are among the top 10 most expensive states in the country for auto insurance.

 

I'd believe it.  I've never seen so many accidents as when visiting Florida annually for several years to see my family.  I refused to drive our rentals.  They seem to take the speed signs as minimums in central FL. 

[Laura Corin]

My car is almost 15 years old.  I only have the type of insurance that covers anything I do to someone else or if I get hurt.  They wouldn't give me any money if something happened to my car (so I'm saying cheap insurance).  DH's car is about 12 years old.  He has comprehensive coverage.  We pay about $550 a year which is pretty dirt cheap really.  We paid a lot more when we lived in CT (car insurance varies wildly by state).  I don't think it's possible to get insurance that cheap here anywhere.

 

Goodness.  I had no idea.  If you are in an accident that is your fault and the other party gets hurt, do you have to pay their medical bills?  The NHS has the right to recover costs from the insured at-fault party, but the NHS costs are not high, so that might make a difference.

 

L

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 If one has "living wage" skills, one has a greater likelihood of earning a living wage, even if one starts out on the ground floor with a minimum wage job.

 

Greater likelihood? Well, yes.

 

That doesn't change the reality of a labor market with a large number of jobs that do not pay a living wage, employers who have no incentive to pay a living wage (thanks to using assistance programs to fill the gaps for their employees), and that even those without "living wage skills" have to somehow live.  Certain jobs in our economy will always require a low level of skill, and the need for those jobs won't disappear or pay better wages organically even if we increased the skill level of the average worker.

[SKL]

We could pay our lowest-level workers less than $22/hr to take care of dirty dishes, or we could lease a new-fangled dishwasher that will wash them a lot faster and better without the need to hire or supervise low-wage workers.

[Hikin' Mama]

I found it interesting that food costs for my low COL area were exactly the same as the town we stayed at in Hawaii. I made most of our meals while we were there so I bought quite a few groceries. Food was MUCH more expensive there. For example, milk here is around 2.50 a gallon, but was 8 or 9 per gallon there. It makes me doubt the accuracy of this thing.

[Joyofsixreboot]

Really glad I live in an inexpensive area. Only takes $8.06 for a living wage and poverty level is $5.21.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I just took a second look at the site and realized that the minimum required income they list is before taxes. In that case our income is about $4,000/yr below a "living wage."

 

Oh, spare me.

 

The only thing that annoys me more than professional victimhood is politicians and academics trying to convince to adopt that mindset.

True. Our food costs for 9 people were below their 2 adult/3 kid predictions as was everything except our medical costs. Insurance is beyond pricey for 9 people.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We could pay our lowest-level workers less than $22/hr to take care of dirty dishes, or we could lease a new-fangled dishwasher that will wash them a lot faster and better without the need to hire or supervise low-wage workers.

 

And?

[December]

Re:Transportation costs, it does bug me a bit when people are like "Just buy an old reliable used car!"  like it's not some huge gamble whether the old car you bought turns out to be reliable or not.  Five years ago we thought we were buying an old reliable car when we spent around $5,000 for a Ford Focus that was about 5 years old.  Even had our trusted mechanic check it out and he saw no issues with it.  Well, 7 months later the clutch was starting to give out and it would have cost $2,000 to replace it.  So if we would have opted to fix it, that would be $7,000 in that year just for the car and the repair, which would have ended up averaging $583 a month, which wouldn't even include gas or car insurance or any additional repairs that could be needed.  Well, instead of doing that, we did the completely irresponsible thing of buying a brand new car *gasp* and were saddled with a $300 a month car payment for five years.  (BTW we originally thought we'd just get a car a couple years old since everyone says "Don't buy a new car, they lose so much value just driving off the lot" but I think everyone else had the same idea and the cars that were just a year or two old were just marginally cheaper than the brand new ones.)   Yeah, so it's definitely not as simple as "Buy an old reliable used car" because that's a total gamble that could have you ending up being out more money per time spent driving the car than just buying a new one.

[SKL]

Re:Transportation costs, it does bug me a bit when people are like "Just buy an old reliable used car!"  like it's not some huge gamble whether the old car you bought turns out to be reliable or not.  Five years ago we thought we were buying an old reliable car when we spent around $5,000 for a Ford Focus that was about 5 years old.  Even had our trusted mechanic check it out and he saw no issues with it.  Well, 7 months later the clutch was starting to give out and it would have cost $2,000 to replace it.  So if we would have opted to fix it, that would be $7,000 in that year just for the car and the repair, which would have ended up averaging $583 a month, which wouldn't even include gas or car insurance or any additional repairs that could be needed.  Well, instead of doing that, we did the completely irresponsible thing of buying a brand new car *gasp* and were saddled with a $300 a month car payment for five years.  (BTW we originally thought we'd just get a car a couple years old since everyone says "Don't buy a new car, they lose so much value just driving off the lot" but I think everyone else had the same idea and the cars that were just a year or two old were just marginally cheaper than the brand new ones.)   Yeah, so it's definitely not as simple as "Buy an old reliable used car" because that's a total gamble that could have you ending up being out more money per time spent driving the car than just buying a new one.

 

I buy new cars too.  I am not a mechanic and I don't have time to tinker with a car.  I have had enough experiences of having to get out and open the hood and stick my hands in there while in a suit and heels on the way to a business meeting.  No thank you.  I did own a couple of old used cars before, but I paid less than $500 for each of them.  They worked well, considering, but I didn't feel the need to do maintenance.  I figured one day the engine would fall out into the road and that would be it.  :P

[ThisIsTheDay]

(Sorry, it's not letting me quote your post for some reason.)

 

Greater likelihood? Well, yes.

 

That doesn't change the reality of a labor market with a large number of jobs that do not pay a living wage, employers who have no incentive to pay a living wage (thanks to using assistance programs to fill the gaps for their employees), and that even those without "living wage skills" have to somehow live.  Certain jobs in our economy will always require a low level of skill, and the need for those jobs won't disappear or pay better wages organically even if we increased the skill level of the average worker.

 

I see it from the opposite perspective.  When workers are more skilled, employers MUST pay more than minimum wage in order to attract employees.  Fast food work is a great example.  I don't know how old you are, Chocolate, but I remember McDonald's and competitors paying several dollars higher than minimum wage back in the early 1990s in the Denver metro area.  Otherwise, they couldn't get employees.  Employers will pay what the market demands.

 

As a nation, we can blame the employers all we want--but ultimately, WE are responsible for the companies we support.  It's very difficult to argue about how terrible a company is if we are consumers of companies whose ethics we say we don't support.

 

Those without "living wage" skills do not "deserve" to make a "living wage." We can go in circles on this one (and ultimately agree to disagree.  We've seen how that plays out in other countries. Unfortunately, this is where we are as a country with a pathetic high school graduation rate and a school system that coddles students who then end up in remedial college courses.

The social systems that are in place, TANF, SNAP, are intended to be temporary, not a permanent dependency.  It's an opportunity to gain the skills necessary to get a better job, whether it's by going to school, on the job training, etc.  (I have clients who are receptionists and supervisors at McDonald's--not to mention nursing school and other health care graduates--who make more per hour than I do.) And they should. They've worked their tails off to get out of the system. If they would have believed the lies about not being able to make a "living wage" and settled for what they were getting, nothing would have changed for them.  Instead, they have a different future and they have set the bar for their children, because they took advantage of the opportunities they had.

[Ravin]

The numbers looked about right for where I live. We spend less on food, mostly because I go out of the way to find ways to do so.

 

It says my soon to be profession makes enough over the living wage that I might still hit it after the student loan bill. I really hope so.

[JumpyTheFrog]

In the US, if you are injured in a car accident, car insurance is supposed to cover it, not medical insurance (as far as I know). Also, some states have many un- and under-insured drivers, which means other drivers may choose extra coverage in case they are hit by a driver without enough insurance.

[JumpyTheFrog]

When we lived in NY (a no-fault state) our insurance was $1200 per year. When we moved to our current state (an at-fault state), the same coverage was only about $7-800 because we have clean driving records.

 

ETA: Our driving record was clean in both states, but I am guessing that in an at-fault state, an accident we cause might raise the insurance more than in a no-fault state.

[Laura Corin]

When we lived in NY (a no-fault state) our insurance was $1200 per year. When we moved to our current state (an at-fault state), the same coverage was only about $7-800 because we have clean driving records.

 

I have a 70% discount on my insurance because of my clean driving record.

 

L

[ChocolateReignRemix]

(Sorry, it's not letting me quote your post for some reason.)

 

Greater likelihood? Well, yes.

 

That doesn't change the reality of a labor market with a large number of jobs that do not pay a living wage, employers who have no incentive to pay a living wage (thanks to using assistance programs to fill the gaps for their employees), and that even those without "living wage skills" have to somehow live.  Certain jobs in our economy will always require a low level of skill, and the need for those jobs won't disappear or pay better wages organically even if we increased the skill level of the average worker.

 

I see it from the opposite perspective.  When workers are more skilled, employers MUST pay more than minimum wage in order to attract employees.  Fast food work is a great example.  I don't know how old you are, Chocolate, but I remember McDonald's and competitors paying several dollars higher than minimum wage back in the early 1990s in the Denver metro area.  Otherwise, they couldn't get employees.  Employers will pay what the market demands.

 

As a nation, we can blame the employers all we want--but ultimately, WE are responsible for the companies we support.  It's very difficult to argue about how terrible a company is if we are consumers of companies whose ethics we say we don't support.

 

Those without "living wage" skills do not "deserve" to make a "living wage." We can go in circles on this one (and ultimately agree to disagree.  We've seen how that plays out in other countries. Unfortunately, this is where we are as a country with a pathetic high school graduation rate and a school system that coddles students who then end up in remedial college courses.

 

The social systems that are in place, TANF, SNAP, are intended to be temporary, not a permanent dependency.  It's an opportunity to gain the skills necessary to get a better job, whether it's by going to school, on the job training, etc.  (I have clients who are receptionists and supervisors at McDonald's--not to mention nursing school and other health care graduates--who make more per hour than I do.) And they should. They've worked their tails off to get out of the system. If they would have believed the lies about not being able to make a "living wage" and settled for what they were getting, nothing would have changed for them.  Instead, they have a different future and they have set the bar for their children, because they took advantage of the opportunities they had.

 

That isn't how labor markets function.  It is a supply and demand effect.  If everyone in our society has a STEM degree, that doesn't mean that employers hiring ditch diggers will pay for STEM skills when they are not needed for the position.  In addition, the more you make a set of skills the average, the more competition there are for the positions that require those skills, which will create downward pressure on wages for those positions.

 

And employers are using those assistance programs to their advantage.  They can offer a wage rate knowing that it will not support a worker/family by itself yet know some of the difference will be made up by the social safety net.  Wal Mart alone employees 1% of the labor market in the US.  If you don't think they have a massive influence in many labor markets, then you are sadly mistaken. (I won't even get into some of their actions that have actively destroyed well paying jobs in various manufacturing sectors.)

 

If you have 95,000 jobs in an economy but 105,000 people looking for work, some will be left out. Among the employed, those at the bottom of the skill set (and there will always be someone at the bottom - someone finishes last in every med school class) will be at a significant disadvantage in seeking work and negotiating wages,  As I mentioned above, employers will not care about skills not needed for the job, and will not pay more than they have to in the labor market.  When we have higher rates of unemployment, workers are at a tremendous disadvantage, and as a society we will either have to set a wage floor that accommodates a living wage or accept that we will be subsidizing employers via government provided benefits.  Better education will help the country as a whole, but by itself it will not help bring the bottom end of the wage scale to a living wage.  I still contend that if you are working 40 hours a week, that yes, you do deserve to be paid enough to survive. 

 

 

[SKL]

And?

 

And the low-skill, low-experience individuals will have fewer choices.  Currently they can choose to work for, say, $10/hr, and share living expenses with others, while building a reputation that could win them a better job.  If they were not allowed to be hired for under $22, they would be losing both money and opportunities.

[December]

How much do these new fangled dishwashers cost?  One dishwashing employee working full time at $10 an hour is going to cost the employer $20,000 a year in wages alone.  Do these dishwashers cost more than that?  And I also don't understand who is going to load and unload this new fangled dishwasher, the owner?  I guess that works if the owner has a few hours of free time that he doesn't have to spend doing any other duties at the restaurant.

[JumpyTheFrog]

To me, it seems like the simple fact is we have too many workers and not enough jobs. As more jobs get automated or outsourced, the problem will get worse, unless whole new industries open up or mass numbers of the labor force leave the country or retire. The oversupply will keep wages down because if someone quits, there are plenty of people to take their place.

[Leav97]

Re:Transportation costs, it does bug me a bit when people are like "Just buy an old reliable used car!"  like it's not some huge gamble whether the old car you bought turns out to be reliable or not.  Five years ago we thought we were buying an old reliable car when we spent around $5,000 for a Ford Focus that was about 5 years old.  Even had our trusted mechanic check it out and he saw no issues with it.  Well, 7 months later the clutch was starting to give out and it would have cost $2,000 to replace it.  So if we would have opted to fix it, that would be $7,000 in that year just for the car and the repair, which would have ended up averaging $583 a month, which wouldn't even include gas or car insurance or any additional repairs that could be needed.  Well, instead of doing that, we did the completely irresponsible thing of buying a brand new car *gasp* and were saddled with a $300 a month car payment for five years.  (BTW we originally thought we'd just get a car a couple years old since everyone says "Don't buy a new car, they lose so much value just driving off the lot" but I think everyone else had the same idea and the cars that were just a year or two old were just marginally cheaper than the brand new ones.)   Yeah, so it's definitely not as simple as "Buy an old reliable used car" because that's a total gamble that could have you ending up being out more money per time spent driving the car than just buying a new one.

 

Ditto

 

We had 2 old but reliable cars at the beginning of last year.  We ended up spending almost 7,000 ($3,500 in 6 weeks) on car repairs last year.  In the end of January this year we replaced 1 with a brand new car.  It's much easier to budget for a car payment then the car repairs.  The emergency fund we had for car repairs was gone by May last year.  With the decreased gas costs and the increased car insurance I'm spending ~900 a month on car costs this year.  Last year averaged almost $1,100.  I think I'm better off with the car payment.

[AmandaVT]

Not accurate at all for us: 

 

Food - $553 for 2 adults/1 child. We can't come in under $800 for the past year or so, grocery prices have gone up too much. And we're vegetarian, so are not buying expensive meat! Our number does include toiletries, which isn't too high. 

 

Medical - $309. DH has over $225 taken out of his paycheck every other week for insurance, so that puts us well over that number off the top. Then we have a $750 deductible each year, random prescriptions, and dental stuff. Oh, and eye dr's and contact lens fees- all out of pocket.

 

Housing - $840. Fairly accurate. Our mortgage is lower than that (not including property tax) but that's about right for rental. But I'm not including utilities and I believe that calculator is. In VT, we have fairly high heat and electric bills. 

 

Transportation - $587. That's about right if there is no car payment. Gas runs us over $300 a month and car insurance is around $250. We have shopped around, and neither of us has been in any accidents or had any kind of traffic violation (in other words, nothing should raise our insurance)

 

Other - $158 - not sure what other is supposed to be. Phone and internet? That's about right. We have to have a home phone due to DH's job. 

 

Taxes - $4907. We pay more than that in taxes. We paid more than that just in federal tax last year, let alone state tax and property tax. I would say $5-8K is an average for property taxes here. 

 

DH's  full time job, barely pays our living wage of $16/hr. It also requires a masters degree and years of experience. 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

To me, it seems like the simple fact is we have too many workers and not enough jobs. As more jobs get automated or outsourced, the problem will get worse, unless whole new industries open up or mass numbers of the labor force leave the country or retire. The oversupply will keep wages down because if someone quits, there are plenty of people to take their place.

 

In a nutshell, that is a big part of the problem.  The solution is to try and find a way to spark stronger economic growth, which will only occur if we find a way to place more money into the hands of the middle class and below.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And the low-skill, low-experience individuals will have fewer choices.  Currently they can choose to work for, say, $10/hr, and share living expenses with others, while building a reputation that could win them a better job.  If they were not allowed to be hired for under $22, they would be losing both money and opportunities.

 

Terrible example.  Any commercial dishwasher will be significantly cheaper than wages for one worker for a year, even at $10 an hour.  If the machine has an expected life of 5-6 years, then it would be a snap decision at $10 or $22.

 

The minimum wage/low wage market is currently affected less by automation or outsourcing than most of other parts of the labor market due losing jobs for those reasons in previous decades.

[Arcadia]

How much do these new fangled dishwashers cost? One dishwashing employee working full time at $10 an hour is going to cost the employer $20,000 a year in wages alone. Do these dishwashers cost more than that? And I also don't understand who is going to load and unload this new fangled dishwasher, the owner? I guess that works if the owner has a few hours of free time that he doesn't have to spend doing any other duties at the restaurant.

Restaurants are often closed from 3pm to 6pm. The waiters, waitresses and chefs gets to eat lunch and the managers can load the dishwashers. Besides restaurants run by families tend to have family dropping by to help out. A dishwasher for restaurant (about the size of Denny's) use is affordable.

 

Another thing is a dish washing employee would use up a wash basin/sink which a chef might need for food prep.

[SKL]

Terrible example.  Any commercial dishwasher will be significantly cheaper than wages for one worker for a year, even at $10 an hour.  If the machine has an expected life of 5-6 years, then it would be a snap decision at $10 or $22.

 

The minimum wage/low wage market is currently affected less by automation or outsourcing than most of other parts of the labor market due losing jobs for those reasons in previous decades.

 

The actual facts are that this dish cleaning job is not full-time, and we do in fact have an electric dishwasher, but it is a slow one.  It requires someone to deal with multiple loads of dishes (or more), and some hand washing, after a catered event.  If they can handle additional responsibilities (such as counting the silverware - a task that proved to be beyond one of our workers last week), then they can get more hours and a more interesting experience. 

 

The newfangled dishwasher is pretty affordable and reportedly works so fast that we can simply ask the caterers to put the used dishes in the rack as they work and they will all be clean and dry by the end of the day.  I'm told it takes a couple of minutes per rack to wash and dry.  Supposedly.

 

It may not be the best example out there, but the point is clear.  Forcing the going rate for low-skill work to more than double is going to force their employers to find other solutions.  Nobody is indispensable.  Not me, not them.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The actual facts are that this dish cleaning job is not full-time, and we do in fact have an electric dishwasher, but it is a slow one.  It requires someone to deal with multiple loads of dishes (or more), and some hand washing, after a catered event.  If they can handle additional responsibilities (such as counting the silverware - a task that proved to be beyond one of our workers last week), then they can get more hours and a more interesting experience. 

 

The newfangled dishwasher is pretty affordable and reportedly works so fast that we can simply ask the caterers to put the used dishes in the rack as they work and they will be clean and dry by the end of the day.  Supposedly.

 

It may not be the best example out there, but the point is clear.  Forcing the going rate for low-skill work to more than double is going to force their employers to find other solutions.  Nobody is indispensable.  Not me, not them.

 

 

Where are you getting your "facts"?

[SKL]

Where are you getting your "facts"?

 

My business that I co-own.

[PeacefulChaos]

(Sorry, it's not letting me quote your post for some reason.)

 

Greater likelihood? Well, yes.

 

That doesn't change the reality of a labor market with a large number of jobs that do not pay a living wage, employers who have no incentive to pay a living wage (thanks to using assistance programs to fill the gaps for their employees), and that even those without "living wage skills" have to somehow live.  Certain jobs in our economy will always require a low level of skill, and the need for those jobs won't disappear or pay better wages organically even if we increased the skill level of the average worker.

 

I see it from the opposite perspective.  When workers are more skilled, employers MUST pay more than minimum wage in order to attract employees.  Fast food work is a great example.  I don't know how old you are, Chocolate, but I remember McDonald's and competitors paying several dollars higher than minimum wage back in the early 1990s in the Denver metro area.  Otherwise, they couldn't get employees.  Employers will pay what the market demands.

 

As a nation, we can blame the employers all we want--but ultimately, WE are responsible for the companies we support.  It's very difficult to argue about how terrible a company is if we are consumers of companies whose ethics we say we don't support.

 

Those without "living wage" skills do not "deserve" to make a "living wage." We can go in circles on this one (and ultimately agree to disagree.  We've seen how that plays out in other countries. Unfortunately, this is where we are as a country with a pathetic high school graduation rate and a school system that coddles students who then end up in remedial college courses.

 

The social systems that are in place, TANF, SNAP, are intended to be temporary, not a permanent dependency.  It's an opportunity to gain the skills necessary to get a better job, whether it's by going to school, on the job training, etc.  (I have clients who are receptionists and supervisors at McDonald's--not to mention nursing school and other health care graduates--who make more per hour than I do.) And they should. They've worked their tails off to get out of the system. If they would have believed the lies about not being able to make a "living wage" and settled for what they were getting, nothing would have changed for them.  Instead, they have a different future and they have set the bar for their children, because they took advantage of the opportunities they had.

 

I'm curious as to what 'living wage skills' are.  What qualifies?

[prairiewindmomma]

I looked at the numbers for my area.

 

There is *nothing* to rent in the price amount given. Our city requires a certain number of square feet per person in a rental, and there are no three bedroom apartments to rent in my town. You are stuck renting a duplex or home. Rent starts at about $200/more a month than listed. You could own a very modest home for the amount listed, it would likely be a 900-1200 sq ft 1950s unremodeled ranch, but you would have a/c and maybe a dishwasher.

 

Medical at $344/month is a complete joke. Seriously. Unless you qualify for state medical assistance, you would be uninsured. $344/mo doesn't even cover meds for one kid for me--let alone the 4 I have.

 

Food is the only category where the allotment is right.

[foxbridgeacademy]

I looked up my hometown, they are so off, I wish housing for 2 adults and 2 children was under $700. You can maybe get a 1 bedroom apartment for that.... actually I guess you could get a roach motel type of 2 bed for around $700 but the availability is near zero, all the students are cramming into them.  

[Annie G]

 

Taxes - $4907. We pay more than that in taxes. We paid more than that just in federal tax last year, let alone state tax and property tax. I would say $5-8K is an average for property taxes here. 

 

DH's  full time job, barely pays our living wage of $16/hr. It also requires a masters degree and years of experience. 

 

 

Your dh's full time job pays about $16 an hour but your federal tax burden is more than $4900? Something seems wrong here. 

[Amber in SJ]

In our county minimum wage is $10 not the $8 shown.  Some of the other numbers were off as well.

 

Amber in SJ

[AmandaVT]

Your dh's full time job pays about $16 an hour but your federal tax burden is more than $4900? Something seems wrong here. 

 

I pulled the numbers from our tax returns. DH works a full time job and has a private therapy practice as well, and I work part time, so our total household income is more than the $16/hr. We couldn't make ends meet at the $16/hr wage!

[ThisIsTheDay]

That isn't how labor markets function.  It is a supply and demand effect.  If everyone in our society has a STEM degree, that doesn't mean that employers hiring ditch diggers will pay for STEM skills when they are not needed for the position.  In addition, the more you make a set of skills the average, the more competition there are for the positions that require those skills, which will create downward pressure on wages for those positions.

 

And employers are using those assistance programs to their advantage.  They can offer a wage rate knowing that it will not support a worker/family by itself yet know some of the difference will be made up by the social safety net.  Wal Mart alone employees 1% of the labor market in the US.  If you don't think they have a massive influence in many labor markets, then you are sadly mistaken. (I won't even get into some of their actions that have actively destroyed well paying jobs in various manufacturing sectors.)

 

If you have 95,000 jobs in an economy but 105,000 people looking for work, some will be left out. Among the employed, those at the bottom of the skill set (and there will always be someone at the bottom - someone finishes last in every med school class) will be at a significant disadvantage in seeking work and negotiating wages,  As I mentioned above, employers will not care about skills not needed for the job, and will not pay more than they have to in the labor market.  When we have higher rates of unemployment, workers are at a tremendous disadvantage, and as a society we will either have to set a wage floor that accommodates a living wage or accept that we will be subsidizing employers via government provided benefits.  Better education will help the country as a whole, but by itself it will not help bring the bottom end of the wage scale to a living wage.  I still contend that if you are working 40 hours a week, that yes, you do deserve to be paid enough to survive. 

 

 

Sorry, you're wrong.  That IS how labor markets function.  They will pay what the market bears.  Period.

 

I never said ANYTHING about the influence of Walmart or any other business. What I said was that your patronage is a support of how that business runs.  Don't agree with paying below "living wage"?  Then one should not be buying services from those companies.  So are you?  You don't shop at Walmart, but where do you shop that is paying this wage that you believe so strongly that employees deserve?  I realize that sounds snarky, but it's not my intent.  Is Giant or Safeway better than Walmart?  Chipotle better than McDonald's?  Why?

You have two employees.  One is skilled in your business and one isn't.  But you are paying the unskilled one a "living wage."  I think you are a foolish business owner, and your business will fail.

 

You have a choice between two babysitters.  One is experienced and does a great job.  One has no experience.  Who would you hire?

 

Your car breaks down.  Do you choose the skilled mechanic, or the guy who's a hard worker, just starting out, no experience, but pay him a "living wage"?

 

The list is endless here. I am really curious, do you back up your strong beliefs with your actions, or are you just wishing you could live what you believe?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sorry, you're wrong.  That IS how labor markets function.  They will pay what the market bears.  Period.

 

I never said ANYTHING about the influence of Walmart or any other business. What I said was that your patronage is a support of how that business runs.  Don't agree with paying below "living wage"?  Then one should not be buying services from those companies.  So are you?  You don't shop at Walmart, but where do you shop that is paying this wage that you believe so strongly that employees deserve?  I realize that sounds snarky, but it's not my intent.  Is Giant or Safeway better than Walmart?  Chipotle better than McDonald's?  Why?

You have two employees.  One is skilled in your business and one isn't.  But you are paying the unskilled one a "living wage."  I think you are a foolish business owner, and your business will fail.

 

You have a choice between two babysitters.  One is experienced and does a great job.  One has no experience.  Who would you hire?

 

Your car breaks down.  Do you choose the skilled mechanic, or the guy who's a hard worker, just starting out, no experience, but pay him a "living wage"?

 

The list is endless here. I am really curious, do you back up your strong beliefs with your actions, or are you just wishing you could live what you believe?

 

I suggest you go back and reread your previous post. I was specifically referring to your claims that simply increasing educational levels will increase wage rates across the board, which is untrue and has no support in any respectable journals.  Labor markets are affected by supply and demand, which you are referencing with your "pay what the market will bear" comment, however raising the educational level of workers will not affect wage rates in jobs that do not need higher levels of skill.

 

I don't believe your comments are snarky, but they are woefully ill-informed and ignore the lack of choice that consumers (and workers) face in many areas.

 

I am not sure what point you believe you are making with your examples, but if your point is that some people are unskilled and therefore deserve to not have a roof over their head, medical care, or enough to eat then, well...bless your heart.

 

And for the record, many unskilled workers often are paid living wages.  A brand new attorney at a law firm is unskilled, and is not who I would want representing me, but he is paid a living wage.  The same often applies to "inexperienced" mechanics and other professions that have higher starting wages.

 

And for the record, no, I do not shop at Wal Mart and where possible I purchase form businesses with a reputation for treating their employees better. Unfortunately, the vast number who not not operate ethically in the labor market makes it impossible to avoid them all.

[ThisIsTheDay]

I suggest you go back and reread your previous post. I was specifically referring to your claims that simply increasing educational levels will increase wage rates across the board, which is untrue and has no support in any respectable journals.  Labor markets are affected by supply and demand, which you are referencing with your "pay what the market will bear" comment, however raising the educational level of workers will not affect wage rates in jobs that do not need higher levels of skill.

 

I don't believe your comments are snarky, but they are woefully ill-informed and ignore the lack of choice that consumers (and workers) face in many areas.

 

I am not sure what point you believe you are making with your examples, but if your point is that some people are unskilled and therefore deserve to not have a roof over their head, medical care, or enough to eat then, well...bless your heart.

 

And for the record, many unskilled workers often are paid living wages.  A brand new attorney at a law firm is unskilled, and is not who I would want representing me, but he is paid a living wage.  The same often applies to "inexperienced" mechanics and other professions that have higher starting wages.

 

And for the record, no, I do not shop at Wal Mart and where possible I purchase form businesses with a reputation for treating their employees better. Unfortunately, the vast number who not not operate ethically in the labor market makes it impossible to avoid them all.

 

 

Sorry, so woefully ignorant of me to disagree with you!