|
|
|
|
|
|
by tehaaron
4544 days ago
|
|
|
"Minimum wage really is not built as an independent living wage" This is exactly what I have always thought which is why I am always surprised to hear outrage about minimum wage jobs that do not provide a living wage yet they seem to think they should...or at least that is what I assume when they propose unions as a "solution". |
|
|
It isn't just memories of the 60s though, there is some strong "the grass was greener on on the other side" biasing going on. The minimum wage in 1968, in today's money, was $10.56. Hardly the "buy the house in the suburbs, two cars, and raise a family of five" type of salary that many people mistakenly remember it as: http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/02/14/minimum-wage-history...
Often people outraged about the minimum wage will talk about a "living wage". Living wage, as it is talked about today in "minimum wage outrage discussions" is a horrifically poorly defined concept. Nobody ever mentions just what neighborhood a minimum wage should enable you to live in (Malibu? I'd love to get a minimum wage job and afford a home in Malibu...) or just how large of a family this concept of a "livable wage" should support. Is a "living wage" what it takes to afford rent, with a roommate? Is it what it takes to afford rent with a stay-at-home SO? Afford rent with a small child? Afford rent with three small children?
Even if we bought into the idea of "minimum wage should be a livable wage", we'd have to specify a cutoff for our "livable wage" definition. Right now that cutoff is "is a dependent, has no dependents of their own", but people often act offended at that concept.