Defining/Determining "Living Wage"

[SezMe]

Now ... tax the butt out of the owner and he may very well close up shop. Now, just where do all those tax paying employees go? What happens to their paid taxes? What does society get with no more product?

In the boom era before the depression owners were taxed the butt out of (namely, the upper marginal tax rate was 90%) and businesses didn't close. In fact, it was a golder period for business.

 

[Piscivore]

That means you must be willing to put a gun to someones head and take their money to give it to someone else.

You keep making variations of this claim "The Government" uses "violence" to "steal" from its citizens. How many armed men exactly pointed guns at your head last April?

Or are you even old enough to pay taxes yet?

 

[Improbable Joe]

In the boom era before the depression owners were taxed the butt out of (namely, the upper marginal tax rate was 90%) and businesses didn't close. In fact, it was a golder period for business.

In the "golden age" of the late 1940s and the 1950s, during the post-war boom, tax rates were also much higher than we see today. Of course, rich people were willing to settle for the gold plated bathtubs, and didn't need the solid 24-karat model.

Of course, we have tons of "conservative" and "libertarian" sociopaths who are happy to force the rest of us into starvation wages to make sure that no rich person ever has to... well, who knows? It isn't like a billionaire will ever actually spend even the smallest amount of their net worth, so what exactly are they protecting?

 

[esquel]

A “living wage” as defined as anything above this minimal level is put in place to provide people with things that they do not NEED – that is need to survive. That means you must be willing to put a gun to someones head and take their money to give it to someone else.

From this, it seems you are okay with paying people just enough to keep body and soul together, wearing rags (a clothing allowance is not needed to 'survive'), living in a car or tent or on the street (to merely exist you don't really need more than minimal shelter), nevermind things like soap or aspirin. That's nothing but servitude. And without enough money to spend any time doing anything but surviving, how do you propose this hypothetical person improve their lot?

 

[Rasmus]

And seriously now. Are you willing to put people out of work to help others? Lets say the implementation of a living wage helps out 99% of workers and forces 1% of people out of a job. Is that acceptable to you? It is not to me.

It is to me.

The 1% is not starving in the streets, they are subsidised by the state. So - again - my taxes make up the profit of whoever pays these people too little to live on. I am only taking away jobs that are not worth being done in the first place.

And, yes, people will take such jobs with or without welfare. It might mean they'll starve just so much slower...

 

[Patrick_R]

In the boom era before the depression owners were taxed the butt out of (namely, the upper marginal tax rate was 90%) and businesses didn't close. In fact, it was a golder period for business.

I think you may be refering to the personal income tax at the highest bracket. But the US government also pursued a lose monetary policy during this time - easy money.

 

[Improbable Joe]

I am only taking away jobs that are not worth being done in the first place.

Which jobs are those? The only ones I can think of are corporate executive and "financial services" positions, and maybe celebrity and pro-sports positions.

 

[Patrick_R]

It is to me.

The 1% is not starving in the streets, they are subsidised by the state. So - again - my taxes make up the profit of whoever pays these people too little to live on. I am only taking away jobs that are not worth being done in the first place.

And, yes, people will take such jobs with or without welfare. It might mean they'll starve just so much slower...

So you put some people out of work to help a few others. But taxes are raised, taking from you to pay those people who went out of work. But prices are higher and incomes are lower and now more people are struggling...

This is what the welfare state does. It is the great fiction that everyone tries to live at everyone elses expense. (actually that is government in general )

But fine, I find it morally wrong to force people out of their job at gun point and then to rob others at gun point to pay those who lost the job.

 

[Patrick_R]

You keep making variations of this claim "The Government" uses "violence" to "steal" from its citizens. How many armed men exactly pointed guns at your head last April?

Or are you even old enough to pay taxes yet?

Try not paying your taxes next year please.

 

[Piscivore]

Try not paying your taxes next year please.

That's not an answer. How many armed men exactly pointed guns at your head last April?

Or are you even old enough to pay taxes yet?

(and if one wants to know what really happens when taxes are unpaid- outside the fantasy world of Our Mr. Patrick- look here. Oh, my, but those strongly worded letters leave bruises, don't they?)

 

[DC]

So you put some people out of work to help a few others. But taxes are raised, taking from you to pay those people who went out of work. But prices are higher and incomes are lower and now more people are struggling...

This is what the welfare state does. It is the great fiction that everyone tries to live at everyone elses expense. (actually that is government in general )

But fine, I find it morally wrong to force people out of their job at gun point and then to rob others at gun point to pay those who lost the job.

you have a total twisted view of living in a community. and why pay taxes etc.

since decades we have a right to get that mimnimal payment we need for daily life. and still most do not try to live of others expence.
there are sure cases of missuse and fraud, and people that just dont want to work. their numbers remained small. now in economic hard times , 3 % of the population collect that assistance, alot of the new once get it because they dont get payd enough. so the companys that dont pay enough to people are stealing money of taxpayers.

you support people starving so others can make profit, i think that is morally wrong.

 

[Piscivore]

But fine, I find it morally wrong to force people out of their job at gun point and then to rob others at gun point to pay those who lost the job.

Please provide a single instance of that happening, anywhere, ever.

 

[Just thinking]

In the boom era before the depression owners were taxed the butt out of (namely, the upper marginal tax rate was 90%) and businesses didn't close. In fact, it was a golder period for business.

You help make my case. It requires a booming economy to allow for such; since we both know that is unsustainable, we should try to make it possible for businesses (and people) to survive economic downturns. How many people were maintained by companies that no longer were able to meet their costs? How many companies today would have to close up if we re-instated those tax rates today?

 

[leftysergeant]

And what if that person is contributing 300 times the output of the average worker -- in befitting the company and society?

THose people are even more rare than the worker who stays in a job for years but is not worth a decent day's provisions.

Bloody near never happens.

 

[lightfire22000]

Re-read your Kahneman. To a first approximation, no one is good at math.

Not sure what you mean here. If I remember my Psych correctly, a first approximation is a standard point from which people guess. However, the point is usually irrationally selected and only chosen because they heard it from somewhere else(though I suppose you could argue that this is not necessarily irrational since they may make false, but reasonable assumptions to select the irrelevant baseline). What does that have to do with math?

If you mean that no one is good at math because it is all relative, then you are indeed correct. However, the same could be said about a living wage.

Let me make a few assumptions:
1) Everybody dies.
2) Death always has a scientific cause
3) Living is the state of not dying

This means that everybody must enter a dying state. If a living wage is the wage that can keep a person from entering a dying state, it must not exist since that person will eventually die. This is supported by the fact that a living wage for a perfectly healthy person is quite different from a living wage for someone in need of a heart transplant. It could cost billions to do the research needed to keep a 110 year old alive. Since everyone eventually dies, everyone will never always get a living wage. However, by the market encouraging people to better themselves, the standard of living goes up and people become better at approximating a living wage.

 

[Just thinking]

THose people are even more rare than the worker who stays in a job for years but is not worth a decent day's provisions.

Bloody near never happens.

It happens ... more that you might be willing to believe. But I freely accept that it isn't common, as most folks aren't willing to do the sacrifices nor take the risks I mentioned earlier, and the final outcome is never a guarantee.

But rare or not, that shouldn't prevent you from answering the question, as it seems to have for DC.

 

[Cobalt]

This thread has drifted a bit, which is to be expected, but I think some are missing the point.

To those who've offered their method to determine a "living wage," I thank you, that's what I wanted, an explanation as to how you would come to this amount.

If we wish to debate the idea that a day's work is always worth a day's provisions, whatever that may be, let us begin another thread.

 

[Patrick_R]

Please provide a single instance of that happening, anywhere, ever.

Government instituted wealth redistribution... Government takes my money by force (via threat of imprisonment) and gives it to someone else who did not earn it.

 

[nescafe]

Government instituted wealth redistribution... Government takes my money by force (via threat of imprisonment) and gives it to someone else who did not earn it.

Yes, and for the most part We The People voted for that, and are fine with it to a greater or lesser extent. Don't like it? Convince enough people to vote otherwise, or emigrate to your favorite libertarian paradise.

 

[Rasmus]

Which jobs are those?

Jobs that a business owner cannot pay a living wage for without turning a loss and that a taxpayer than has to compensate for.