[Hand]

Having never heard the term "living wage" before, I went and did some research. While I in no way mean to circumvent QP MR2's instructions to SomethingWitty, I figured a little data from the ILO may help direct future discussion and give me a base from which to assert that "living wage" is a really nice way to say "another entitlement program".

Note: <source>

The idea of a living wage is that workers and their families should be able to afford a basic, but decent, life style that is considered acceptable by society at its current level of economic development. Workers and their families should be able to live above the poverty level, and be able to participate in social and cultural life.

There's the definition, essentially. Its very touchy feely IMO and leaves more questions than it answers (granted, it is meant to apply to a large set of people). There is a chart in the .pdf which attempts to set forth some basic guidance on determining the actual $$ involved with a "living wage". But how is what I imagine would be a local government body (?) supposed to sit down with a new hire and analyze their particular situation/age/weight/number of kids/neighborhood/number of room in house/number of cars etc... and determine "You, sir, will be compensated X dollars and your across the street neighbor, who will do the same job will be compensated in X+Y dollars."

Notice that there is no mention of skill level, physical ability, education, experience etc. Can someone who is hired with a "living wage" only ever get a raise when their life situation changes according to some chart? Does increased skill or a new skill set or a new degree offer them the opportunity for a higher "living wage"?

An important reason why living wage is not more widely applied is that there is neither a generally accepted definition of what a living wage is, nor is there a generally agreed methodology on how to measure a living wage. Partly because of this, many companies do not attempt to pay their workers a living wage and many governments do not seriously consider worker needs when they set legal minimum wages.

“The main problem is how to define the living wage in a consistent way and making sure that it is auditable” (Fair Labor Association, quoted in Chhabara, 2009).

Section 2 discusses and provides evidence that a living wage is seen as akin to a human right.

- Just as I suspected. A "living wage" removes completely the personal responsibility involved with ones own livelihood and/or survival. So you dropped out of high school and knocked up 3 different women and have no skills? Thats ok buddy, the state will take care of you, all you have to do is get a job flipping burgers and we are going to make sure that you live a comfortable life style that allows you to participate in society based on current economic conditions.

Ive had a steady job since I was 12 years old. I cant ever remember not taking a job when I needed one because it wouldn't "afford a basic, but decent, life style that is considered acceptable by society at its current level of economic development." I wouldn't pay someone more than they were worth to me as an employee and I damn sure didn't expect an employer to pay me more than I was worth. I worked my ass off for a long time, went to school, payed for it out of my own pocket and now I'm in a position to demand a good salary, why? Because I have a skill that is of high value to an employer. Would a "living wage" have allowed me to work my way up the food chain? Would it encourage vertical movement in the work place? Expansion of skills?

It appears that President Roosevelt fathered the idea
(please God - I sure hope that its not taken out of context because Sigaba will eat my lunch).

“We have come to a clear realization that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and that „necessitous men are not free men‟. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a Second Bill of Rights of economic security. Among these are: … the right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing and recreation.”

The right to earn enough.... What is that? Earn... Earn... Oh yeah!!! Work your ass off and get something in return. Roosevelt did NOT say that people have the "right" to be GIVEN enough, but to EARN enough. Well, Ive been working a long time, and I could work as many jobs as I could stay awake for, and Ive never had a cap placed on my salary. So in my experience, you can EARN as much as you are willing to WORK for.
To demand to be GIVEN enough though, I will gladly GIVE you the opportunity to go stand in line with the rest of the looters and hold your hand out and see how fast someone runs up to fill it. It wont be me, and unless the government takes it from me to give to you, it wont be them either. I don't think you are going to find an employer who will pay you to stand around with your hand out, so try not to listen to all the grumbling stomachs of all the "living wage" earners standing in line with you.