Living Wage

B's wife should probobly just get a job to be honest.....problem solved

>Maybe if there were infinite numbers of houses and labour was not required to build the house.
Lol that's not even the main reason why housing isn't free. The ownership of Land is a way bigger reason for no free land.

>Food
Because the amount of food we throw away is shocking, there is no reason why we can't redistribute domestically other than farm/grocery store interest.

>Education isn't a right.
But it is compulsory through HS (depending on state), which makes no sense for it to suddenly shoot up in the tens of thousands of dollars for an undergrad.

>Transports
How about states that have garbage public transportation? Or areas with decent public transport, but insanely dense traffic because everyone owns a car for themselves.

This is either bait or one of the most ignorant comments I have ever read.

DUDE

This thing doesn't take into account the stupidity of person B. If you make minimum wage you should live like A, and not breed 3 kids and buy 2 cars (probably taking out a loan to afford them). The wife should get a fucking job as well.

>Stay at home wife

These still exist?

FREE

What has this got to do with history or humanities??

Go to /pol/ with these kind of threads.

SHIT

Not OP, but it's much easier to get replies on Veeky Forums and threads don't get archived half as fast.

>If you don't have the money to afford transportation then you have these things called legs.
Yeah, just swim across the ocean if you can't afford an airline ticket.

What the fuck are you doing travelling by air on minimum wage?

Airline tickets are a human right.

DUUUUDE LOLBERTARIANS LMAOOOOOO

one could argue that the Empoyee B raises children who will pay taxes for the next generation, thus doing a service for the country.
Because of that, Employee A should be taxed higher, as is the case in real life

To comment without being a FUCKING EBIN MEME LORD :DDDD

Part of the reason that "minimum wage" should be left alone is because many economists agree that higher minimum wage leads to unemployment as companies adjust to limit loss, and maximize profit.

Likewise, the reason minimum wage should never be done away with in a capitalist society is because many corporations would immediately abuse the shit out of their workforce as has been made evident time and time again from the East India Company to Wal-mart.

The solution is not so simple, and I don't claim to know it;however, I expected better from Veeky Forums. I was so excited when Veeky Forums became a board, and then I was quickly reminded where I was.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're all faggots.

>wage labor
>in full communism

Veeky Forums is still one of the better boards and Veeky Forums, and I think most people here fully agree with you, however it is fun to get a rouse out of someone from time to time

One could argue many things. There are few questions which are settled in the political science. I think this is cause for decentralized authority in matters where reasonable people disagree, you don't.

Do people argue that a "living wage" extends to the living expenses of anyone besides the wage-earner? I've never had that interpretation of it.

Beyond that, the living wage for a family of 4 is quite different than it is for a lone individual. How do you price the "living wage" which must be paid to both?

The extra money employee B gets isn't for him at all its for the wife and kids. The money each one gets to actually use and spend in themselves would be about equal.

There that was easy. Any more problems I can help you with, OP?

Uh that still contradicts equal pay for equal work given the wife and kids are getting pay for no work having been put in.

I think it would be based on the lone individual.

If you want to be really true to capitalist ideals, then employers aren't responsible for paying employees enough to live. The employer is only responsible for paying the employee what their labor is worth.

If there's a difference between what their labor is worth and what they need to live, then that can be handled by state assistance programs. (I think there's an economic consensus that redistribution helps the economy anyhow.)

The other solution is to go fullcommunist and abolish the wage system.

It's false because nobody deserves anything. The contradiction within it doesn't matter at all, because the entire worldview of leftists is retarded.

This

The tax system favours people with kids, and as a gay man I see no problem with that since those kids are going to be paying for a part of my retirement, while my taxes will have gone to pay for their education and healthcare so they can be productive members of society.

When it comes to wages, Americans in the lowest income bracket get thrown under the bus by their politicians and business leaders, and a severe lack of unionization.
Here in Demark, the unions negotiate a minimum wage and the majority of people get a liveable wage.
We also have issues with foreign workers accepting lower pay in some sectors, most notably agriculture and cleaning, but most ethnic Danes avoid that work anyway

with that mentally, I am assuming either:
1. you never had a job
2. you are an employer

Well the kids shouldn't need to work that's an investment made by the state/society. The wife would be getting income necessary to survive as matter of welfare, or alternatively is being paid by the state to raise the children they are investing in. I have a kid. They're a lot of fucking work I promise you.

I have a job, and I'm not an employer, but if you think the world revolves around what people "deserve" then you're either a 19 year old sociology major who has lived a shelter life with rich parents in California, or you are literally 12 years old.

>communism
>a solution
It's a final solution of sorts

I am not saying that, but believing that nobody deserves anything, I could say the same about you

>I could say the same about you

Yeah, and this doesn't bother me at all, unlike the common leftist who wants to change society completely because of it.

People deserve what they earn, I'm a lazy cunt but you don't see me demanding free shit even if it would be in my personal interest

How does is there any contradiction?

If we work off the premises in your example, employee A can just work less for the same hourly wage if he wants a living income level. That's still equal pay for equal work. Or he can work a full 40 hours at living wage to have a higher than living income.

Still, the image misrepresents what a living wage is. A living wage is not necessarily a family wage.
>A family wage is a wage that is sufficient to raise a family. This contrasts with a living wage, which is generally taken to mean a wage sufficient for a single individual to live on, but not necessarily sufficient to also support a family.

It's usually just defined as a wage level that one can live with some comfort and accumulate personal capital in the form of experience or education by various metrics, working full time 40 hours.

Living wage is a minimum, not a maximum.

Because you are satisfied with what you have. If you were starving, you'd speak in a different tone.

Then that money for the wife and kids wouldn't coming from a wage supplied by the employer it is coming from welfare provided by the state.

Not saying that's a bad thing but that's the only way you can keep equal pay for equal work from conflicting with livable wage while having the family man get more money.

>Part of the reason that "minimum wage" should be left alone is because many economists agree that higher minimum wage leads to unemployment as companies adjust to limit loss, and maximize profit.
This is mostly when adapting to the new market. In the long term it gets rid of zombie companies, creative destruction, etc.

It's easy being against minimum wage when you're a basement dweller. Though you must remember that your mummy has to earn that money so she can award you good boy points. Less money = less good boy point = less chicken tendies

>if you were starving you'd speak in a different tone
Or I'd get off my arse and earn more.
Nobody deserves anything unless they earn it. Does a baby deserve a mansion and 4 yachts just for falling out of the womb?

When one starves, you hope that someone will help you.

You don't want to change the edifice of society to fit your needs, with violent force no less.

That is, if you're not a leftist.

Actually this other user, makes a good point this also prevents the contradiction.

>Employee B is making minimum wage and has a stay-at home wife
Haha, what planet are these people living in?

>Or I'd get off my arse and earn more.
Let's be real here...no you wouldn't. In fact, I bet your ass is permanently glued to the chair you're sitting on, due to sweat, and cum, and various food remains.

murrica apparently

I just admitted I was a lazy cunt so why you're insulting me about being lazy I'll never know
>no you wouldn't
>the threat of starvation doesn't motivate
K

In the America I know, both parents typically have to work to make ends meet, especially if they're working minimum wage

>Seven in 10 (69.7 percent) working wives earn as much or more than their husbands in the bottom 20 percent of income distribution for all families.
washingtonpost.com/opinions/two-paycheck-couples-are-quickly-becoming-the-norm/2012/04/18/gIQALSzlRT_story.html

So, pretty much the same as in Europe I guess. There used to be a few decades ago that most women were too proud to do the 'lower' jobs here. Now, most of them are doing it, to support their families.

A living wage means a wage you can live on, not a wage that supports whatever lifestyle you currently have / want to have.

Employee B can downsize his fucking home, sell a car, and tell his wife to get a job.

Pol threads leave a bad taste in my mouth. i apologize for hostilities.

>Maybe if there were infinite numbers of houses and labour was not required to build the house.

there are hordes of uninhabited houses and apartments in the US in both suburbia and elsewhere however when they are filled they're usually filled by Employee B because he reproduces and families with kids generally avoid subletting and the US subsidizes the breeding of their working caste with tax incentives

No worries lad

the living wage means living wage, bare mininmum, not pay for the life you want

2/10 shitty propaganda

>but the idea of a 'living wage' would be a variable

no it wouldnt and no it isnt in the coutnries that already have that

Bare minimum is actually subsistence wage.

and those are the same thing, if you think that people in the left advocate for a wage to pay for your lifestyle just because you want it then youre wrong (yes, some do, but we all know that retards exist in every group of people)

>implying the government should have any power to meddle in private voluntary arrangements

so child labor in asia is ok then?

>voluntary
but you can't or can barely live without it

It's the duty of a government to make things fair, I guess.

No they aren't. A living wage must allow for some comfort above the bare minimum, and/or the ability to accumulate capital.

The point of a living wage is that you can become a petty capitalist, at least on the level of personal capital in gaining job skills through education. Other definitions include not having to choose between a life of suffering and accumulating capital to do so. You should be able to afford with some security, moderate recreation, and affording some education.

>I bet your ass is permanently glued to the chair you're sitting on, due to sweat, and cum, and various food remains.

Dat projection.

>duty
>fair

lol

no its not

Why not?

Because anything the government does, is ethically wrong when the Mafia does it, e.g harvesting protection money(taxes).

Why is it the duty of a government to "make things fair"?

protection money doesn't actually protect you, the government does though

protection money doesn't actually protect you, the government does though

it's not like the government will start stealing your property if you refuse to pay tax

That's the point of rule of law. If you want a monarch with absolute authority as your government, then no government doesn't have to make things fair.

I think the guy put it in retardedly simplistic ways but nowadays there is a large theme of it, namely things like the rule of law. The government lays out the rules that all of society is expected to abide by, and the ideal (in western society at least) is so that everyone has a relatively level baseline. Obviously in reality this is rarely the case (people are born into wealth or poverty, prejudices exist, corruption exists, etc) but the government takes steps to enforce fairness. Establishing rights that everyone is entitled to, etc.
Welfare states take it a step further by trying to enforce a certain entitled standard of living.

Doesn't make the collection of said funds by force anymore ethically good.

Murdering 100 million of America's population would also help the remaining 220 million with the ability to procure housing, that doesn't make the action correct.

>the government does though

1 largest monitoring system on earth later and 80 dead in a nightclub from a guy who got baited by the CIA says no

Btfo

Shit happens, in a country as large as the USA it's pretty much impossible to prevent the odd act of domestic terrorism without severely curtailing everybody's rights. The fact is that the laws of the state are enforced and generally ensure that people can't do whatever the fuck they want to the detriment of others in the society.

Sure, in regards to the law, the government should make things fair so that the law equally applies to everyone

But the socioeconomic status and living condition of individual citizens is not a matter of the rule of law

Sure, we could inert a chip into everyone's brain, and make sure they don't go rogue. Or we can say fuck it, and let everything happen. Or the third option, try to strike some kind of balance.

Same way when government interferes with economy. Sure you could slap the companies with so many regulations to make things fair, that it would hamper how they operate, and all of them would simply fail. You could let the do what ever it is that they want, and let them fuck everything up. Or you could strike some sort of balance between the two. Impose some regulations, to ensure fair play, yet not to many to actually make them crumble under it.

Government provides the ring, boxing glove, the rules, the judge, and it's up to the individual player how they choose to fight.

>it's not like the government will start stealing your property if you refuse to pay tax

Nah, they'll just put you in a cage instead.

Do you not depend on anything that the government does for you?

In a perfect world people would be able to find private means to support their lifestyles without the government forcing wealth transfers at gunpoint. Government programs tend to encourage unproductive lifestyles which are then normalized for the next generation. The historical development culture of poverty in US ghettos is an example of this mechanism.

It kind of does, but only in a superficial sense. Two very different factions of the left are pushing for these things: equal pay is primarily a liberal feminist middle-class and above issue (and minority groups, I guess), while living wage is more a poverty, working class issue. Living wage is styled as a quasi-women's issue sometimes, since there are many single mothers supporting multiple children on minimum wage jobs, in the US at least. To put it in US political terms, equal pay is a Clinton supporter issue, living wage is a Bernie supporter issue.

The main thing that makes reconciling these issues difficult is that we preume people have the right to produce as many children as they want, and we also believe that children should have a right to a decent childhood. Since we're not willing to provide much state support, given the potential for that to lead to state control of children and meddling in the family, it's reasonable to think that employers should be paying employees enough to raise their children. However, this would conflict with the equal pay doctrine, and would end up heavily discriminating against the childless.

Like what?

Are you going to start screaming muh roads now?

>wanting limited government means wanting no government

Spotted the leftcuck

Living wage is not the same as family wage, end of discussion.

"Family wage" doesn't exist.

Except for it's often used that way in political discussions on the subject.

Show me where it says you have to be able to support a stay-at-home spouse. You know damn well living wage is based on an aggregate average, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person earning more than a living wage in either system. Living wage is a minimum. You are allowed to earn more than sustenance.

In the same way living wage doesn't exist.

>The government should keep doing the things I like, but collect no taxes
What reality do you live in?

I don't support the stay-at-home spouse thing, but living wage is generally defined to include costs of childcare, and the more children you have, the higher those costs will be. Here's some excerpts from the Wikipedia page on living wage to show how a) family wage and living wage are used interchangeably and b) childrearing is considered part of living wage.

>In some nations such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, this standard generally means that a person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, such as, food, shelter, utilities, transport, health care, minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education, and childcare.

>Since living wage ordinances attempt to address the issue of a living wage, defined by its proponents as a family wage, rather than as an individual wage, many of the beneficiaries may already be in families that make substantially more than that necessary to provide an adequate standard of living.

There are scales here. There's a difference between the government being a necessary evil, and everyone paying a small amount so they can carry out the duties of policing, military defense, and courts; and a government that has built a Earth-encompassing surveillance machine that literally logs everything anyone does on the internet, and wants to indict the man who exposed that for treason, meanwhile they are drone-bombing the Middle-East with our tax money.

Meant for .