The Looters' war against wealth

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by MR2

So Witty, how does a moving target like a "living wage" correlate to the "minimum wage", a fixed mandate? Does/should a "living/minimum wage" change based upon ones location or the number of mouths they need to feed? Should a cell phone, a SUV, and a 60" plasma be included in the mix for determining what is a "living wage"?

And down the slippery slope we go! Wheee

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Unless an establishment's customers and employees and vendors are paying "market value" for driving and for parking, tax dollars are subsidizing that firm's profit margin.

Hmmm! Sounds like the rationale for BHO's comment "You didn't build that". Speaking of slippery slopes (see post in response to MR2 above) this is a doozy

[Guy]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

I am not going to turn down a promotion, and more money because "I already have everything I need." How many times has someone said "I make x/hour. That's enough, and now I do not want to do anything else"?

That is not to say that increased responsibility is for everyone.

Mo(re) Money Mo(re) Problems.

Some folks are happy with whatever living standard they're at and have turned down pay raises. Hell! Some folks I know can go to DC/VA and increase their wages substantially however; DC AO is NOT their cup-of-tea and it damn sure ain't mine!

WTF is a living wage? I've been out in the field with not-a-pot-to-piss-in nor a-window-to-throw-it-out-of: and was happier than some folks making more than a living wage.

GO GET YOUR OWN DAMN WEALTH (whatever that may be) AND LEAVE MINE ALONE!

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Guy

GO GET YOUR OWN DAMN WEALTH (whatever that may be) AND LEAVE MINE ALONE!

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

I disagree.

A persons ambition does not just spontaneously go away just because they earn a living wage. My end goal in life is not to make $11.50/hour, but having more money gives me more options with where to take my life.

I am not going to turn down a promotion, and more money because "I already have everything I need." How many times has someone said "I make x/hour. That's enough, and now I do not want to do anything else"?



That is not to say that increased responsibility is for everyone.

Well then, we will have to respectively agree to disagree.

My point was not about how much money one has or not(do we ever have enough?), it was: am I going to get that increase in pay from this job through living wage legislation etc. or am I going to try an move up the ladder in skill all while making my talent more marketable and attractive to companies that are willing to pay competitive rates for said skills. I think we can agree on the fact that a company's success and growth depends heavily on the talent, skill and motivation of it's employees. The living wage argument can create a vicious cycle of a decreased talent pool and an increase in "deadwood" employers that are satisfied with just paying a "living wage" and with no incentive at paying competitive rates for talent, as opposed to fostering employee growth and skill by rewarding it , and with it's employees having no motivation for furthering their career.

My .02

[Richard]

Originally Posted by BOfH

...living wage legislation...

Are you talking about, for example, legislated salaries for the military and the like?

Richard

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Richard

Are you talking about, for example, legislated salaries for the military and the like?

Richard

QP Richard,

Nope. I guess you could say that the military talent and skill set is exclusive to the military(excluding PMC and LEO for arguments sake), so there isn't much of a free market to establish what the competitive rate is.

My .02

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Richard

Are you talking about, for example, legislated salaries for the military and the like?

Interesting point Richard. Off the top of my head, there's military salary and benefits, federal worker salary and benefits, including legislators salary and perks (bias showing) that all require some sort of legislation.

Just asking, but are these all not just another form of "minimum wage" mandated/proscribed by the Government?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

For those asking me to define living wage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

SW--

Please note that wikipedia is a very controversial source on this BB. That resource allows for the dissemination of inaccurate information.

Moreover, its "open" culture encourages disrespectful and dismissive conduct towards SMEs who offer sound guidance in good faith. This sensibility is especially outrageous when that SME is a retired professional soldier who is committed to educating the general public on an important topic.

Originally Posted by BOfH

The living wage argument can create a vicious cycle of a decreased talent pool and an increase in "deadwood" employers that are satisfied with just paying a "living wage" and with no incentive at paying competitive rates for talent, as opposed to fostering employee growth and skill by rewarding it , and with it's employees having no motivation for furthering their career.

Another possibility is that very skilled and highly motivated employees will stay put and work their asses off because they're getting paid what they consider to be "enough" to live the lives they want to live.

Moreover, for some, what they do for a living is very much part of who they are. Self-efficacy isn't just about income.

[Paragrouper]

I admit it, I am an upper-middle class Walmart Shopper. I, and most of my neighbors shop routinely at Walmart for our everyday needs. There is a Costco, but it is 15 miles away and the Walmart is only 3. I guess if I wanted the whole 'Costco Shopping Experience,' I could go the the Sam's--only 7 miles away.

I've shopped there for over 10 years now--pretty much every week I go by for something. Most of the old-timers there are management and I expect they're earning a 'living wage,' otherwise I expect they would have died from starvation long ago. We also have the more itinerant employee crowd. They are mostly college kids that go to UNT, TWC or the local community college. They're the ones manning the bar code scanners at the check out. Others I talk to are supplementing their family income (I guess their spouse has a living wage issue too). In any case, most don't plan to make a career out of Walmart.

Me, I understand Walmart. They exist to be the biggest of their kind--and they do a very good job at it too. They're turning over $440 Billion a year and thats some serious coin. They are pretty much kicking the crap out of their competition. Their objective is to make their investors money, for if they don't they will go away.

They pay the salaries they pay because workers accept them. I have no doubt that if they couldn't find workers they would raise their salaries (of course, I would be pissed if I had to pay more for my Chunky Beef Stew) so they could maintain their profitability.

So to those that don't like Walmart--shop elsewhere. You have far more choices than just Costco and if you wish to pay more for the same products--enjoy! Further, if you don't like their wages and benefits, do not work there. See, that's so easy.

Oh SW; please use better references than 'Wiki.' That is just plain lazy.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Another possibility is that very skilled and highly motivated employees will stay put and work their asses off because they're getting paid what they consider to be "enough" to live the lives they want to live.

Moreover, for some, what they do for a living is very much part of who they are. Self-efficacy isn't just about income.

Bingo.

Working conditions, job satisfaction, work-life balance, location, autonomy, personal "calling", etc.
These things matter.

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Another possibility is that very skilled and highly motivated employees will stay put and work their asses off because they're getting paid what they consider to be "enough" to live the lives they want to live.

Moreover, for some, what they do for a living is very much part of who they are. Self-efficacy isn't just about income.

Sigaba,

Agreed. My point regarding upward mobility wasn't just outside the company, one could be upwardly mobile within the same company and even in the same position; as GC pointed out, there are reasons for staying in the same company and/or position if the work environment suits the employee.

As far as enough to live on, I would love for my income less living expenses to plateau, unfortunately, where I live, my living expenses go up regardless of my salary, and so does my tax bracket. The same could be said for many others.

I try to avoid to allowing what I do define who I am, income or otherwise. To each his own.

My .02

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by SomethingWitty

For those asking me to define living wage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

Well there you go...it's in wikipedia...it's official.

Minimum wage is not a living wage....it was never meant to be a "living wage," whatever that means.

[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.

[Trapper John]

Hand-

Taken from the ILO source you cited:

"This is the first time that a comprehensive review of this nature has been conducted. It is hoped that this paper will stimulate further debate on how the measurement of worker needs and living wages can be improved so that policy-makers are better informed."

So we really have come to - "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need".

This coupled with the attack on wealth (see the "How do you raise taxes thread"), the revived attacks on 2nd Amendment rights (Feinstein's proposed bill), and BTW I think the Press has all but capitulated its responsibilities and has effectively muted the purpose of a free press (1st Amendment) - well this optimist is feeling much less so these days. Or maybe I just got up on the "grumpy old man" side of the bed this morning.

Very interesting read though. Thanks.