Does Anyone Think This Man Is Wrong?

@averagejoe1 said
You cannot be that slow: Do you know what 'gardyloo' is? Ask Shav, he will know. But you see, you would not, you do not. So, if I write that I live near a liberal who drives me crazy, hollers 'gardyloo' every night......You see, Handy, you would think...."Dammit, Joe, what are you talking about? We were discussing neighborhood life and you mention gardyloo???? Joe, ...[text shortened]... only natural for me to emoji 🤔 you as to what the word means. Why do you make this so difficult????

All the waste water comes from your direction. We all watch for it.

@averagejoe1 said
You cannot be that slow: Do you know what 'gardyloo' is? Ask Shav, he will know. But you see, you would not, you do not. So, if I write that I live near a liberal who drives me crazy, hollers 'gardyloo' every night......You see, Handy, you would think...."Dammit, Joe, what are you talking about? We were discussing neighborhood life and you mention gardyloo???? Joe, ...[text shortened]... don't you want to know? Sure you do. And, I want to know what living wage means. It is only fair.

Don’t drag me into your moronic trailer-trash metaphors, you pin-brained American moron.

Oh. Sorry for the tautology.

@averagejoe1 said
Little late for reading links, but get this.......the corp CEO guys who you all hate, they get rich from....guess what ...successful corporations, which make IPhones, vaccines, peanut butter and cars, etc, all of which you use!!!

Ahhhh,, 'but how do the corps get successful, to make iPhones, vaccines, peanut butter and cars, etc...???? Why, they use a govt progra ...[text shortened]... (Sorry Jesus, but I felt that appropriate in this case.)

PS: This tutelage does not need a link.

Little late for reading links, but get this.......the corp CEO guys who you all hate, they get rich from....guess what ...successful corporations

Wrong again! The Corporate CEO guys get rich by striking deals with the board of directors, and sucking tax $$ from the taxpayers. I know reading is a challenge for you, but if you'll make the effort, you might learn something.

@mchill said
Little late for reading links, but get this.......the corp CEO guys who you all hate, they get rich from....guess what ...successful corporations

Wrong again! The Corporate CEO guys get rich by striking deals with the board of directors, and sucking tax $$ from the taxpayers. I know reading is a challenge for you, but if you'll make the effort, you might learn something.

Well said.

@shavixmir said
Well said.

The phrase ‘Living wage’ is oft used on the forum. Surely it will arise again with this new administration, with the Bernie on board.
It seems that, to have a level playing field, we all should identify and regard exactly what comprises a living wage.
That is all that I reasonably suggest. I made the above posts to express its importance. The humor, was meant to humorous. And a fair response to Handy’s feigning not-getting analogies.
How can this put me off-base?

Living wage has been defined in my country (not the US) as sufficient for the basic needs of 2 adults and 2 children living frugally. It's an outdated definition and needs to be revised to take account of the different types of household in today's world.

@kewpie said
Living wage has been defined in my country (not the US) as sufficient for the basic needs of 2 adults and 2 children living frugally. It's an outdated definition and needs to be revised to take account of the different types of household in today's world.

Thank you Kewpie. True, the def needs to be tightened up a bit, and its use when speaking of hourly wages. Eg. does the wage pay the job, or does it pay the person.?

@AverageJoe1
So for you if the job is picking crops, keep them poor, keep them at 4 bucks an hour so we can have low produce prices at the grocery.

Isn't that about it for you?
If they made double that at 8 bucks an hour I would assume you would figure that would force producers to double the price.

I would dispute that.

In today's world, 8 bucks an hour is nothing BTW, of course you have money so you never have to deal with that level of subsistence. 320 bucks a week, when taxes are cut out, less than a thou a month.

My HOUSE cost's a thou a month and I feel lucky to have it that low.

My electric bill and gas bill comes out to 700 bucks a month.

So that kind of expense means the folks getting that tremendous wage of 8 bucks an hour has to find a place to live for what 400 bucks a month and then still pay utilities and have a couple hundred bucks a month for such friviolities as FOOD.

But YOU never had to worry about that so it is another universe for you.

@sonhouse said
@AverageJoe1
So for you if the job is picking crops, keep them poor, keep them at 4 bucks an hour so we can have low produce prices at the grocery.

Isn't that about it for you?
If they made double that at 8 bucks an hour I would assume you would figure that would force producers to double the price.

I would dispute that.

In today's world, 8 bucks an hour is nothi ...[text shortened]... h friviolities as FOOD.

But YOU never had to worry about that so it is another universe for you.

I agree with your comments about entry-level jobs. But i am zeroing in, if I may. on wages that are paid in an expanded economy where the workers have different expenses, when considering that one single guy works side-by-side with another guy who has a wife and 2 children. If an economist thinks a job like that should pay $20/hr, it is a living wage for the single guy... $40k a year?? So the issue is, if the family guy makes $20, (what the job pays), that is not adequate for 4 people. It is not a Living Wage.
Is it logical for a society or a govt to dictate to the employer, to alter wages based on these details? To go so far as to pay the family man more, so that his wages will be, for him, enough to live on?

Should The employer be required to pay what is referred to as a living wage to the man with a family of four? Which would be more than $20 an hour,,,,?

@AverageJoe1. You say. above “so it is another universe to (the employer )”
But it IS another universe to the employer, who would be subject to some dictate from some authority. We cannot just casually tell him what to pay people, .....minimum wage being an exception, of course.

The logical minimum wage in 2020 is enough to give a decent standard of frugal living, plus a loading sufficient to get him off the couch and to pay 10% income tax. If the employer really can't figure out how to cover that cost he shouldn't be trying to exploit people who weren't born with his advantages.
Minimum wage is just a floor. People must be paid what they're truly worth in the job they're doing, not what employers think they can get away with. Unless workers are unlucky enough to live in a country where capital has total control of labour, that is.

@kewpie said
The logical minimum wage in 2020 is enough to give a decent standard of frugal living, plus a loading sufficient to get him off the couch and to pay 10% income tax. If the employer really can't figure out how to cover that cost he shouldn't be trying to exploit people who weren't born with his advantages.
Minimum wage is just a floor. People must be paid what they're truly ...[text shortened]... workers are unlucky enough to live in a country where capital has total control of labour, that is.

Concentrating on just the USA is better for themoment, it being extremely diversified. I certainly agree with the above....An amount should be paid which should give him a frugal standard of living. The minimums wage theory, of which we all agree.
But Kewpie, the concern is that there is a guy making the same wage working next to him. A wage Agreed-upon as a standard wage for that job by the industry.
This second guy has a wife and two chidren. He cannot support the four of them on this fair wage. The employer is within reason to pay this wage for that job. This gets to the question, that the second man is technically not making a living wage. I simply am asking how everyone would address this..
Where am i getting this? Bernie Sanders has, and will, been pushing for a living wage to be paid to employees. How can he get each guy a living wage without paying the family man MORE wage than is being paid to the single guy?
This is ALL I am asking, i think it is a good topic.

@averagejoe1 said
That is all that I reasonably suggest. I made the above posts to express its importance. The humor, was meant to humorous. And a fair response to Handy’s feigning not-getting analogies.
How can this put me off-base?

Feigning? Some analogies are useful. Yours are usually juvenile or irrelevant.

Is English your second language?

@averagejoe1 said
Concentrating on just the USA is better for themoment, it being extremely diversified. I certainly agree with the above....An amount should be paid which should give him a frugal standard of living. The minimums wage theory, of which we all agree.
But Kewpie, the concern is that there is a guy making the same wage working next to him. A wage Agreed-upon as a stan ...[text shortened]... wage than is being paid to the single guy?
This is ALL I am asking, i think it is a good topic.

It's not up to the employer to vary the living wage. The man who chooses to marry and raise a family should first be establishing his value to employers by his own study and efforts. This presupposes proper family planning. When I was growing up I understood that I needed to reach an appropriate level of income (value of my chosen work) before taking any of the usual life steps.
Having said that, life happens. It doesn't always happen the way it should. It's the job of society as a whole to help those who can't help themselves, and if a few crooks and cheats hide among those folk it's OK. Better that than starving the helpless homeless.

Minimum wage should be for a single adult, no extras for spouse, children or anything else.
It's worth remembering that Bernie Sanders, taking a position similar to the trade union movement, is in the business of making ambit claims to bring the other side to the negotiating table. Ambit claims are always excessive because they're designed to be negotiated downward.

@kewpie said
It's not up to the employer to vary the living wage. The man who chooses to marry and raise a family should first be establishing his value to employers by his own study and efforts. This presupposes proper family planning. When I was growing up I understood that I needed to reach an appropriate level of income (value of my chosen work) before taking any of the usual life s ...[text shortened]... iating table. Ambit claims are always excessive because they're designed to be negotiated downward.

I totally agree, we are in agreement. It is about planning, choices, all that goes along with it. The employer follows a normal, unfettered path in paying wages to individuals. The wage for the job is paid to the employees to spend in their own way. Any other comments here?
Is there any need to apply the phrase ‘Living Wage’ in this scenario? Earning the govt-guaranteed minimum wage “is what it is.” So why the references to Living Wage?