Don’t be absurd give me a number. A living wage varies from country to country. But cost of living can be determined.
It is a fair working wage, in the context of their local economy.
So if the factories pay over the prevailing wage rate in the area, you’re okay with it?
So “fair wage” should be based on cost of living, right?
Employees in Idaho have a lower base salary than those in Manhattan, to adjust for the cost of living.
An area where the cost of living is next to nothing should thus set their minimum wage just above next to nothing.
The concept of “fair wage” is fine as long as it’s applied correctly. And I think the factory conditions are going to reflect the quality of life available in a given region, and not the other way around.
Like I said, if beatings are considered acceptable in the streets, they’re going to be considered acceptable in the factories, regardless of who owns the factory. Ditto for all the other abuses that manifest themselves in sweat-shops.
I have a great idea about how to determine a fair wage. Instead of liberal do-gooders in the West setting it at the level that makes them feel the best about themselves, why not let people in those countries determine it? Since different areas within the country can differ we will let each area determine it. Since cities or towns within the same area can differ, let the fair wage be determined at the most local level possible. Since people vary in their needs, skills and wants why not let each worker determine a fair wage? The worker knows what his other options are and will only take the job if he believes it is better than his other options. If a worker believes his wages are fair, who are we arrogantly proclaim we know his welfare better than he does?
This is an excellent point, and it’s exactly why workers have traditionally been so opposed to minimum wage laws forced on them by an uncaring conspiracy of business interests. It’s why so many impoverished folks in third-world countries are so violently and vocally opposed to living wage campaigns.
Or maybe it’s that a worker in an economy with too few jobs is in competition with other workers for the limited jobs, and this competition drives wages to nearly zero; workers benefit from having this element of competition moderated (by minimum wage) or eliminated (by unionization).
I know that certain conservative do-gooders in the West would feel just awesome about themselves if all worker protections were eliminated, but that actually wouldn’t be the first choice of most workers.
As usual, you are so full opf snark you completel;y fail to see what’s obivous. Workers with jobs now almost always demand protections for them. But those without them want access, not protections which will block them out. Furthermore, I definitely don’t see everyday workers being terribly fond of “living wage campaigns”, precisely because it doesn’t have anything to do with their situation.
They don’t want a “living wage”. They want a better alternative.
Wait! In fact, that’s almsot exactlty what they are getting: a better alternative to theuir current situation. And in fact, damn near everywhere western companies go, new jobs and industry spring up and people get richer. The only exceptions are where government gets so stupid it actually destroys wealth (Argentina, Venezuala, etc.)
If you accepted the OP’s title as a premise perhaps you wouldn’t begrudge the Third World’s animosity towards us, then perhaps for moral high ground you’d seek to alleviate that imbalance.
Not saying YOU’D do so, just that the argument has merit, which you’re implying it does not.
Fantastic post. Quoted for effect.
This wouldn’t be a massive contradiction, IF the governments in Argentina and Venezuela weren’t wildly popular with poor people.
Given that worker protections are invariably demanded by poor people, where’s your evidence that they’re unpopular with the unemployed?