this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
372 points (96.5% liked)
Work Reform
9997 readers
194 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well then this article is flawed from the get go. The minimum "living wage" for a individual is the minimum living wage for 2 people divided by 2. If a individual wants to live on their own then that is above the minimum.
I agree that this article is flawed, though it seems to be aiming for "click bait fun" rather than "expert financial advice". So I think your expectations might be flawed.
Furthermore, speaking of the "minimum living wage", I think this FDR quote is relevant:
With that in mind, I don't agree with your assertion that wanting to live alone constitutes more than the minimum expectation a person should have for a decent living.
those are 2 different things. minimum is bare minimum, I could argue living in your car, or in a box under the bridge is minimum. "Decent" would be something closer to "moderate" which is something closer to what these numbers represent. Living alone on 1 income certainly is decent, but it's far above minimum.
Minimum and decent are two different things, but I'm not sure how that is relevant?
Given that I specified my (and FDR's) belief the minimum wage should be a decent living wage, and not the bare minimum subsistence level, I clearly wasn't talking about "two different things", I was talking about a single concept.
That the minimum wage should afford full time workers a decent living. And that the ability to afford living alone is not an unreasonable ask by that yardstick.
It's relevant because this article is titled "Minimum" but they mean median, or moderate or "decent". The minimum is always zero wages.
Actually, the article is titled "The Salary a Single Person Needs to Get By in Every U.S. State". And they go on to define their meaning of "getting by" as:
So they really mean what they said, and I still don't see the relavancy of you putting words in their mouth or using your own definitions. I mean, if you want to have a linguistics debate with them on the acceptable usage of "getting by", more power to you I guess. But as they have defined their terms, its essentially a strawman argument against a silly for fun article.
You're right, "get by" not "Decent".
Seeing as they defined their terms, your insistence on having a linguistics debate is pointless. If their definition of the nebulous term "getting by" matches your definition of "decent" (another nebulous term), that's fine so long as what level you are actually discussing is defined. Which they did.
Beyond that, "decent" was never a word they used, it was a term I used quoting FDR in regards to the minimum wage, in regards to you talking about the minimum wage.
So I really don't see the point you are trying to make.
My point is FDR is wrong. "Decent" is not minimum or getting by. And this article is silly because a single person affording to live alone is far above "getting by".
Ah, well, that's a dumb point then. The article is silly, I've been saying that from the beginning. But again, your expectations for it are silly also.
If you mean he was categorically wrong because minimum wage has the word minimum in it, you are playing more linguistic games and are frankly just wrong. "Minimum wage" means the lowest financial compensation allowed, not the minimum number possible (which would basically be slavery). And by his definition, the intent was to provide a decent life to all American workers.
On the other hand, if you mean that in your opinion a full time worker in America does not deserve to live a decent life, then you are morally wrong. On the contrary, a business that can't afford to provide a decent standard of living for its employees does not deserve to exist. Though that I suppose, depends on the value you place on human dignity. If you don't think your fellow Americans deserve a decent life, then we simply don't see eye to eye, and as peer the golden rule, you are not worthy of dignity or respect either.