# Is it reasonable for an employee to expect a living wage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348 "2011-08-11T16:10:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/1 "2011-08-11T16:10:42Z")
I know that a lot of people will say that an employee should only receive what their job is actually worth. But what is it worth? It can be argued that a job that isn’t worth the resources necessary to do it isn’t worth doing. That strikes me as almost a tautology. So is any job that is worth less than a living wage worth doing? Aren’t the resources needed by an employee to make himself available for that job (i.e. those things needed for him to stay alive, healthy, alert, and able to get to work and perform properly) ultimately resources that are necessary for the job in question to get done? If an employer is not paying for all the resources necessary to do the job, isn’t he shifting some of those costs to his employees and therefore, in a way, parasitising them? If I hire a horse to pull my wares to the market, I understand that the man who owns the horse has to pass his costs for maintaining the health and strength of that horse onto his customers and that that will be reflected in what I pay him. Should we treat employees differently from horses? ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/2 "2011-08-11T16:21:14Z")
David, "So is any job that is worth less than a living wage worth doing? “Aren’t the resources needed by an employee to make himself available for that job (i.e. those things needed for him to stay alive, healthy, alert, and able to get to work and perform properly) ultimately resources that are necessary for the job in question to get done?” I was under the impression that the term “living wage” went beyond enabling an employee to stay alive, healthy, alert and able to get to work and perform properly. Googling the term does nothing to show that the concept is as limited as you make it out to be. As for treating employees differently from horses; we already do, since horses don’t get to consent to work contracts or leave them whereas employees do. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/3 "2011-08-11T16:35:22Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > David, > > "So is any job that is worth less than a living wage worth doing? > > “Aren’t the resources needed by an employee to make himself available for that job (i.e. those things needed for him to stay alive, healthy, alert, and able to get to work and perform properly) ultimately resources that are necessary for the job in question to get done?” > I was under the impression that the term “living wage” went beyond enabling an employee to stay alive, healthy, alert and able to get to work and perform properly. Googling the term does nothing to show that the concept is as limited as you make it out to be. > As for treating employees differently from horses; we already do, since horses don’t get to consent to work contracts or leave them whereas employees do. Maybe I’m misusing the term. I mean the amount needed to make themselves available to do the job. In other words, what’s needed for them to be alive, alert, healthy, and available. Is there another term for that? Let’s call it a “survivable wage”. The horse was just an example to illustrate the idea that a business should expect to pay what’s necessary to maintain a resource (be it a human or a horse). The horse doesn’t have a choice, but most people really don’t have a choice either. They need an income and, when their only choice is between less than they actually require, and nothing, they will take the insufficient amount. So your argument about the difference between humans and horses really isn’t an argument as to why it’s right for an employer to give them less, it’s an argument as to why an employer is _able_ to give them less and still retain them as an employee. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/4 "2011-08-11T16:41:28Z")
Workers wages must be lower than their productivity. But who controls the productivity? The worker to some extent, and workers who aren’t productive in jobs where they can be get fired, and replaced by someone more productive. But productivity is also controlled by the employer. If the job is defined so that the worker can’t contribute enough to get a living wage, the job needs to be redefined. If the worker doesn’t have the tools needed to be productive, the employer needs to provide them. Employers are doing this. I see even fast food workers handle in-store customers and drive-through customers at the same time. But given that wage increases haven’t matched productivity increases, the connection seems to have been broken. Not just for low wage workers - high wage ones left after layoffs typically get more work, become more productive, and get no raises. So, it is reasonable for an employee to expect a living wage and also to expect a job which allows him to contribute enough to pay for that wage, and it is also reasonable for an employer to expect the worker to be productive enough to make that contribution. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/5 "2011-08-11T16:42:40Z")
**MichaelEmouse** , I just googled “living wage” andf the Wikipedia definition is pretty close to the way I was using it, except for the addition of “recreation” which is a fuzzy concept. It could be argued that some minimum amount of distraction (e.g. recreation) may be necessary to health. > **[Living wage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage)** > > A living wage is defined as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs. This is not the same as a subsistence wage, which refers to a biological minimum, or a solidarity wage, which refers to a minimum wage tracking labor productivity. Needs are defined to include food, housing, and other essential needs such as clothing. The goal of a living wage is to allow a worker to afford a basic but decent standard of living through employment without government subsidies. Du The l... > [@](#): > > In public policy, a living wage is the minimum hourly income necessary for a worker to meet basic needs (for an extended period of time or for a lifetime). These needs include shelter (housing) and other incidentals such as clothing and nutrition. In developed nations such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/6 "2011-08-11T16:44:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > …and it is also reasonable for an employer to expect the worker to be productive enough to make that contribution. Of course. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/7 "2011-08-11T16:54:37Z")
> [@](#): > > I know that a lot of people will say that an employee should only receive what their job is actually worth. But what is it worth? It’s the amount one party is willing to pay another for some good or service. So, an iPad 2 is ‘worth’ what people are willing to pay for it. If you try and charge them more than they are willing to pay then you won’t see as many…or any. Your labor is ‘worth’ exactly what some company is willing to pay you for it. No more, though it could be less if you don’t understand it’s ‘worth’…the price the market is willing to pay for it. As with anything, people will try and pay you less than you are ‘worth’ if you let them get away with it and don’t shop smart. > [@](#): > > It can be argued that a job that isn’t worth the resources necessary to do it isn’t worth doing. That strikes me as almost a tautology. A job might not be worth doing for an individual in a specific circumstance, but if the rate is too low and no one will do it then either the rate has to be increased or the job won’t get done. For instance, someone living in California might not take a job for $10/hour because the cost of living in California is too high to support such a low paying job…but someone in North Dakota might feel differently about the cost to benefit ratio. And someone in Mexico or China might be extremely happy to do that same job for a dollar an hour. > [@](#): > > So is any job that is worth less than a living wage worth doing? That would depend on the person and what ‘living wage’ means. A person with no job at all might feel that such a job (or several such jobs) ARE worth their labor, especially if their labor isn’t worth very much on the open market (i.e. they don’t have any special marketable skills or abilities). ‘Worth’, in this case, is going to depend on the individual and his or her calculation of what they think their labor should command on the open market. > [@](#): > > Aren’t the resources needed by an employee to make himself available for that job (i.e. those things needed for him to stay alive, healthy, alert, and able to get to work and perform properly) ultimately resources that are necessary for the job in question to get done? No…the price point for a given job comes from what a company or individual is willing to pay to get a certain job done wrt what they can sell the good or service for and still make a profit on. If no one is willing to do a given job at a certain price point for their labor then an employer has the option of either charging more for their good or service (if the market will bear it) and hiring someone for more money, cutting down their profit margin (if possible), moving their operations somewhere that people ARE willing to take the job at the given price, or closing down operations for that product, good or service. The employee gets to choose whether or not what’s being offered for his or her labor is worth it to them to take, or whether they would be better off taking their labor somewhere else. -XT ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/8 "2011-08-11T17:17:30Z")
You talk as if there’s a large job market out there for the employee to choose from. We know that’s not the case. Often, especially in current times, an employee has to take what he can get. Something is always better than nothing even when that something isn’t enough. All the talk about what an employer is willing to pay versus what an employee is willing (often forced) to take, is an explanation of _why_ an employer can pay lower than what is required. It is not an explanation of why it’s _right_ for him to do so. If the employee’s costs are not covered by the employer than the employer is taking advantage of the economics of the situation and essentially stealing from the employee. For example, the employee pays for food which is converted into the energy needed to do the work. If the employer does not cover the cost of that food then isnt’t that theft? If the employer doesn’t pay for the gas to head the building, the gas company can rightfully cut him off. Verbal gymnastics about competing gas companies driving the price down below the actual cost of the gas don’t make a lot of sense, do they? For any other resource, a business’ cost will include the suppliers’ costs. Why are people, as a resource, different? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/9 "2011-08-11T17:18:16Z")
All the power in an employee/company relationship is in the hands of the company when there is unemployment. Even though the company is making billions, they can cut salaries and benefits to workers at will. You are not on level ground when you face off with the company. A company would have no problem hiring workers for wages that would not support them and their families. We allow corporations to exist with no responsibilities toward the country and the people. They have a prime directive to increase profits any way they can. That is fundamentally wrong. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/10 "2011-08-11T17:28:22Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > All the power in an employee/company relationship is in the hands of the company when there is unemployment. Even though the company is making billions, they can cut salaries and benefits to workers at will. You are not on level ground when you face off with the company. > A company would have no problem hiring workers for wages that would not support them and their families. We allow corporations to exist with no responsibilities toward the country and the people. They have a prime directive to increase profits any way they can. That is fundamentally wrong. Exactly my point. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/11 "2011-08-11T17:46:06Z")
> [@](#): > > this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford a specified quality or quantity of housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation. What specified quality/quantity? Different people have different needs. A 22 year old man who lives in his mom’s basement doesn’t need to buy the same amount of these necessities as the 22 year old single mother who lives on her own. What works as a living wage for one is either a lavish paycheck or a quick road to homelessness, when given to the other. Really, you shouldn’t be able to raise a family of 4 by having a paper route, though I’m sure it can be a nice job for someone with other sources of income, or fewer needs than the family breadwinner. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/12 "2011-08-11T18:08:22Z")
Workers at Verizon are on strike. The company wants to slash benefits and cut down on union workers. The company only made nearly 2 billion last quarter. But cutting salaries and benefits would make them even more. I understand, in America, most believe the company owes the workers nothing. But the battle is on. Anything the workers can get screwed out of is good business. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/13 "2011-08-11T18:11:20Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > For example, the employee pays for food which is converted into the energy needed to do the work. If the employer does not cover the cost of that food then isnt’t that theft? Even in a high-price-of-living country, you can live on [$3/day for food](http://www.miketuritzin.com/writing/eating-healthily-for-3-a-day/), so I don’t think that’s the bar you want to set. Housing is probably going to be a much bigger expense, but people certainly _can_ live in small places with roommates, etc. The actual amount of money required to not die and be healthy enough to work is fairly low. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/14 "2011-08-11T18:20:00Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > All the power in an employee/company relationship is in the hands of the company when there is unemployment. So why doesn’t everyone earn minimum wage? ---
**Author:** ![Bloodless\_Turnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bloodless\_Turnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bloodless_Turnip)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/15 "2011-08-11T18:20:45Z")
Businesses are in the\*\* business\*\* to make a profit. If they weren’t, they’d soon be **out** of business. Employees always have a choice. Get another job, get a new job, work towards advancement in the current job, etc. Current employment market has nothing to do with it. If you have the skill the business needs, then you have the ability to negotiate what you believe to be a living wage (or even better!). If the business is out of business because they failed to worry about making any money, they won’t be hiring anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/16 "2011-08-11T18:25:05Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Y > All the talk about what an employer is willing to pay versus what an employee is willing **(often forced)** to take, is an explanation of _why_ an employer can pay lower than what is required. Bolding mine. This is the disconnect in your argument. The employer is not forcing the employee to accept employment. That would violate the 13th Amendment. The employer is not responsible for the employee’s living situation. The employer has no duty to the world at large. The employer offers X wage for Y work. The employee is free to accept or decline. If he declines, the next guy in line will take the job. Or the guy after him. Labor is a buyer’s market at the moment. If the employee wants to earn more, it is incumbent upon the employee to acquire more marketable skills. Unskilled labor is the bottom rung on the ladder. Anyone can do it, so supply exceeds demand, driving the prevailing wage down. Skilled labor is a higher rung. Not just anybody can perform certain tasks, so there is more competition among employers for qualified workers, driving wages up. A carpenter makes more than a ditch digger. This is because carpentry requires a degree of skill and precision that ditch digging does not. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/17 "2011-08-11T18:47:32Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Bolding mine. > > This is the disconnect in your argument. The employer is not forcing the employee to accept employment. That would violate the 13th Amendment. > > The employer is not responsible for the employee’s living situation. The employer has no duty to the world at large. The employer offers X wage for Y work. The employee is free to accept or decline. If he declines, the next guy in line will take the job. Or the guy after him. Labor is a buyer’s market at the moment. > > If the employee wants to earn more, it is incumbent upon the employee to acquire more marketable skills. Unskilled labor is the bottom rung on the ladder. Anyone can do it, so supply exceeds demand, driving the prevailing wage down. Skilled labor is a higher rung. Not just anybody can perform certain tasks, so there is more competition among employers for qualified workers, driving wages up. > > A carpenter makes more than a ditch digger. This is because carpentry requires a degree of skill and precision that ditch digging does not. You don’t find the employer’s amorality toward the living situation of his employees to be distasteful? I wouldn’t want to work for such an unfeeling person (not that I haven’t had to more than once). I understand that different skill levels earn different amounts. We’re talking about a minimum. And that minimum should cover the employee’s costs for providing those services. Unless they win the lottery, are born into money, are retired, or are able to live off a friend or relative, a person _is_ forced to work. Not by any particular employer, but by the need to obtain the resources necessary to survive. So I stand by my words, your bolding notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/18 "2011-08-11T18:49:07Z")
[QUOTE=davidm] You talk as if there’s a large job market out there for the employee to choose from. We know that’s not the case. [/QUOTE] Well this part of ‘we’ does NOT know that this is the case. I think you are confusing high unemployment with a general lack of jobs. A lot of people are unemployed because the jobs they want or are trained for are unavailable, or jobs at a rate they are willing to work at in their specific area is unavailable. That does not mean that there isn’t still a large job market for employees to choose from…it’s just that their choices may be sub-optimal wrt either their skill set or a price point…or they may need to move to a new area. > [@](#): > > Often, especially in current times, an employee has to take what he can get. Something is always better than nothing even when that something isn’t enough. That’s simply not true. Employees CHOOSE to take what’s offered because they may not want to move or commute, or because their own skill sets limit their choices (especially if, as noted, they are unwilling to move to somewhere else where their skills may be in greater demand, or where there is a scarcity of labor). > [@](#): > > All the talk about what an employer is willing to pay versus what an employee is willing (often forced) to take, is an explanation of why an employer can pay lower than what is required. Of course. The employer is the one paying for the resource (labor in this case) after all. The employee doesn’t have a gun to their head, however, and can always choose not to accept the deal as offered and to take their labor somewhere else. Even if it just means that instead of working at 7-11 they work at WalMart instead, it’s still their choice. As for ‘required’…required by whom? Employers offer jobs at rates that they set based on various markets…including the labor market. If they set the rates too low then they won’t get anyone (or the right people with the right skill sets), in which case they pretty much have to either do without labor or pay more. They have to compete with other, peer organizations, because despite your (and gonzomax’s) assertions, people ARE free to take their labor elsewhere…or even to not work at all if they determine that is in their best interests. > [@](#): > > For example, the employee pays for food which is converted into the energy needed to do the work. If the employer does not cover the cost of that food then isnt’t that theft? Um, no. The employer offers a specific deal for employment. It’s up to the employee to determine if that deal is acceptable or isn’t acceptable. If that deal, agreed upon by both parties means that the employee is unable to buy certain things (including food), then ultimately it’s up to the employee to decide what to do. They have options. They could take their labor elsewhere. They could get a second job. They could apply to the federal or state government for assistance, or ask for assistance from friends, family or a private charity. It’s not up to the employer to figure all of this stuff out. Again, if the employer is offering jobs at below the market rate for labor then they aren’t going to get any/many people willing to take those jobs…in which case they will have to pursue their own options. If sufficient people with sufficient skills take the jobs then, by default their rates were acceptable at the market rate they are operating in. > [@](#): > > For any other resource, a business’ cost will include the suppliers’ costs. Why are people, as a resource, different? Because you are wrong right at the start. Businesses pay market rates on all resources, including labor. They don’t pay extra costs to suppliers, they pay the rates agreed upon between suppliers and the business in question. If a business has to buy gas, they pay the market rates for gas. Included in those costs may be all sorts of loading…just like an employee has to load their own costs to determine if a given job at a given rate are acceptable. If they aren’t, then just like the business buying gas, one of the parties will look elsewhere for the resources they need. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/19 "2011-08-11T18:58:30Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But productivity is also controlled by the employer. This is pretty key to me. I think of it every time mandatory minimum wage is debated. In short, if you can’t formulate your business and its constituent jobs in a way that every employee is worth more than minimum wage to you, you’re a pretty crappy businessman. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348/20 "2011-08-11T18:58:54Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > You don’t find the employer’s amorality toward the living situation of his employees to be distasteful? No, I don’t. Employers are not parents. They have no legal or moral duty to put a chicken in every pot. There already is a minimum wage law, and the employer is required to comply with that law (which includes exceptions for certain types of employment). Anything offered above that minimum requirement is a matter of private contract negotiated between the parties. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-reasonable-for-an-employee-to-expect-a-living-wage/592348.md?page=2)