What are your thoughts on a Living Wage? Good for the people, bad for business? How do you think it would effect the economy? As a career restaurant manager, I know that the places I ran would essentially go out of business if I had to pay everyone a living wage, which nationally is near abouts $10 an hour. Having said this, I feel that ALL adults should be afforded a living wage. Certainly, anyone if they want it bad enough can go to school and make a decent living - there are people who have come from the streets / homeless people, who have been able to this. However, it is very hard and well, school's not for everyone. Perhaps a portion of the the taxes on the very wealthy (5% of the people in this country control 95%) of the wealth - should be used to subsidize those who earn below a living wage. The tax cuts that Bush gave the wealthy were based on trickle down economic theory, which it is proven does not work. Perhaps this is a better way to stimulate the economy and make life a bit easier for the poor.
Read Barbara Eirenreich's book, "Nickel and Dimed - on (not) getting by in America. It was a NYT bestseller. I have respect for her. She came and spoke at my school and gave most of her 10K speaking fee to the strike fund of the school's striking workers. Very classy. And vocally supported them right in front of the entire administration. Told the whole audience to go march with them. Many did (including me). It made the news that night.
My view is that there are is too much of a gap between the very rich and very poor which I reckon contributes to a lot of crime in this country (UK). If I had it my way, I'd pay everyone the same regardless of age, qualifications, experience etc and award those who work the hardest and who are most successful with more benefits. Failing that I'd find another way of decreasing the gap between rich and poor. It's not fair that a company executive who jobs entails to sit in the occasional meeting in their plush little office and then be driven home by their private chauffeur, receives half a million pounds a year and that's just the basic salary, whereas you've got someone who's really busting their balls in the factory at the same company for £3.75 an hour minimum wage. You've got two extremes here and it's ludicrous. Is any person at the top really worth that much even if they work extremely hard? I don't think so. As the saying goes "Money is the root of all evil".
Raising minimum wage (thereby establishing a living wage) would have the same effect as simply printing more money - massive inflation resulting in most people becoming poorer, not richer. A company that has to pay it's empoyees a 60% higher salary is going to have to raise the price of it's goods 60% to offset the losses. When every company does that, the cost of living effectively rises by 60% (or more), and we're back to square and our money is now worth less.
More often than not, the top execs have to work their asses off to get where they are. Do you really think it's fair to pay a successful businessman who spent 8 years in college and grad school the same salary as a factory worker who dropped out of high school?
I think a top exec should be paid more or certainly get more benefits, but not a ridiculous salary that could easily enable 20 people including him/her self to live fairly comfortably. Besides not all executives are where they are simply because they went to university and have a bachelors, masters etc etc. Infact it's the minority that have had any further education (for the current generation in this country anyway). Most left school at 16 or 18 and have worked their way up which is fair play and credit to them which they deserve to have recognition for, but to earn £500,000 a year - that is total greed. What makes them sooo special? These people aren't more holier than thou, they are just normal human beings. No matter where you are in life there will always be people worse off then you and better than you. So what I'm saying is there are plenty of others who could do the same job just as well if not better but sadly don't even get a look in. Talent alone doesn't necessarily equal success. Ever heard the saying "It's not what you know, it's who you know?" Believe me that is prevalent throughout today's workforce. A top exec is no better or worse than you and I.
I find it wierd that you guys don't have a minimum wage in your country (we have 2, under 18 and adults). In New Zealand, the minimum wage goes up as inflation rates go up, which means, even the janitor gets a certain amount (which is enough to live off). In terms of rapid inflation by establishing a living wage, how many employees earn below this "set" amount (remember that unemployment don't count). That will determine the inflation. I agree about more taxation on the higher earners. Go well-fare state
We have a minimum wage, but it is not near enough for anyone to live off of. Max has a good point, raising minimum wage here in the US just means printing more money. I think something needs to be done about the huge gaps that executives make over their employees. The average CEO in the US makes 400X's their employees wages. Fix this problem, and businesses will be able to afford better wages for their employees.
yes, the ceos, only 25 years ago, made 40 times their average worker. And we wonder where all the money went.
How can you expect a CEO to give raises to his employees when he can work them at $5.15 and keep the millions to himself? This is America...ya know...
And that's how it should be? Whether you're a rocket scientist or a janitor you should earn enough money to live on! I work in an office and I'd say I have a reasonably good job, yet I can't afford even to live in a shabby bedsit, never mind a reasonable 1/2 bedroom starter flat! It's absolutely ridiculous and I've been working 7 years. Ok I've had spells where I haven't worked for short periods of time, but even if I'd worked 7 continuous years and saved really hard, I still wouldn't be able to live anywhere by myself. Okay, it doesn't help the fact that I live in the South East of England (the most expensive area of the UK). But even if i lived in a cheaper area, the salaries of course will be lower, therefore the returns will be about the same - which in RIP OFF BRITAIN isn't very much. Only last night I watched a programme about a family who left England for a new life in New Zealand. They decided to live in a small town not far from Wellington. The 3 properties they could choose from (all detached, 3 beds with about half an acre of land), the rent ranged from £100 - £115 per week! That's a bargain in itself!! And with each of the couple working - the man as a policeman, the woman as a nurse that's a serious good return!! Not only that, they also had beautiful scenery and a laid back lifestyle right on their doorstep. I could afford that on my own and I don't exactly earn big bucks! Now that is quality of life!
Like you say, a lot of your problem on finding affordable rent comes from your area. It's the same way where I live, I've heard of apartments costing 3 or 4 grand a month (approx 2000-3000 euro, I think) in NYC. For that price uou could have a much bigger place with a backyard and a garage in Buttfuck Nowhere, Alabama, but most New Yorkers don't want to. That's the price of living here. As for the welfare state, I'm skeptical of the idea. Sure it sounds great, everybody getting paid a living wage and no one needing anything, but what that comes down to is an enourmously heavy tax burden on anybody who makes money, not just the wealthy. This idea of "let's tax all the really rich people to solve all our problems" is a ridiculous myth. There aren't enough CEOs and Paris Hiltons in this country to fund even a fraction of the US government single handedly. The middle and upper middle classes will get the brunt of it all, even if CEOs are also paying out a lot. The heavy taxation to fund the welfare state stifles economic growth, so unemployment will rise and the government will have even more people to supply with handouts, which means more taxes on companies and individuals already suffering from the poor economy. In practice the idea works, in reality it might be a bit different. I realize this is a painfully basic description, I'm not an economist by any means. If you want to disagree, don't be a prick about it (ahem, RevoMystic and Bacchus).
I cant get the quotes to work so Im going to have to improvise. Max, you say that you are skeptical about a welfare state. In order for it to work, you need dramatic changes to all areas of the running of the country. I can only apply it to NZ (New Zealand) because it is the only welfare state that I have lived in. NZ, as a welfare state, has a very small inflation rate. As we dont have a military (our militiary is made up of medics mainly), the money that would normally go there, goes to other areas (like social welfare, education, health etc). A dole has been set up so if you are unemployed, the government can support you. And dont forget all the benifits you can accumulate if you so choose. I am not hugely taxed (19.5% as a student), and I live an amzing way of life. I think the major reason why people are skeptical is because they have never seen such an amazing system work on a large scale.
I've never been taxed anyother way. I have enough money to live an amazing life, and I dont have to worry about health insurence or anything, because a lot is provided by the government. Well for that high taxation, it gives every a chance which they may not get cause of their socio-ecconomic status. The whole point of social welfare is to provide for everyone, to bridge the gap between poor and rich, to enhance the way of life for many. If I am paying more taxes so that 100's and 1000's of people (New Zealanders in my case) can get food (cause unemployement, hardships etc), then I am more than happy to pay such a "high" tax (cause I know it wont go to the army, we dont have one ). Laugh all you want, but the real question you should ask yourself, are "your" taxes going to where you want them to Mine are . And because NZ only has unemployment of 4%, I don't feel like Im being cheated.
When I was Working full time for minimum wage... after childcare costs during work hours and the transportation costs to and from work I was making a whole negative $30 at the end of each week. No $ for rent, food, etc... and I got a whole whopping $20 a week childcare assistance and $31 a month food stamps from our system.. this country isn't exactly user friendly these days. But you know what's even worse...I know I live in a cruddy state and all but the MAXIMUM they pay for childcare assistance here is $8 a day...that's $40 a week to have an infant cared for (which no one but a crack head that'll lock the kids in the closet will accept as payment because it's so pathetically low) AND if you can't get a job welfare will allow you work 20something hours a week for them for a whopping $130 a month. Have you ever tried to pay the bills, get to work and have a baby cared for on exactly $160 a month for childcare and $130 to pay the rent, transit, diapers and lights? At least they get food stamps to buy beans while living in their box. Now that, my dears, is slavery.
