Living Wages and Wage Slavery

[WinePusher]

I read a post on this forum that referenced the concept of living wages and it got me thinking. So, here's a thread about it:

1) Should the government impose a living wage standard? In other words, should the government impose a minimum wage? Are minimum wages and living wages the same thing?

2) Is the concept of wage slavery correct and legitimate?

3) If someone does not make enough money to take care of themselves and their family, what should be done?

[help3434]

[Replying to Furrowed Brow]

Cooperatives basically depend on all the workers, or least most, knowing how to manage the business doesn't it? I suspect there is a reason that there are relatively few of them. As for the rest, has this ever worked in the real world?

[help3434]

Well profits will be affected because they would be redistributed on a new model. where a business works on low profits such that it just does not have the means to meet minimum wage then the business can be turned into a cooperative. Let the workforce take responsibility, and remove the minimum wage restriction on cooperatives. Why should we tolerate any organisation whose low profit business model pushes folk into poverty. How is that ever acceptable. Therefore allow the workers to take over and see if they can do better is a better option than leaving than business as it is.

It is more acceptable than having all these regulations in place that would cause higher unemployment, which would put more people in more desperate poverty.

[Goat]

Well profits will be affected because they would be redistributed on a new model. where a business works on low profits such that it just does not have the means to meet minimum wage then the business can be turned into a cooperative. Let the workforce take responsibility, and remove the minimum wage restriction on cooperatives. Why should we tolerate any organisation whose low profit business model pushes folk into poverty. How is that ever acceptable. Therefore allow the workers to take over and see if they can do better is a better option than leaving than business as it is.

It is more acceptable than having all these regulations in place that would cause higher unemployment, which would put more people in more desperate poverty.

There is no evidence it will cause higher unemployment. INdeed, the study of one raise showed it had no effect what so ever on that.

[bluethread]

Why bother with a living wage? Since money is just a means of exchange, why not just confiscate that which is not considered a necessity and provide everyone with what is considered a necessity?

[Furrowed Brow]

[Replying to Furrowed Brow]

Cooperatives basically depend on all the workers, or least most, knowing how to manage the business doesn't it? I suspect there is a reason that there are relatively few of them. As for the rest, has this ever worked in the real world?

Mondragon in Spain is a cooperative has something like 80,000 workers and is Spain 7th largest company. In the UK one of our most successful retailers John Lewis is an employee partnership with a turn over of nearly £10billion (not quite a full blown cooperative but the company is owned by the employees who are all partners). John Lewis is regarded a blue ribbon company with excellent business practices and is one company that seems to have been a winner through the recession. Valio is one of Finland's largest companies. And here is a list of cooperatives on wiki.

So yes cooperatives work very well thank you. But we live in a capitalist system geared to private enterprise.

[Furrowed Brow]

Why bother with a living wage? Since money is just a means of exchange, why not just confiscate that which is not considered a necessity and provide everyone with what is considered a necessity?

That sounds like a recipe for totalitarianism and complete central planning. History shows this is not a very good idea at all so let's avoid it.

[Nilloc James]

Why bother with a living wage? Since money is just a means of exchange, why not just confiscate that which is not considered a necessity and provide everyone with what is considered a necessity?

Well history seems to show that complete central control of the economy leads to a net decrease in humam quality of life.

[WinePusher]

Why can't this guy settle for a used car and an average home? Since when did it become a human right to be able to own a NICE car and a NICE home. If he wants to have nice things he should try working harder, the government shouldn't be guaranteeing him a certain life style. The government should only be guaranteeing a basic standard of living, not a luscious and luxurious standard of living.

[Furrowed Brow]

Why can't this guy settle for a used car and an average home? Since when did it become a human right to be able to own a NICE car and a NICE home. If he wants to have nice things he should try working harder, the government shouldn't be guaranteeing him a certain life style. The government should only be guaranteeing a basic standard of living, not a luscious and luxurious standard of living.

O please why do you want to see folk who have jobs pushed to the wall? Where does this attitude issue from? It's kinda dark. The guy works as hard as the job requires and gets a decent wage....the sky don't fall in and the economy does not collapse and all the gripes about minimum wage are found false by this example. He's happier for it and society is better for it and he don't need food stamps. What is wrong with this picture and why do you want or are prepared to accept that a guy in work have a life that is less than nice?

Also "average home" which is not a health hazard is nice thank you. Folk in the UK who work in fast food can't afford average homes, they live with their parents or four guys share a one bedroom flat (apartment).

Nice does not equal luxurious. Being able to afford "nicer" things" signals the fellah in the picture is able to pay the utility bills and rent and thus is moved further away from living a precarious life on the edge of poverty. Are you seriously saying it is better if his wages were reduced so he has to accept something less than "nice". Is it because if the guy who owns the fast food franchise reduces his workers wage to $7 an hour can himself afford a luxury car and home and send his kids to a a top college.

A decent standard living which does not diminish a human being - if not presently a right - should be one.

[WinePusher]

Why can't this guy settle for a used car and an average home? Since when did it become a human right to be able to own a NICE car and a NICE home. If he wants to have nice things he should try working harder, the government shouldn't be guaranteeing him a certain life style. The government should only be guaranteeing a basic standard of living, not a luscious and luxurious standard of living.

O please why do you want to see folk who have jobs pushed to the wall? Where does this attitude issue from? It's kinda dark. The guy works as hard as the job requires and gets a decent wage....the sky don't fall in and the economy does not collapse and all the gripes about minimum wage are found false by this example. He's happier for it and society is better for it. What is wrong with this picture.?

Why don't you try reading my post again more carefully. Nobody is entitled to a luscious style of living, nobody is entitled to own a nice car and a nice home. Yes, everybody should be entitled to basic housing and basic transportation but if you want to have nice things the burden falls upon you. I am absolutely in favor of the government providing a basic social safety net that takes care of those who are genuinely in need. I am not in favor of the government imposing a minimum wage so a few fast food workers can go out and buy a bunch of nice things for themselves. It would be one thing if this worker didn't have a home or a car. But apparently from the image he can afford an average home and an average car, he's just complaining because he doesn't have a nice enough home or a nice enough car. That type of attitude is disgusting in my opinion.

Nice does not equal luxurious. Why should any society accept as its basic standard living something that is less than nice? Being able to afford "nicer" things" signals the fellah in the picture is able to pay the utility bills and rent and thus is moved further away from living a precarious life on the edge of poverty. Are you seriously saying it is better if his wages were reduced so he has to accept something less than "nice".

So apparently this guy can't settle for an apartment and a used car. In your opinion, he needs to be able to live in a well to do neighborhood with a nice car? And in my opinion, I think that his wages should be determined by the market. If he is homeless and carless then yes, I would have a lot of sympathy for him. But, he apparently can't settle for an average home and an average car. He needs a nice home and a nice car and he wants the government to guarantee this for him. This is sick. If he wants nicer things he should get a better job.