mangeorge,
Gotta disagree on at least two points you made. $350/month for food? I only spend at most $50/week for two adults. What are you eating?
You also included $50/month for entertainment. Granted it’s not much, but do you really think people are “entitled” to entertainment?
As a working parent with a stay-at-home-husband, let me say this:
Huh?
Do you know how much cheaper it is to have one parent stay at home? I have two kids that I’m not paying day care expenses for. We’re not paying for gas for him to drive back & forth to work every day. He’s not eating lunch out every day.
I consider having a stay-at-home-husband a “reasonable expense,” because if he had a job outside the home, our expenses would more than likely go up.
AuntiePam: The above-mentioned food stamp thing happened in Michigan. Maybe there’s other states where childless single people can get more aid than they can here?
Changing my sig, because Wally said to, and I really like Wally, and I’ll do anything he says, anytime he says to.
Cristi – you’re right about saving money with a stay-at-home dad.
There was a PBS (I think PBS) special a few years ago focusing on family economics, debt, budgets, etc.
I don’t recall all the details, but the show focused on a two-earner family having problems making ends meet, despite both parents making decent money.
When they sat down and figured it out, they were amazed at the expense of the wife’s job. (It could just as well have been hubby’s job, but in this case, he was making probably a third more than she was.)
She quit her job to stay home. They ended up with a surprising increase in their income. She planned to return to work after the kids were in school full time.
I realize this might sound all too Donna Reed-ish to some folks, but in this case, it worked out well for them.
(And Cristi, I wouldn’t be surprised if Iowa’s rules on assistance for single people were similar to Michigan’s.)
That’s the question I was trying to answer.
I thought that maybe I had misunderstood the question, so I went back and re-read the OP. Nope, jaydabee definitely asked what it would take to survive without any outside help.
Going to work 10 hours a day, going home to a dinner of hamburger and beans, then to bed, only to do the same the next day isn’t surviving, it’s dying slowly. Been there, kiddos. Remember, no SO or children allowed.
You’re probably right ($5/day ?). Like I said, I haven’t had to live like that for a long time. And I do like to eat well.
C’mon. Give the guy 50 bucks. He/she is single, fer crissakes.
Did I say “Put the cretin out of business”?
Nah, I questioned the cretins ability to run a business.
You folks need to lighten up a little and be more reasonable. Are any of you currently living alone on $800-1,000/mo? Is it fun? 
Peace,
mangeorge (Word of the day: Exploitation)
The question of a minimum or living wage is subsumed under the larger question of government regulation of any sort of business transaction.
According to pure capitalist theory, the free market should be able to make any adjustments necessary to wages and prices. There should be no need for a minimum wage, a central bank, labor laws, health inspections, or a panoply of other activities which modern governments engage in to regulate commerce. However, governments do regulate economic activity in just these ways. Why?
We desire many other qualities from in our life. Economic efficiency certainly provides many benefits, but it doesn’t give us everything. Specifically, we could have a class of labor that was very cheap, with the laborers living in barely tolerable circumstances. However many people hold that such conditions are incompatible with human dignity.
Historically, when the wealthy members of a society hold too large a percentage of the wealth, the populace at large will engage in violent rebellion (e.g. the French and Russian revolutions).
There are many positive feedback systems in pure capitalism (i.e. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer). In any sort of self-regulating system, positive feedback can lead to poor efficiency and sometimes destruction of the mechanism unless compensated by some form of negative feedback.
There are always barriers to perfect freedom in the market. Economic entities, be they persons or companies, often work to impede efficency for their own benefit.
Ecomonics, at its most basic level, is a power struggle. The dollar is one form of wielding power. The gun is another. The vote is yet another. Without getting too much into a moral debate around the use of force, government acts as a clearinghouse for the use of all types of power.
Ok, I’m going to get some response to the moral debate about the use of force. Let me just say this: The use of phsyical force is moral in some circumstances and immoral in others. The same can be said of economic force. We rely on many complicated mechanisms, government included, to regulate these forces to prevent a catastrophic collapse of our society.
mangeorge posted
What does location have to with whether a job is legitimate?
Your estimate was based on only (5 hours, 15 minutes)/day.
Who said that? I said that SOs and children should not be included in the worker’s needs; they’re not his/her needs. If you want to have an SO, fine. Just make sure he/she pulls his/her own weight. Or else find a job that pays more than minimum wage.
SingleDad posted 02-27-2000 02:58 AM
Depends on how you define economic efficiency. If it is defined as “producing the most goods and services with the least cost” where “cost” includes all costs, including psychological and environmental costs, then it’s pretty high on my list of priorities.
Dang! You noticed my dodge. The truth is, I don’t know much about what the minimum cost of living is, and thought this would be a good opportunity to hear what other people think it is, and I didn’t want to give my own estimate for fear that my inexperience would be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to deflate the cost of living. I do, however think that 11/hour (which is what SF proposed as a “living wage”, IIRC) is way more than a single person needs. I have a list of expenses in San Diego below; I think that I’ve been generous. If anyone can dispute my figures, I’d be glad to hear what they think it would cost.
Rent: 300 (with roommate(s))
Food: 200
Utilities: 50 (includes cable and telephone, which are quasi luxuries)
Clothing: 20
Entertainment: 50 (I think that some entertainment is necessary)
Transportation: 100 (wild guess)
Total: 720
At 200 hours/month, income (even without time-and-a-half)=1000. And at your 10 hours/day level, income=1521/month.
I’m not sure how much taxes would be at this low of an income (if there are any), but I doubt they’d be enough to eliminate the 280 surplus between 1000 and 720. And that’s all with a 5/hour wage.
Cristi
posted 02-26-2000 05:35 PM
Child care is not a reasonable expense. We’re talking about how much it costs to live not how much it costs to raise a family. Last time I checked, not having a family was not a life-threatening condition. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think it’s wrong of you to have a family, or to have a stay-at-home husband. But those are your choices, and you have to pay for them. Society has no obligation to pay for your family.
Actually, perhaps I should have said “producing the maximum utility with the minimum cost”, since utility and sheer amount of goods/services aren’t quite the same thing. And concentration of wealth tends to cut down on utility.
Where do you people live that your utilities are $50 total even including cable? I live in an ok-sized town (50,000) in Tennessee. Before I got married, I lived in many apartments (one at a time, you jokesters!) My electric bills alone were $50 many months out of the year. (No air conditioning, no excess electronics–t.v. and lights) By the time I added phone ($20/month) and eventually, cable ($25/month), I was looking at almost $100 in utlities.
Since the main town where I live is a college town, you have to look for places to live that are at least 20-30 miles out of the city in order to get a place that isn’t priced too outrageously. (In town, a two bedroom apartment runs from $500-700.) Public transportation is not useful unless you live right in town and anyway, it doesn’t run on Sundays. With gas prices being what they are driving 40-50 miles to and from work everyday gets expensive.
Grocery prices are the same all over I assume so let’s say $75-100/month?
There are several large industries/corporations in this area (Eastman/Kodak, Nuclear Fuels, North American Rayon, Holston Defense, etc.) but unless you have a college degree you are only going to get one of the minimal paying jobs. Example-- I work full time at the area’s largest hospital in a clerical position. I make $6/hour and have $65/week taken out of that for insurance. I have no kids and sometimes the bills still sneak up and bite me.
My point? Yes, I guess one could survive on minimum wage but one is about all.
I have a hobby. I have the world’s largest collection of seashells. I keep it scattered on beaches all over the world. Maybe you’ve seen some of it.
I meant the production of tangible wealth, whether directly or indirectly.
For instance, my sense of personal satisfaction is, economically speaking, without value. It might only indirect value in that it might make me more productive, then again, it might not. But it’s still very important to me.
The point I was (perhaps ineptly) trying to make is that living wage issues ultimately depend on a value choice: What standard of living does a person deserve, by nature of his or her mere humanity, regardless of economic contribution.
This is not an easy question, and I’m unsure of my beliefs on the subject. Still, having some knowlege of technology, I see no practical limit in the foreseeable future to be able to produce enough material wealth that every person could enjoy quite a good existence regardless of his or her economic contribution and with only a trivial sacrifice in luxury to those who can contribute.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
s/b “indirectly affect my value”
Sigh… late at night… And I thought quotes nested. Sorry.
Time for bed.
Neither if these examples were capitalistic systems.
Not true. Capitalism is the only system that gives everyone the chance to “move up” the ladder. Without government protections in place, the wealthy are always at risk of losing the wealth.
Cable is not a basic neccesary utility.
Actually, perhaps I should have said “producing the maximum utility with the minimum cost”, since utility and sheer amount of goods/services aren’t quite the same thing. And concentration of wealth tends to cut down on utility.
Hello all. Could not help but add my two cents. Been impoverished before. I dropped out of high school when I was seventeen. I now have a college degree, fifty thousand dollars of debt, and a pretty decent salary. My company allows multiple direct deposit accounts, so every surplus dollar I have goes straight to the loan companies, so with some glaring exceptions (i.e. my new computer) my quality of life has not changed. Having done the start-with-nothing-pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps routine, I think I am pretty qualified to comment on what constitutes a living wage. I also majored in economics and philosophy, so I’ve got a pretty good idea of economic and social theory.
A basic budget? I live in Washington, DC. Thanks to the transient politicos and the booming tech industry DC is up there as far as expenses are concerned. I moved down here from NYC, and have found the prices, in general, to be comparable.
Rent: 400 (per month)
One roommate. Could have saved even more had the roommate been willing to move deeper into Southeast. IMHO, I don’t think anyone is entitled to live on their own unless they can afford it. Can’t / don’t want to live at home? - Get a roommate. Get two. Don’t live in Georgetown, live in Anacostia.
Food: 150
Beans and hamburger? Sure. As well as a wealth of other good, healthy, nutritious meals prepared without relying on Hamburger-Helper. I don’t live on rice and beans. Rather, I eat quite well but rarely spend more than five dollars per meal. Can’t remember the last time I ate lunch at a deli. I don’t see why it has to be included in a living wage.
Transportation: 70
I walk about ten blocks to a Metro station to get to the trains, about five when I get off. Cost per ride is about 1.40 each way. I buzz about the city on weekends, so there is a bit more plugged in. Busses / subways don’t have to be convenient, they just have to get you to work.
Util: 50
This, again, is a split between two people. Two people who wear sweaters in the winter, shorts in the summer. No a/c, no heat when we can bundle up. This is a widely varying cost, not just month to month (winter bills run more than summer) but from region to region. I can understand Washington, Montana winters being much more expensive than Washington, DC. Regardless, heat, hot water, phone and lights. You want to save money? Bundle up. Take shorter showers. Turn off the television. And please don’t consider cable television an integral part of a living wage.
Insurance: 80
Basic medical runs me (young, healthy male) about a grand a year. Spread out over twelve months and it works out to eighty dollars per month.
Crap: 80
This is the catch-all category. Toilet paper, garbage bags, new socks, etc. Twenty bucks a week goes toward things for the house or myself. Many weeks I don’t use any / all of it, but something ends up coming along that sucks up my surplus.
Total expenses needed to live: $830.00.
830 / 4.5 (avg no. weeks in a month) = 185 per week
185 / 40 (work hours in a week) = 4.63 hour (after taxes)
I don’t think I am missing anything from life. There are libraries. There are parks. There are a lot of ways to have fun w/o spending any money. Sure, there are a lot of ways to spend money, I am hoping to begin doing so in a few years. But in the several years before I went to school and these few years after school, I existed perfectly well on a wage comparable to minimum.
What else is missing? Why should a gov’t force an employer to provide more? Why should an employer be thought less of for not providing more? Is it the employer who is failing to pay more or the employee who is failing to live within his / her means? Minimum means just that. The basic amount necessary to survive. It is not something one is meant to live on permanently, though it is possible. No skills? Best you could hope for is head mopper? Great. Moving up will bring with it more money, and more things for you to have. No motivation to move up / improve your employable worth? Fine. Don’t complain to me about your personal choice. Pop out a kitten or two while you are working? Great. There are gov’t programs to help children, for they really don’t have too much choice about what circumstances they are born into. I love the WIC program (from what I know about it). Each WIC check has what it can be used for printed right on it. Milk, OJ, etc. only. No HO-HOs. No Disneyland. Not 'till Ma 'n Pa can afford it. The kiddies are still living.
As far as economic theory… to the lay person, capitalistic economic theory is only concerned with units of dollars and goods. Once you get beyond a very basic understanding, you find that there is and has been a lot of debate and work on how to include non-tangible items in an economic model. The study of valuation goes on and on and on about how to quantify preferences, how to account for externalities in the cost of goods and how to capture seemingly paradoxical wants and desires with people’s actual choices. A lot of gov’t regulations are in place in an attempt to capture said costs and keep those in power (ostensibly those with the most money) from distorting the market in their favor. A lot of regs are in place to help those who can not adequately compete in the market themselves (i.e. the handicapped or children). A lot of regs are in place in a misguided attempt at controlling market forces. Creating a ‘living wage’ as opposed to a minimum starting point would be one of them.
Thanks for listening.
Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right…
Nothing at all, The Ryan. But location has a lot to do with whether one can live on $6/hr.
($5/hr, in the OP).
This goes right back to my point about the business owner who makes bad decisions, location for example, and then complains about the type of people who respond to substandard wages (as referred to in a previous post). You know, druggies, etc.
Peace,
mangeorge
You’re right. That’s why I waited until I got out of my minimum-wage job to marry & start a family. If I was still working in the donut shop, I’d still be single & childless.
From time to time, I have had to change my style of living, so that I wouldn’t be a burden on “society” or anyone else. I’ve never lived high, but I’ve forced myself to live low, just to get the bills paid. It can be done. It sucks, but it can be done, single or married, kids or not.
Changing my sig, because Wally said to, and I really like Wally, and I’ll do anything he says, anytime he says to.
Well here’s another question for all of you:
Does an individual deserve to be able to make a living wage in his current location (as opposed to being required to move to a cheaper locale)?
Personally, I think of location as just another luxury like 2BR apartments vs. studios, but some people on this board have expressed opposing views.
So are there certain inalienable rights associated with residency? Does society have some obligation to support a non-useful person in Princeton with its higher cost of living, rather than two towns over in the Trenton slums? What about California vs. Nevada? or even NYC vs. Kentucky?
Thoughts?
I think business owners should expect to pay a living wage in the area where they locate their business. If they can’t, they can locate elsewhere. Or they can go to work for someone who knows how to run a business.
Many companies have worked with their employees to get through difficult times, then “shared the wealth” with the employees when times were good. What’s wrong with that?
Good employers realize that all employees are important to the company’s financial health.
Peace,
mangeorge
I think owners should expect to turn a profit where they are located otherwise they will go out of business on their own.
If they are still in business, then they obviously know how to run a business. They may not run it well, but who are you to judge them? Let them take whatever risk they want. No one forces anyone to work for them, do not try and force them to work for someone else.
Is it possible that you would be secretly happy if we all just worked for the state?
Nothing, if it is what you feel like doing. Otherwise it sucks. These employers are stuck with spending a good 40-50% of their profits on taxes that get re-distributed to the employees and others anyway.
Since when is being a good employer the standard for owning or staying in business? Who gets to decide this standard of being “good?”
All in all, it sounds like you support a strong version of socialism.
From each according to their ability.
To each according to their needs.
mangeorge:
Business owners aren’t in existance to give jobs to anyone, let alone to “pay a living wage” or any other “X” number of dollars you care to come up with.
Where did that come from?
Well, the employees do. They are, after all, the ones who make the business profitable.
Force them? I merely suggested. They can always go on welfare.
True. I have no problem with the idea of a business owner making a profit without “giving” jobs to employees. But the first thing most want to do is hire employees, so they can make more money.
Peace,
mangeorge (closet capitalist)