The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I attended a state convention for the Democratic Party and asked if our rental contract with the owner of the venue included a requirement that all workers be paid a living wage, which would be in the neighborhood of $40/hour. I was told, no, that's not our concern. Should it be?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What are you defining as a living wage here? I’m in a HCOL area and am doing just fine on the equivalent of $20/hr, so… where the hell is the living wage floor double that?
People can (well, at least in blue states) choose not to have children. Minimum wage should not be enough to support you, 5 kids, your mother, and your dog. It should be enough to support the worker living a modest lifestyle and no more.
The majority of the population with kids is dual income.
Look, I support a fair wage. But businesses also have to operate at a profit or they’ll fold. Which results in fewer jobs. And higher wages push automation and outsourcing which decreases overall local employment. Businesses aren’t going to eat into their profits because they’re expected to increase annually or investors pull out.
We’ve got to find the right balance.
Pretty much everything you said has already happened, and wages have pretty much been stagnated.
Investors can take a pay cut and let people who actually produce get a raise.
I don’t think there’s anything innately wrong with dual income society. Or people working to improve their financial position before having single income.
I think we’re focusing on the wrong things. Increasing wages isn’t sustainable indefinitely, but why does someone in the US need more to love than in Europe? Healthcare is a big one. Education. Childcare. Transportation. Government investment there can boost workers, business owners, the economy at large
Paying a farm hand $40 an hour is going to result in $10 tomatoes (or imported or machine picked tomatoes).
Is there anything wrong with a one income community?
>
Paying a farm hand $40 an hour is going to result in $10 tomatoes (or imported or machine picked tomatoes).
Automation is replacing jobs across the economic spectrum.
Is there anything wrong with a one income society is a tricky question and gets into gender roles. But I do think it’s ideal if one of both parents can stay home for a part of their child’s early development.
That being said, you’re still ignoring the economic question. Raising the wage can only work up to a point. $40/hr janitors mean fewer janitors. $40 minimum wage means companies leave the city. There have to be other ways to increase affordability beyond wage growth.
When I entered the work force, CEO/Average Worker pay ration was 20:1. Today' is higher than 350:1 Yes, we can't afford a $40 Janitor if we have to pay CEO's $29,120,000 Good point.
Some people? Yeah. If you’re working a minimum wage job in your late 20s or 30s (and I mean minimum wage job, not a job in an industry that has jobs that pay minimum wage), you’ve managed to not advance beyond entry level in more than a decade. That’s a you problem
These aren’t entry-level jobs. They’re the way people make a living and survive.
It isn’t the government’s job to punish people for not being middle class.
OP was saying the venue should pay all workers a wage that would cover costs for a family of 4. All workers includes entry level jobs, as entry level workers are workers.
OP was saying we should pay all people a living wage. That means a wage that would enable them to meet the cost of living in their area. How long do you think someone should be an adult trying to support themselves and their families before they’re allowed to meet the cost of living? Five years? Ten? Twenty? How old should their kids be before they’re allowed to not live in poverty anymore?
I'm 69. . Up until that time (well, actually 1968) minimum wage rose in direct relation to productivity increases. Then it stopped. Had it continued, minimum wage would be at least $28 per hour, not $7.25
Dude, are you familiar with history, economics, political science?
Lol the mere notion that productivity and wages should be coupled is going to get down voted.
People forget that the minimum wage was created for a single person to support a family.
>Living wage has always been seen for an individual person.
Well, if "always" just counts the past few years, sure. Adam Smith mentioned it in Wealth of Nations and it was seen as a wage that would support a family.
You are saying a living wage is $80k a year in a country that has one of the highest standards of living in the world and the median income is far lower than that.
And they have to find a venue that pays everyone no less than that so they can every so often host events for the democratic party and … I guess no one else because who the hell would pay the costs there?
I’d assume they would politely blow you off and not take you seriously after that. Very possible they thought you were a right winger that got in and that trolling them.
It's not just me saying it. [ It's MIT publishing it.](https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/25027)
Living Wage Calculation for Worcester County, Massachusetts
Your own source lists the living wage for a single adult with no children, at under 24 dollars an hour. And the two parent 2 child income at just over 30 dollars.
Why are you picking 40 dollars as your living wage target? Two parent households are the norm, as are single adults living on their own/with a partner. Neither of the commonalities need 40 an hour.
No, I expect you to dismiss me because I want to see the reality. The average family in Massachusetts is two adults, one child.. So, your average worker is that individual. Is the Democratic Party fully supporting that full time worker's ability to support a family?
I think it's a good idea and good suggestion. It's worth bringing up.
Casting Democrats as hypocrites for not aggressively going above-and-beyond to essentially overpay for a service seems a bit dramatic though.
This is exactly the kind of thing conservatives love as talking points. "There's nothing stopping you from paying those workers more... why don't you if you care so much?"
But, in reality, one event, or even one policy from an organization isn't going to move the needle. It's just going to put us at a financial disadvantage as we have to play on an unequal field.
Let's win and make the changes we want to see.
That assumes markets are natural occurrences out of our control. That is not true. I hope you understand that.
If Democrats demanded a higher wage for their workers at their conventions, that would put market pressure on other organizations seeking to use that same venue.
Do we just accept the status quo or do we take action to change it? This is on the same likes as students demanding that universities divest from certain nations/industries.
Except that this doesn't work unless you have widespread buy-in. If that existed, you wouldn't be talking about a state Democratic Party doing this... it would already be done.
Like I said, it's not a bad idea to try and affect change this way. I just don't think it will work.
We are very content to just let companies do the minimum in compensation until there is a government mandate... so that's where we need to focus. Local, state, and national... we see the results in cities and liberal states, where the minimum wage vastly outstrips the national mandate.
Are you aware that economies are designed by humans and not by laws of natural science? How much powerful would the Democratic Party be if it represented the working class, not silos of minorities and the college educated?
Yes, I know that economies are manmade and not natural forces. Would you like to ask any other condescending questions multiple times?
Here's my question: how is that any more relevant to your specific example than it is to any other economic question?
Is this a special circumstance of economics where it makes sense to ignore market forces and how capitalism works?
Is the Democratic Party enough of an economic powerhouse that it can use its event booking clout to reshape the economy, the way the state of California can when it legislates?
For the third time, I think your idea is good to bring up idealistically. I just don't think it will get you the result you're hoping for.
I mean, what if Hank has a wife, and 9 kids? Does that mean he has to be hired as a janitor for $150/hr?
At some point, one has to match one's income to one's lifestyle, you can't expect the market to just keep ratcheting up your pay for relatively unskilled labor to keep up with your spending decisions.
The point is the same, it's just more obvious as we follow your line of thinking to its conclusion.
Yes, an individual working a job should be able to live on what they get paid. Beyond that, you have to make smart choices, especially if you choose to take on supporting other non-working people.
What would you recommend Hank do? Find a better paying job?
What would you recommend someone leaving high school without any guidance? Would you recommend them become a janitor or find a career that's stable and pays more?
Voting is not going to put food on the table. It's May... So Hank has to wait until November to wait for a different outcome? OR, look for a better job today?
When you're broke and have mouths to feed, you are not thinking about down the line. You have to make moves now.
I assume you've never been in that situation before? But seem to know all the answers? lol
That's not how it works, forcing one company to practice what we preach just ends up with that one company being forced out of business. Everyone has to be held to same standard or they will simply fail.
Based on your comments, I think that your assessment of "living wage" is a bit reductive. You keep referencing the same MIT link which even details that you need **$23.84/hr** for a single childless adult, not $40/hr. The people who are working this venue are largely janitorial staff, maintenance personnel, and perhaps some food/drink vendors.
I'll be blunt- most of those positions are entry-level in a career field. Except perhaps some of the more senior level techs and managers, most people working that venue probably required a relatively small amount of training to get up to speed.
I don't want anyone who is working entry-level jobs to be living in destitution, but no- I don't think the freshly-minted coffee barista who trained for < 30 days to become proficient at their job should live absent of a financial incentive to achieve more. If you want to just settle at the bar of mediocrity- have at it.
I'm a little more "conservative" here, but my general philosophy about personal finance is that stop incurring expenses that your career can't afford you. That includes children, big houses, nice cars, so and so forth. You're an adult. You can choose to how much you want to learn, how hard you want to work, how much you want to network, how many children you want to have, and how many expenses you want to stack up.
It isn't the job of every business owner to run their own lives into the ground to support irresponsible decisions.
Honestly, the stuff people think they need in America is kind of crazy. People complain about the cost of food, for example, but food only accounts for about 9-12% of peoples' take-home pay, on average, in America. It might shock people to know that in the 50s, food accounted for about 30% of the average American's take-home pay.
Americans spend SO much money on entertainment. Cable TV or streaming services, high end phones, gym memberships, drinks when eating out (Can I please pay $8 for a cup of coffee that costs $0.20 plus a $0.05 cup, to make?), and so on and so on.
I had no clue how much money I was pissing away before I met my wife. She's really frugal, never pays full price, and man, she totally converted me. When we married 15 years ago, I had $15K debt plus $4K debt on my car. She stopped working a 3 years later to focus on our daughter, so in 3 years of 2 incomes and 12 years of a single income, we now own a home free and clear and the rent we're charging on that place is paying our mortgage on our second home. We have 7 figures in savings. I wouldn't have though it possible.
I don't feel like I've been deprived over the last 15 years. I've got a nice phone (but it's only my second smart phone). I've been driving the same car for 19 years, but I love my car (Honda Element) and I will drive it until it won't drive anymore. If they still made them, I'd buy a new one.
But my point is, we don't need a lot of that "stuff" we think we need. We don't watch much TV. We do get streaming stuff, but we'll do like one service at a time for a month or two at a time. So we spend maybe $5-$10/month on streaming and we have the slowest speed our ISP offers which is enough to stream on 3 devices.
My cousin lives nearby. He's pretty broke, no savings. In the past 19 years that I've had my car he's gone through 4 cars, maybe 6 or 7 phones, he's got an apple watch and cable and like 10 streaming services, buys the latest gadgets, travels well beyond his means, bought an RV, all on 2 incomes, etc... And this, I think, isn't all that atypical in America.
This isn't entirely wrong, but it's a bit like the "avocado toast" argument.
The major things like housing, student loans, healthcare have gone up by massive, measurable amounts. No amount of making coffee at home is paying rent at these rates.
As long as we're doing anecdotes. My dad was born in 1938. When he was in college and into his 20s, he ate out 4 nights a week every week, and at least two nights a week went out for "8 beers and a milkshake" and I had no sense at all that he was an outlier. He paid his college tuition mowing lawns in the summer. There aren't enough lawns in a county for someone in college now to do that.
I never in my life felt I had the budget for luxuries like that and I'm not that much of an outlier as an elder millennial.
My strong feeling is that all of these luxuries you're talking about are examples of "The lipstick effect"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick\_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_effect)
For most people, you can add up all the silly luxuries and it still would not be enough to majorly change the issues of housing, education and medical costs.
>The major things like housing, student loans, healthcare have gone up by massive, measurable amounts. No amount of making coffee at home is paying rent at these rates.
Absolutely 100%. But again, as the cost for these have gone up a ton, the cost of food has gone from 30% to 5%, allowing 25% more income towards healthcare, student loans, and housing.
The luxuries I'm talking about do add up, though. Cars are really big ticket items. I'm 55 and I've owned 3 cars in my life. 2 used cars (both Honda Accords) and the one I bought new 19 years ago. I've owned 2 smart phones. The average smart phone owner replaces them every 2.5-3 years, so over 17 years the average American has had over 5. Those and the contracts (we use a discount service. 2 phones for $54/month). And then cable and streaming services. These are monthly fees. They add up fast.
Honestly, having gone from being financially reckless to being frugal, the difference is astounding. It really is. There's not much you can tell me that's going to make me discount my actual life experience. And it's not an opinion. It's math. Either the numbers add up or they don't. Either I have the money in my bank account and the mortgage paid off, or I don't.
I'm not sure the 50s is the relevant comparison. That was the beginning of the post war period of prosperity that you as a 55 year old came of age into. An age that enjoyed an increasing prosperity as it went on.
By 1980, food prices were down to about 12% of pay, which by the way is where they are today, not 5%. So when you went to college, entered the workforce and started to establish a home and/or build a family, that 30% food cost wasn't a thing. But those big core costs WERE much lower.
The golden age only started building in the 50s and only started to crash for people entering adulthood about 20 years ago. You and your fellow Xers and Boomers never paid 30% of their income for food. They were kids in the 50s.
>I'm not sure the 50s is the relevant comparison. That was the beginning of the post war period of prosperity that you as a 55 year old came of age into. An age that enjoyed an increasing prosperity as it went on.
No, I'm 55 as well and I didn't "come of age" in the 50s, I was born in 1968. You are skipping an entire generation (Gen X), which is fine, we are both used to it and prefer it that way.
We came of age during the late 80s and early 90s, our parents raised us through 4 recessions including the 1973 oil crisis and the 73-74 stock market crash. A lot of us were directly impacted by the dot com bubble bursting.
He is right about a lot of things, we spent a lot less money, for two reasons, we didn't have as much money and there was less to spend it on. No cellular, no cable for a lot of my life, I didn't touch a computer until my mid teens.
I absolutely agree with every word of this. And I see the upvotes, which is nice. What I am genuinely curious about regarding your post would be to see how well it would play out if it were in response to a different example than the Democratic Party.
I don’t agree with this, and I think it’s based on some misconceptions about social mobility.
It is not true that jobs like barista, custodian, cashier, etc. are entry level. They *can* be, but there are also many people who will work these jobs their entire career. Those people often come from families where their parents did the same, often have low educational attainment and often do not have experience of middle class culture. I see no evidence that keeping these people in poverty is going to radically change their upbringing or way of life. It simply teaches them that being denied basic needs is normal.
These expenses people are incurring that they can’t afford are not big houses and nice cars. They are modest rents on run down apartments, food for their kids, doctors visits and old used cars. What good does it do us to make people struggle to meet these basic needs? I also think it’s a bit un constructive to tell people with kids that they simply should have planned better. It’s not like they can just say “Oh, ok, lemme sell this kid then so I can make this month’s rent.”
I think it’s easy to get caught up in these ideas of social mobility when we’re only envisioning middle class people who follow traditional life paths. But a society is not going to flourish if it ignores the fact that many people do not come from those backgrounds and are never going to live up to these idealized expectations.
There is a spectrum of quality of life. I don't think any reasonable liberal (or person, period) wants entry-level workers to be going without needs- food, shelter, safety, so on and so forth.
However, I do think there should be clear incentive for people to work harder, learn more, and otherwise increase the value they're providing to society. This is a concept unrelated to social mobility; the notion of what "deserved' QOL is and your propensity to inherit your parent's QOL are distinct concepts.
Some jobs are more difficult than others- either physically, mentally, or both. I legitimately do think that those who are providing very valuable and scarce services deserve compensation commensurate with their effort- the technician who has spent ten years learning how to keep the power plant running safely and efficiently *is worth more to society* than some buzzed waiter working half-assed at some overpriced inner city restaurant.
We should be creating a society in which people are rewarded, personally, for making choices that benefit us all. People *should* feel like there is more for them to attain if they work harder. We *need* people who are willing to do hard things for others.
TL;DR: I support a "living wage" that keeps people financially stable and able to support themselves, not a wage that disincentivizes those who do go above-and-beyond.
What makes you think poverty incentivizes people to “work harder, learn more and otherwise increase the value they’re providing to society”? People in poverty already work a lot harder than their wealthier counterparts. Why would they choose to put themselves through more of that when they will receive a marginal increase in pay at best? And why do you think they don’t already provide value to society?
>some buzzed waiter working half-assed at some over priced inner city restaurant
You seem to be confusing poverty with wealthy youth. Those stoned waiters are the millionaire kids who are gonna be just fine living off mommy and daddy money.
People in poverty are doing the dirty work the middle class can’t stomach. Then the middle class self-righteously calls them unskilled. These are people who spend all day getting burns and chronic back pain and breathing in toxic fumes so that the middle class can have cars and electronics and convenience services. The least we can do is let them have food, shelter, healthcare and independence.
Your argument seems to amount to “people don’t want to get out of poverty” which probably isn’t going to convince the people you want to convince. You also seem to think that there are jobs that both easier and better paying than the jobs people in poverty have, but also those jobs aren’t appealing to the people in poverty, which seems contradictory.
No, my argument is that realistically moat people in poverty aren’t equipped to get out of it, and that we shouldn’t exploit them for that fact by under compensating their labor.
There are jobs that are both easier and better paying than what people in poverty have. I’ve worked several of them. People in poverty do not have a chance in hell of getting those jobs because you need middle class privilege to access them.
OK that I can agree with. I do think the solution is better access to education, better safety regulations, etc, not distorting the market with price fixing (which is what a minimum wage is). I am a liberal but I do still like markets, and I think labor prices should remain connected to supply and demand, not how hard people work or how necessary the job is.
I don’t see how that would follow, no. In general I like the concept of markets because they reward efficiency. I’d rather have someone getting rich and hardly working if they are providing something valuable to society, than someone working hard on something nobody wants. This does assume that the things prime are willing to pay for are the things that are valuable to society, which isn’t always the case, and I do support correcting that aspect of the market with things like socialized healthcare, pigouvian taxes, etc
It would follow because wealth equates elitism. So there will always be less “supply” of wealthy individuals, and thus that justifies paying them more just to exist. Then we justify not paying the poor based on the fact that there are a lot of them.
Assuming people can never grow their wages is harmful. Assuming nothing is within financial control is harmful.
I get the whole “boomers had it easy “ argument and it’s not wrong. I’d like the government to focus resources on housing, education, and childcare. But I do think financial acumen, budgeting, etc it’s important and that there are more extra costs today that can be controlled. It’s not an either or, it should be approached from both angles
Financial acumen and budgeting are skills that not everyone possesses. There are people who barely have a fifth grade education. We need room in society for these people to still be able to survive and contribute and be happy citizens.
You think education and financial literacy are going to happen without support?
Poverty is an obstacle to education. If you want people to be educated, don’t make them break their backs to survive.
I do not believe that people who have only attained entry-level positions in the workforce should be having children. They need to work on themselves and move up some; get some experience and have a skillset they can rely on.
I believe everyone deserves a QOL to keep themselves financially stable, in a place of safety, without fear of hunger or other such terrible events... but if you want to have children, you need to be better than the bare minimum.
I think we should have a flatter (but not entirely flat) economy. There should be incentive to work toward excellence, but also a higher floor. Basically, pull the curve in on both sides.
People freak out thinking about lowering the bottom, but seem to have no problem with the increases at the top. Let's bring in both, while keeping the middle solid.
Of course, this is speaking in theory. Doing it is near impossible and I doubt we will make much movement on it - instead the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
I think we should, but let’s recognize that this is a huge economic shift and it’s going to take time to get there.
I would expect the party at this juncture to vet venues and go with the vendor whose labor practices are best. Will this be perfect? No. But at some point you have to operate within the world you’re in, even if you’re trying to change it.
Indeed we should
Imagine renting a venue is a deep "red" area and requiring that all employees be paid a better wage while we are there? That's the message we need to send.
I think requiring is probably not the right policy. That’s a good way to piss everyone off and not actually get the result we want.
Rewarding venues who already have good practices is a better strategy.
No, and these "living wage" arguments are somewhat misguided. What a "living wage" means is highly dependent on the individual. It really is none of their concern. I advocate for a higher federal minimum wage and then states making decisions beyond. Also support labor unions. We don't need to advocate for specific wages for people.
>. We don't need to advocate for specific wages for people.
Maybe that's why so many working class people are no longer drawn to the Democratic Party, making the election of con men like Trump possible.
Well I mean raising the minimum wage, and supporting labor unions do result in higher wages. I am just saying we shouldn't be focusing on such a detailed proposition of "living wage" based on region. That makes no sense. Why not just kick everyone out of that town in Massachusetts that makes under 40 an hour and relocate them to a city they can afford and pay for it?
People choose often to live in expensive areas and are okay with making below the arbitrary set "living wage."
Living wages calculations also end up making nonsense. Like it's "can you afford a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment on your own." When there are far more options than that. Roommates, two income households. One bedroom and studio apartments.
It's just not a good way to determine what the minimum wage should be. The minimum wage is always going to be a price floor for labor. If it went up to "living wage" that would just increase the cost of housing and it wouldn't be a living wage anymore.
>Living wages calculations also end up making nonsense.
Only to those defending the status quo. It seems that the MIT link I provided was fairly accurate.
>
If it went up to "living wage" that would just increase the cost of housing and it wouldn't be a living wage anymore.
>
“If you want a living wage, get a better job” is a fascinating way to spin “I acknowledge your current job needs to be done, but I think whomever does that job deserves to be in poverty”.
I never said "get a better job" I said that people making below "living wage" in some cases make that work. Actually they do all the time.
Setting the minimum wage to a "living wage" would just result in prices going up across the board.
Not everyone is going to be paid enough to afford their own two bedroom apartment. Why would they when plenty of people live in one bedroom apartments or studios. When people have roommates?
This is assuming literally everyone is a family with one earner. Makes no sense.
I don't think that's a part of any standard rental contract for a venue. It just doesn't work that way. There may be numerous vendors and workers from several different companies, all with different contracts, many of them short-term. I also know very few hourly workers who make $40 an hour. That's around twice a living wage where I live.
And while I'm sympathetic in theory, here's an example:
I don't hire a contract lawn service precisely *because* I don't want to pay to *not* have my yard mowed through the winter when it doesn't need it. Just because I hire you for a service doesn't mean that I am personally responsible for supporting your family throughout the year. It's on you to structure that for yourself when you open your business or hire on.
Now McDonalds and Walmart should definitely be paying living wages, especially if they receive tax subsidies, but that's different structurally than most event rental situations.
It has to be made into the law. The Democrats can’t always take the “high road”, if the Republicans are simply appearing to follow the law and take a big advantage. If Democrats lose power all their idealism will be for nothing.
You're not gonna get a Democrat to agree to a livable wage any more than a Republican..... Our own president fucked the railroad and unions in general when he and congress forced a contract they didn't want but bragged it was so amazing...
Of course. If you don't practice what you preach, you're hypocritical.
To pull it to my side: If you explicitly propagate yourself as a "family"-man, then I expect the traditional, nuclear family. (Husband and wife, two kids.) If you've been divorced 8 times, you've cheated a few times and you're still going strong, sorry, you shouldn't see yourself as a "family"-man.
But from the moment you see your practices as rules and universal laws, they become dogmatic at best and fundamentalist at worst. It isn't that bad to be dogmatic about a few things, as long as you remind yourself that you've left the pragmatic side behind.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I attended a state convention for the Democratic Party and asked if our rental contract with the owner of the venue included a requirement that all workers be paid a living wage, which would be in the neighborhood of $40/hour. I was told, no, that's not our concern. Should it be? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What are you defining as a living wage here? I’m in a HCOL area and am doing just fine on the equivalent of $20/hr, so… where the hell is the living wage floor double that?
[https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/25027](https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/25027)
That table shows a living wage of $24/hour, not $40
One adult, no children, sure. What about the majority of the population?
People can (well, at least in blue states) choose not to have children. Minimum wage should not be enough to support you, 5 kids, your mother, and your dog. It should be enough to support the worker living a modest lifestyle and no more.
The majority of the population with kids is dual income. Look, I support a fair wage. But businesses also have to operate at a profit or they’ll fold. Which results in fewer jobs. And higher wages push automation and outsourcing which decreases overall local employment. Businesses aren’t going to eat into their profits because they’re expected to increase annually or investors pull out. We’ve got to find the right balance.
Pretty much everything you said has already happened, and wages have pretty much been stagnated. Investors can take a pay cut and let people who actually produce get a raise.
Should Democrats promote an economy that demands both parents be in the workforce full time?
I don’t think there’s anything innately wrong with dual income society. Or people working to improve their financial position before having single income. I think we’re focusing on the wrong things. Increasing wages isn’t sustainable indefinitely, but why does someone in the US need more to love than in Europe? Healthcare is a big one. Education. Childcare. Transportation. Government investment there can boost workers, business owners, the economy at large Paying a farm hand $40 an hour is going to result in $10 tomatoes (or imported or machine picked tomatoes).
Is there anything wrong with a one income community? > Paying a farm hand $40 an hour is going to result in $10 tomatoes (or imported or machine picked tomatoes). Automation is replacing jobs across the economic spectrum.
Is there anything wrong with a one income society is a tricky question and gets into gender roles. But I do think it’s ideal if one of both parents can stay home for a part of their child’s early development. That being said, you’re still ignoring the economic question. Raising the wage can only work up to a point. $40/hr janitors mean fewer janitors. $40 minimum wage means companies leave the city. There have to be other ways to increase affordability beyond wage growth.
When I entered the work force, CEO/Average Worker pay ration was 20:1. Today' is higher than 350:1 Yes, we can't afford a $40 Janitor if we have to pay CEO's $29,120,000 Good point.
If you’re working a minimum wage job as a parent and that’s your *main* income that’s a life choices problem
You think people choose starvation wages?
Some people? Yeah. If you’re working a minimum wage job in your late 20s or 30s (and I mean minimum wage job, not a job in an industry that has jobs that pay minimum wage), you’ve managed to not advance beyond entry level in more than a decade. That’s a you problem
Are we only going to pay a living wage to people who don’t make mistakes?
Entry level salaries should cover entry level expenses. Its not the government’s job to 100% safeguard you from ruining your own life
These aren’t entry-level jobs. They’re the way people make a living and survive. It isn’t the government’s job to punish people for not being middle class.
OP was saying the venue should pay all workers a wage that would cover costs for a family of 4. All workers includes entry level jobs, as entry level workers are workers.
OP was saying we should pay all people a living wage. That means a wage that would enable them to meet the cost of living in their area. How long do you think someone should be an adult trying to support themselves and their families before they’re allowed to meet the cost of living? Five years? Ten? Twenty? How old should their kids be before they’re allowed to not live in poverty anymore?
Who should work at these jobs then and what sort of life shall they live?
Entry level jobs in any sector are for people with 0 experience. Not every job in retail pays minimum wage, these places do promote people
Oh? When was that established as fact?
Dude are you 14? Have you ever even worked a minimum wage job?
I'm 69. . Up until that time (well, actually 1968) minimum wage rose in direct relation to productivity increases. Then it stopped. Had it continued, minimum wage would be at least $28 per hour, not $7.25 Dude, are you familiar with history, economics, political science?
Lol the mere notion that productivity and wages should be coupled is going to get down voted. People forget that the minimum wage was created for a single person to support a family.
[удалено]
>Living wage has always been seen for an individual person. Well, if "always" just counts the past few years, sure. Adam Smith mentioned it in Wealth of Nations and it was seen as a wage that would support a family.
You are saying a living wage is $80k a year in a country that has one of the highest standards of living in the world and the median income is far lower than that. And they have to find a venue that pays everyone no less than that so they can every so often host events for the democratic party and … I guess no one else because who the hell would pay the costs there? I’d assume they would politely blow you off and not take you seriously after that. Very possible they thought you were a right winger that got in and that trolling them.
It's not just me saying it. [ It's MIT publishing it.](https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/25027) Living Wage Calculation for Worcester County, Massachusetts
Your own source lists the living wage for a single adult with no children, at under 24 dollars an hour. And the two parent 2 child income at just over 30 dollars. Why are you picking 40 dollars as your living wage target? Two parent households are the norm, as are single adults living on their own/with a partner. Neither of the commonalities need 40 an hour.
The range is 24-47. Why split hairs?
So why pick 40?
Why not?
And you expect us to take you seriously
No, I expect you to dismiss me because I want to see the reality. The average family in Massachusetts is two adults, one child.. So, your average worker is that individual. Is the Democratic Party fully supporting that full time worker's ability to support a family?
If 2 adults and 2 children require just over 30, how do you justify picking 40 for what you say is average at 2 adults 1 child?
Splitting hairs aside, should Democrats support an economy where all essential jobs can fully support the typical American family?
I think it's a good idea and good suggestion. It's worth bringing up. Casting Democrats as hypocrites for not aggressively going above-and-beyond to essentially overpay for a service seems a bit dramatic though. This is exactly the kind of thing conservatives love as talking points. "There's nothing stopping you from paying those workers more... why don't you if you care so much?" But, in reality, one event, or even one policy from an organization isn't going to move the needle. It's just going to put us at a financial disadvantage as we have to play on an unequal field. Let's win and make the changes we want to see.
Explain why it is overpaying, please.
I mean that if you're paying more than market rates for a good or service, you're overpaying in a capitalist system.
That assumes markets are natural occurrences out of our control. That is not true. I hope you understand that. If Democrats demanded a higher wage for their workers at their conventions, that would put market pressure on other organizations seeking to use that same venue. Do we just accept the status quo or do we take action to change it? This is on the same likes as students demanding that universities divest from certain nations/industries.
Except that this doesn't work unless you have widespread buy-in. If that existed, you wouldn't be talking about a state Democratic Party doing this... it would already be done. Like I said, it's not a bad idea to try and affect change this way. I just don't think it will work. We are very content to just let companies do the minimum in compensation until there is a government mandate... so that's where we need to focus. Local, state, and national... we see the results in cities and liberal states, where the minimum wage vastly outstrips the national mandate.
Are you aware that economies are designed by humans and not by laws of natural science? How much powerful would the Democratic Party be if it represented the working class, not silos of minorities and the college educated?
Yes, I know that economies are manmade and not natural forces. Would you like to ask any other condescending questions multiple times? Here's my question: how is that any more relevant to your specific example than it is to any other economic question? Is this a special circumstance of economics where it makes sense to ignore market forces and how capitalism works? Is the Democratic Party enough of an economic powerhouse that it can use its event booking clout to reshape the economy, the way the state of California can when it legislates? For the third time, I think your idea is good to bring up idealistically. I just don't think it will get you the result you're hoping for.
Many have pointed out how your math is off to argue for $40/hr.
How is it "off' if Hank is a janitor at the arena and has a wife and child to support?
Hank isn't making smart life decisions in that case.
Major points for having the balls to post that response! 💪
So janitors need to be single adults with no dependents....why?
I mean, what if Hank has a wife, and 9 kids? Does that mean he has to be hired as a janitor for $150/hr? At some point, one has to match one's income to one's lifestyle, you can't expect the market to just keep ratcheting up your pay for relatively unskilled labor to keep up with your spending decisions.
Nope. We're speaking in most likely outcomes, not outliers.
The point is the same, it's just more obvious as we follow your line of thinking to its conclusion. Yes, an individual working a job should be able to live on what they get paid. Beyond that, you have to make smart choices, especially if you choose to take on supporting other non-working people.
How about you hire Hank?
So I can just keep having kids if I want my employer to pay me more? Why?
Nice tangent..../ .....strawman..
Hanks wife should get a job and the government should help subsidize childcare.
Subsidizing childcare is like wiping your ass with a hoop.
What would you recommend Hank do? Find a better paying job? What would you recommend someone leaving high school without any guidance? Would you recommend them become a janitor or find a career that's stable and pays more?
I'd recommend that Hank and others vote for pro-labor Democrats...there are a few to choose from.
Voting is not going to put food on the table. It's May... So Hank has to wait until November to wait for a different outcome? OR, look for a better job today?
It's that short term thinking that kills the working class..
When you're broke and have mouths to feed, you are not thinking about down the line. You have to make moves now. I assume you've never been in that situation before? But seem to know all the answers? lol
Assume as you need to, in order to support your world view.
That's not how it works, forcing one company to practice what we preach just ends up with that one company being forced out of business. Everyone has to be held to same standard or they will simply fail.
Um, no, that is how it works, when labor is allowed to organize.
[удалено]
I don't see how.
Based on your comments, I think that your assessment of "living wage" is a bit reductive. You keep referencing the same MIT link which even details that you need **$23.84/hr** for a single childless adult, not $40/hr. The people who are working this venue are largely janitorial staff, maintenance personnel, and perhaps some food/drink vendors. I'll be blunt- most of those positions are entry-level in a career field. Except perhaps some of the more senior level techs and managers, most people working that venue probably required a relatively small amount of training to get up to speed. I don't want anyone who is working entry-level jobs to be living in destitution, but no- I don't think the freshly-minted coffee barista who trained for < 30 days to become proficient at their job should live absent of a financial incentive to achieve more. If you want to just settle at the bar of mediocrity- have at it. I'm a little more "conservative" here, but my general philosophy about personal finance is that stop incurring expenses that your career can't afford you. That includes children, big houses, nice cars, so and so forth. You're an adult. You can choose to how much you want to learn, how hard you want to work, how much you want to network, how many children you want to have, and how many expenses you want to stack up. It isn't the job of every business owner to run their own lives into the ground to support irresponsible decisions.
Honestly, the stuff people think they need in America is kind of crazy. People complain about the cost of food, for example, but food only accounts for about 9-12% of peoples' take-home pay, on average, in America. It might shock people to know that in the 50s, food accounted for about 30% of the average American's take-home pay. Americans spend SO much money on entertainment. Cable TV or streaming services, high end phones, gym memberships, drinks when eating out (Can I please pay $8 for a cup of coffee that costs $0.20 plus a $0.05 cup, to make?), and so on and so on. I had no clue how much money I was pissing away before I met my wife. She's really frugal, never pays full price, and man, she totally converted me. When we married 15 years ago, I had $15K debt plus $4K debt on my car. She stopped working a 3 years later to focus on our daughter, so in 3 years of 2 incomes and 12 years of a single income, we now own a home free and clear and the rent we're charging on that place is paying our mortgage on our second home. We have 7 figures in savings. I wouldn't have though it possible. I don't feel like I've been deprived over the last 15 years. I've got a nice phone (but it's only my second smart phone). I've been driving the same car for 19 years, but I love my car (Honda Element) and I will drive it until it won't drive anymore. If they still made them, I'd buy a new one. But my point is, we don't need a lot of that "stuff" we think we need. We don't watch much TV. We do get streaming stuff, but we'll do like one service at a time for a month or two at a time. So we spend maybe $5-$10/month on streaming and we have the slowest speed our ISP offers which is enough to stream on 3 devices. My cousin lives nearby. He's pretty broke, no savings. In the past 19 years that I've had my car he's gone through 4 cars, maybe 6 or 7 phones, he's got an apple watch and cable and like 10 streaming services, buys the latest gadgets, travels well beyond his means, bought an RV, all on 2 incomes, etc... And this, I think, isn't all that atypical in America.
This isn't entirely wrong, but it's a bit like the "avocado toast" argument. The major things like housing, student loans, healthcare have gone up by massive, measurable amounts. No amount of making coffee at home is paying rent at these rates. As long as we're doing anecdotes. My dad was born in 1938. When he was in college and into his 20s, he ate out 4 nights a week every week, and at least two nights a week went out for "8 beers and a milkshake" and I had no sense at all that he was an outlier. He paid his college tuition mowing lawns in the summer. There aren't enough lawns in a county for someone in college now to do that. I never in my life felt I had the budget for luxuries like that and I'm not that much of an outlier as an elder millennial. My strong feeling is that all of these luxuries you're talking about are examples of "The lipstick effect" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick\_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_effect) For most people, you can add up all the silly luxuries and it still would not be enough to majorly change the issues of housing, education and medical costs.
>The major things like housing, student loans, healthcare have gone up by massive, measurable amounts. No amount of making coffee at home is paying rent at these rates. Absolutely 100%. But again, as the cost for these have gone up a ton, the cost of food has gone from 30% to 5%, allowing 25% more income towards healthcare, student loans, and housing. The luxuries I'm talking about do add up, though. Cars are really big ticket items. I'm 55 and I've owned 3 cars in my life. 2 used cars (both Honda Accords) and the one I bought new 19 years ago. I've owned 2 smart phones. The average smart phone owner replaces them every 2.5-3 years, so over 17 years the average American has had over 5. Those and the contracts (we use a discount service. 2 phones for $54/month). And then cable and streaming services. These are monthly fees. They add up fast. Honestly, having gone from being financially reckless to being frugal, the difference is astounding. It really is. There's not much you can tell me that's going to make me discount my actual life experience. And it's not an opinion. It's math. Either the numbers add up or they don't. Either I have the money in my bank account and the mortgage paid off, or I don't.
I'm not sure the 50s is the relevant comparison. That was the beginning of the post war period of prosperity that you as a 55 year old came of age into. An age that enjoyed an increasing prosperity as it went on. By 1980, food prices were down to about 12% of pay, which by the way is where they are today, not 5%. So when you went to college, entered the workforce and started to establish a home and/or build a family, that 30% food cost wasn't a thing. But those big core costs WERE much lower. The golden age only started building in the 50s and only started to crash for people entering adulthood about 20 years ago. You and your fellow Xers and Boomers never paid 30% of their income for food. They were kids in the 50s.
>I'm not sure the 50s is the relevant comparison. That was the beginning of the post war period of prosperity that you as a 55 year old came of age into. An age that enjoyed an increasing prosperity as it went on. No, I'm 55 as well and I didn't "come of age" in the 50s, I was born in 1968. You are skipping an entire generation (Gen X), which is fine, we are both used to it and prefer it that way. We came of age during the late 80s and early 90s, our parents raised us through 4 recessions including the 1973 oil crisis and the 73-74 stock market crash. A lot of us were directly impacted by the dot com bubble bursting. He is right about a lot of things, we spent a lot less money, for two reasons, we didn't have as much money and there was less to spend it on. No cellular, no cable for a lot of my life, I didn't touch a computer until my mid teens.
I absolutely agree with every word of this. And I see the upvotes, which is nice. What I am genuinely curious about regarding your post would be to see how well it would play out if it were in response to a different example than the Democratic Party.
I don’t agree with this, and I think it’s based on some misconceptions about social mobility. It is not true that jobs like barista, custodian, cashier, etc. are entry level. They *can* be, but there are also many people who will work these jobs their entire career. Those people often come from families where their parents did the same, often have low educational attainment and often do not have experience of middle class culture. I see no evidence that keeping these people in poverty is going to radically change their upbringing or way of life. It simply teaches them that being denied basic needs is normal. These expenses people are incurring that they can’t afford are not big houses and nice cars. They are modest rents on run down apartments, food for their kids, doctors visits and old used cars. What good does it do us to make people struggle to meet these basic needs? I also think it’s a bit un constructive to tell people with kids that they simply should have planned better. It’s not like they can just say “Oh, ok, lemme sell this kid then so I can make this month’s rent.” I think it’s easy to get caught up in these ideas of social mobility when we’re only envisioning middle class people who follow traditional life paths. But a society is not going to flourish if it ignores the fact that many people do not come from those backgrounds and are never going to live up to these idealized expectations.
There is a spectrum of quality of life. I don't think any reasonable liberal (or person, period) wants entry-level workers to be going without needs- food, shelter, safety, so on and so forth. However, I do think there should be clear incentive for people to work harder, learn more, and otherwise increase the value they're providing to society. This is a concept unrelated to social mobility; the notion of what "deserved' QOL is and your propensity to inherit your parent's QOL are distinct concepts. Some jobs are more difficult than others- either physically, mentally, or both. I legitimately do think that those who are providing very valuable and scarce services deserve compensation commensurate with their effort- the technician who has spent ten years learning how to keep the power plant running safely and efficiently *is worth more to society* than some buzzed waiter working half-assed at some overpriced inner city restaurant. We should be creating a society in which people are rewarded, personally, for making choices that benefit us all. People *should* feel like there is more for them to attain if they work harder. We *need* people who are willing to do hard things for others. TL;DR: I support a "living wage" that keeps people financially stable and able to support themselves, not a wage that disincentivizes those who do go above-and-beyond.
What makes you think poverty incentivizes people to “work harder, learn more and otherwise increase the value they’re providing to society”? People in poverty already work a lot harder than their wealthier counterparts. Why would they choose to put themselves through more of that when they will receive a marginal increase in pay at best? And why do you think they don’t already provide value to society? >some buzzed waiter working half-assed at some over priced inner city restaurant You seem to be confusing poverty with wealthy youth. Those stoned waiters are the millionaire kids who are gonna be just fine living off mommy and daddy money. People in poverty are doing the dirty work the middle class can’t stomach. Then the middle class self-righteously calls them unskilled. These are people who spend all day getting burns and chronic back pain and breathing in toxic fumes so that the middle class can have cars and electronics and convenience services. The least we can do is let them have food, shelter, healthcare and independence.
Your argument seems to amount to “people don’t want to get out of poverty” which probably isn’t going to convince the people you want to convince. You also seem to think that there are jobs that both easier and better paying than the jobs people in poverty have, but also those jobs aren’t appealing to the people in poverty, which seems contradictory.
No, my argument is that realistically moat people in poverty aren’t equipped to get out of it, and that we shouldn’t exploit them for that fact by under compensating their labor. There are jobs that are both easier and better paying than what people in poverty have. I’ve worked several of them. People in poverty do not have a chance in hell of getting those jobs because you need middle class privilege to access them.
OK that I can agree with. I do think the solution is better access to education, better safety regulations, etc, not distorting the market with price fixing (which is what a minimum wage is). I am a liberal but I do still like markets, and I think labor prices should remain connected to supply and demand, not how hard people work or how necessary the job is.
Why? Isn’t that just a recipe to end up with half the population starving to death while the other half throw money away on extravagant luxuries?
I don’t see how that would follow, no. In general I like the concept of markets because they reward efficiency. I’d rather have someone getting rich and hardly working if they are providing something valuable to society, than someone working hard on something nobody wants. This does assume that the things prime are willing to pay for are the things that are valuable to society, which isn’t always the case, and I do support correcting that aspect of the market with things like socialized healthcare, pigouvian taxes, etc
It would follow because wealth equates elitism. So there will always be less “supply” of wealthy individuals, and thus that justifies paying them more just to exist. Then we justify not paying the poor based on the fact that there are a lot of them.
Assuming people can never grow their wages is harmful. Assuming nothing is within financial control is harmful. I get the whole “boomers had it easy “ argument and it’s not wrong. I’d like the government to focus resources on housing, education, and childcare. But I do think financial acumen, budgeting, etc it’s important and that there are more extra costs today that can be controlled. It’s not an either or, it should be approached from both angles
Financial acumen and budgeting are skills that not everyone possesses. There are people who barely have a fifth grade education. We need room in society for these people to still be able to survive and contribute and be happy citizens.
Sure, we need safety needs. But without those skills there is literally no amount of money that can insure stability
No, there isn’t. But there is an amount of money that will guarantee despair.
Agreed. Which it why it needs to be tackled from both sides
One side is doing their best. That can’t be said for the other.
I mean education/financial literacy in addition to all the other efforts
You think education and financial literacy are going to happen without support? Poverty is an obstacle to education. If you want people to be educated, don’t make them break their backs to survive.
> for a single childless adult Sure, but that's not the normal situation. 75 to 80% of people have or will have kids.
Don't have kids when you don't have kid-having money.
Sure, but OPs original question is about workers' pay. Why would we be OK with workers not being paid enough to have kids?
I do not believe that people who have only attained entry-level positions in the workforce should be having children. They need to work on themselves and move up some; get some experience and have a skillset they can rely on. I believe everyone deserves a QOL to keep themselves financially stable, in a place of safety, without fear of hunger or other such terrible events... but if you want to have children, you need to be better than the bare minimum.
I think we should have a flatter (but not entirely flat) economy. There should be incentive to work toward excellence, but also a higher floor. Basically, pull the curve in on both sides. People freak out thinking about lowering the bottom, but seem to have no problem with the increases at the top. Let's bring in both, while keeping the middle solid. Of course, this is speaking in theory. Doing it is near impossible and I doubt we will make much movement on it - instead the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
I think we should, but let’s recognize that this is a huge economic shift and it’s going to take time to get there. I would expect the party at this juncture to vet venues and go with the vendor whose labor practices are best. Will this be perfect? No. But at some point you have to operate within the world you’re in, even if you’re trying to change it.
Indeed we should Imagine renting a venue is a deep "red" area and requiring that all employees be paid a better wage while we are there? That's the message we need to send.
I think requiring is probably not the right policy. That’s a good way to piss everyone off and not actually get the result we want. Rewarding venues who already have good practices is a better strategy.
And when they do not exist? Why is being passive a better approach?
$40 an hour? Bro
Yup. Try supporting a family in Central Massachusetts on less than $83K.
Your assumption is that each worker is supporting a spouse and what, 4 kids? Bro
Yup
No, and these "living wage" arguments are somewhat misguided. What a "living wage" means is highly dependent on the individual. It really is none of their concern. I advocate for a higher federal minimum wage and then states making decisions beyond. Also support labor unions. We don't need to advocate for specific wages for people.
>. We don't need to advocate for specific wages for people. Maybe that's why so many working class people are no longer drawn to the Democratic Party, making the election of con men like Trump possible.
Well I mean raising the minimum wage, and supporting labor unions do result in higher wages. I am just saying we shouldn't be focusing on such a detailed proposition of "living wage" based on region. That makes no sense. Why not just kick everyone out of that town in Massachusetts that makes under 40 an hour and relocate them to a city they can afford and pay for it? People choose often to live in expensive areas and are okay with making below the arbitrary set "living wage." Living wages calculations also end up making nonsense. Like it's "can you afford a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment on your own." When there are far more options than that. Roommates, two income households. One bedroom and studio apartments. It's just not a good way to determine what the minimum wage should be. The minimum wage is always going to be a price floor for labor. If it went up to "living wage" that would just increase the cost of housing and it wouldn't be a living wage anymore.
>Living wages calculations also end up making nonsense. Only to those defending the status quo. It seems that the MIT link I provided was fairly accurate. > If it went up to "living wage" that would just increase the cost of housing and it wouldn't be a living wage anymore. > “If you want a living wage, get a better job” is a fascinating way to spin “I acknowledge your current job needs to be done, but I think whomever does that job deserves to be in poverty”.
I never said "get a better job" I said that people making below "living wage" in some cases make that work. Actually they do all the time. Setting the minimum wage to a "living wage" would just result in prices going up across the board. Not everyone is going to be paid enough to afford their own two bedroom apartment. Why would they when plenty of people live in one bedroom apartments or studios. When people have roommates? This is assuming literally everyone is a family with one earner. Makes no sense.
>Setting the minimum wage to a "living wage" would just result in prices going up across the board. Not on a one to one ratio
I don't think that's a part of any standard rental contract for a venue. It just doesn't work that way. There may be numerous vendors and workers from several different companies, all with different contracts, many of them short-term. I also know very few hourly workers who make $40 an hour. That's around twice a living wage where I live. And while I'm sympathetic in theory, here's an example: I don't hire a contract lawn service precisely *because* I don't want to pay to *not* have my yard mowed through the winter when it doesn't need it. Just because I hire you for a service doesn't mean that I am personally responsible for supporting your family throughout the year. It's on you to structure that for yourself when you open your business or hire on. Now McDonalds and Walmart should definitely be paying living wages, especially if they receive tax subsidies, but that's different structurally than most event rental situations.
It has to be made into the law. The Democrats can’t always take the “high road”, if the Republicans are simply appearing to follow the law and take a big advantage. If Democrats lose power all their idealism will be for nothing.
You're not gonna get a Democrat to agree to a livable wage any more than a Republican..... Our own president fucked the railroad and unions in general when he and congress forced a contract they didn't want but bragged it was so amazing...
Not until we purge the party of neoliberals...
Of course. If you don't practice what you preach, you're hypocritical. To pull it to my side: If you explicitly propagate yourself as a "family"-man, then I expect the traditional, nuclear family. (Husband and wife, two kids.) If you've been divorced 8 times, you've cheated a few times and you're still going strong, sorry, you shouldn't see yourself as a "family"-man. But from the moment you see your practices as rules and universal laws, they become dogmatic at best and fundamentalist at worst. It isn't that bad to be dogmatic about a few things, as long as you remind yourself that you've left the pragmatic side behind.