Are you making a living wage?

November 12, 2008 11:10 AM

Are you making a living wage? An online calculator from the Poverty in America project's set of tools.

Also, the Community Economic Toolbox gives some really interesting local economic data.

posted by geos (83 comments total)

For the record - yes, I am.

But I always remain confused - and somewhat ticked off - when the phrase "living wage" is thrown around. It implies so many things - some true, some not - and seems to always go hand-in-hand with raising the minimum wage.
posted by davidmsc at 11:19 AM on November 12, 2008

Housing is supposedly $391 per month for a 2 adult household in my area. That is CRAZY low. Even if that's per person, it's low. It's $1000 less than what we pay, and we have a an average 2-bedroom townhouse. Transportation is also way off, because you HAVE to have a car in order to work (I guess they are assuming it's already paid off?). According to this, my income alone should easily cover all our expenses, but it doesn't even come close, and we rarely go out, don't have cable, and rarely buy new stuff.
posted by desjardins at 11:21 AM on November 12, 2008

Interesting. I am, according to that thing, making a living wage. But they also underestimate my rent by half and my medical expenses by more than half. I could presumably live in a cheaper place, but I don't think I could cut down on the medical expenses without doing serious damage to myself.
posted by craichead at 11:21 AM on November 12, 2008

Also, can a one-bedroom apartment really be had in SFCA for $1,227?
posted by desjardins at 11:24 AM on November 12, 2008

Their numbers for housing, transportation, healthcare, etc. are all WAY too low for Los Angeles. These numbers aren't a representation of reality.
posted by MythMaker at 11:26 AM on November 12, 2008

Yeah, I have a living wage. But I want to find housing for $374 a month. That would be suh-weeet!
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 11:27 AM on November 12, 2008

$156/month for food? I'm sure I could budget food better than I do, but I can't imagine eating a well balanced diet for that amount.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 11:29 AM on November 12, 2008

I'm about $2000 below the living wage for my county (Montgomery). Awesome.
posted by sperose at 11:30 AM on November 12, 2008

Something which I find endlessly interesting is the way discussions of economics, especially when it comes to numbers, are relentlessly focused on the investor class e.g. most newspapers have a "business" section, but not a "working" section. Just trying to create a number that describes how much a person might need to make to live on changes things incredibly. Does anyone really believe you should employ a person for less than they need to live? But it's easy to ignore this issue if you aren't looking at a set of numbers spelling just how far that wage might fall short. Of course, the discussion in the business section stops at "well, what about the teenagers."

But I always remain confused - and somewhat ticked off - when the phrase "living wage" is thrown around. It implies so many things - some true, some not - and seems to always go hand-in-hand with raising the minimum wage.

What do you mean?
posted by geos at 11:30 AM on November 12, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Ok, but just to play devil's advocate, they say "a living wage," not "a pleasant and fun living wage." You couldn't find housing for $350 in my neighborhood, which is relatively safe and a pretty nice place to live. But it might be possible to find housing for $350 a month in neighborhoods in which I would never consider living, because I consider them dangerous, difficult to get to, or otherwise unappealing. I think our incredulity might, to some extent, be a function of our class privilege.
posted by craichead at 11:31 AM on November 12, 2008 [7 favorites has favorites]

Well, I'm having to live on unemployment insurance, so I'm obviously not making a living wage.

I will say, though, that I am not aware of any single adult (who lives alone) in San Francisco who pays a mere $998 per month for housing, and I doubt that such a person exists.
posted by trip and a half at 11:33 AM on November 12, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I got $156/food no matter which geographic area I selected, which seems both odd and impractical if one wishes to have a healthy living wage.

Also, the estimated housing costs for Santa Barbara county in general is severely underestimated, as well as for the small village in New Mexico where I grew up. It's more approximate for the Houston area.

Thus, I conclude that Penn State defines "living" in a different manner than I.
posted by WolfDaddy at 11:33 AM on November 12, 2008

also, the data is kind of old.

Just being able to generate a number for each region is a neat accomplishment. It gives you a basis for having the conversation.
posted by geos at 11:34 AM on November 12, 2008

This calculator has some serious problems -- it estimated the living wage for a single adult to live in Ithaca, NY as $18,594, while the NYC living wage estimated was $16,050. I've lived in both places and NYC is definitely more expensive to live in than Ithaca. They estimate the rent to live in NYC to be $484 dollars a month. Even the tiny dorm style subsidized college housing I was in ran to at least $700/month/person.
posted by peacheater at 11:35 AM on November 12, 2008

It only goes up to two children, but extrapolating out: No, I'm not getting a living wage. Or if I am, barely. But yeah, the food they list is kind of high. Of course, my kids are all under 10 (i.e. not ravenous teenagers) but we spend significantly less than $600/month for significantly more than two adults + two children.
posted by DU at 11:38 AM on November 12, 2008

I have to pay four times the medical expense allotment just to insure us. And if I didn't have insurance, I'd be paying twice the allotment just to get our monthly prescriptions--God help us if we had to go to the hospital. Maybe you could do it all on what they suggest with no chronic conditions, accidents, or major illnesses, but, unfortunately, that ain't us.

And it might be possible to house a family of four here for $531, but it would be awfully cramped.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 11:42 AM on November 12, 2008

craichead I've seen the sort of place you can rent for less than $300/month in my part of the world, and if you tried to house prisoners of war in those conditions it'd violate the Geneva convention. Roaches and rats are the least of the problems.

"Living wage" != living out of a dumpster wage. Class privilege doesn't enter into it.
posted by sotonohito at 11:44 AM on November 12, 2008

Transportation is also way off, because you HAVE to have a car in order to work (I guess they are assuming it's already paid off?).

Even if the car is paid off, the monthly expenses in my area are much higher than the estimate listed. I have a paid off Civic Hybrid, and I have a shorter commute than most of the people I know, but I still spend almost the estimated amount on gas alone. Throw in insurance and routine maintanence such as oil changes, and the costs are well above the estimated amount, even for me.
posted by burnmp3s at 11:47 AM on November 12, 2008

Who made these living wages? Seriously? Have they tried living under them?
posted by Mastercheddaar at 11:52 AM on November 12, 2008

More importantly, are you making a decent living wage?
posted by gman at 11:55 AM on November 12, 2008

well, craigslist seems to show that is it possible to pay only ~800 for rent in for my city. But why is the transportation value the same for all family types? Is it assuming one person does all the work, and the others never leave the house?
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:55 AM on November 12, 2008

While what they're listing is very low and is barely (if at all) actually livable, they aren't the ones setting the number - the government is.
posted by batmonkey at 11:57 AM on November 12, 2008

The numbers for Typical Hourly Wage seem odd. Architecture and Engineering shows $24.91. Architects and engineers make a lot more than that don't they? Or does the number include every person who works in an office that does architecture or engineering?
posted by diogenes at 12:10 PM on November 12, 2008

Apparently, to live in my city you need to have some sort of technical/management job. They were the only salaries listed as at-or-above living wage for one adult + one child.

Yeah, the rents were a bit low, I think. $1300 a month for a family of four would cram everybody into a (nice-ish) one bedroom or (middling) two bedroom apartment.
posted by backseatpilot at 12:11 PM on November 12, 2008

Unemployment insurance gives me $247 a month less than the living wage in my area. Sometimes I can supplement that with temporary work.

What does this mean in actual day-to-day practice?

Well, I never eat out, for one thing. And when I do, I try to keep the charges to $7 or less. My diet includes a lot of cheap cuts of meat such as chicken thighs and pork loin, for c. $2 a pound. I'm fortunate to have a lot of Chinese groceries in my neighborhood; their prices are low enough for me to include a lot of oily fish in my diet, which helps ease my depression.

I rarely take the subway. I rarely leave my apartment because I know that leaving my apartment will usually involve spending money in some way shape or form.

So, yes, it is a living wage. I can survive on that amount of money, for sure. But it's not a whole lot of fun.
posted by jason's_planet at 12:11 PM on November 12, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

My community is so poor that we can't even afford to make their list:

No results for "washington, dc".
posted by Pollomacho at 12:14 PM on November 12, 2008

No results for "washington, dc".

They put it in Maryland
posted by peeedro at 12:16 PM on November 12, 2008

You can't find DC by seaching "Washington, DC" or "DC" but if you drill down through MD and VA there it is. That said, the rent estimate for DC is actually ok, which is weird since rent is high here. The food is about half what I pay, but I do shop at a co-op.
posted by Tehanu at 12:17 PM on November 12, 2008

peeedro's right, it's not in VA.
posted by Tehanu at 12:18 PM on November 12, 2008

Or search for "District of Columbia."
posted by peeedro at 12:20 PM on November 12, 2008

I don't know if $156 (or thereabouts) per month for food is all that outlandish. I make many more times the living wage for my area, but my average monthly food budget is often only a little above that. I haven't gotten scurvy yet.

Staying fed can be remarkably inexpensive if you, 1) rarely eat out, 2) don't snack, and 3) limit your meat intake. Some time spent overseas opened my eyes to how excessive the average American diet (and, subsequently, food budget) is. You don't necessarily need to eat all that much to stay healthy.
posted by jal0021 at 12:22 PM on November 12, 2008

I haven't opened my mailbox in two weeks. If I were making a living wage, I doubt I'd be so absolutely terrified of my mailbox.

Does food budget include beer?
posted by Dumsnill at 12:28 PM on November 12, 2008

You don't necessarily need to eat all that much to stay healthy.

I'll admit, that strikes me as a bit kooky. The *amount* I need to eat is pretty much fixed. I'm at a healthy weight, and if I ate considerably less, I would lose weight and it would be bad news. My recipe for staying within my food budget is not to eat much meat, never to eat out, not to use a lot of prepared or highly processed foods, and not to waste food. That means using things before they go bad, and it means cooking in bulk and eating, rather than throwing out, leftovers. I spend a bit more than $156 a month on food, but not terribly much more.
posted by craichead at 12:30 PM on November 12, 2008

Of course at $350 a month, what about the hidden costs, like a 9 mm for protection, higher interest rates due to auto break-ins, and the extra rental insurance so your shit doesn't get ripped off? There's not really a free lunch.
posted by crapmatic at 12:33 PM on November 12, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

oops, I meant higher insurance rates
posted by crapmatic at 12:33 PM on November 12, 2008

The hidden costs thing is a good point, crapmatic. I was thinking about it specifically with regards to transportation costs. Rent is higher in places with good public transit or that are close to jobs. Housing is cheaper in locations where you have to drive a long way to get to jobs. So you can't necessarily simultaneously get the cheapest housing and the cheapest transportation costs. It's often one or the other. You'd also have to factor in higher childcare costs if you choose the cheap housing with the long commute.
posted by craichead at 12:37 PM on November 12, 2008

I'd love to live in whatever world they seem to be modeling, here.

Beverly Hills, CA has a Housing cost of $1189/mo for 2 adults 2 children. BS.
posted by chimaera at 12:40 PM on November 12, 2008

Transportation is also way off, because you HAVE to have a car in order to work.

I can't think of a single city in the USA in which that's true.

Even in car-crazy Los Angeles, it'd be more than possible to live and work without a car. What's all that public transportation for? Only non-working people?

If you mean "live in the suburbs" and "work without spending 2 hours commuting", or "required in order to be able to pick and choose any job no matter how inconveniently located", then maybe, but that's hardly the same as "you HAVE to have a car in order to work."
posted by rokusan at 12:43 PM on November 12, 2008

I guess I would be making a living wage if I could manage to find another 20 hours a week to work at my current rate of pay. And didn't have another person's expenses to cover.

Yay, Rhode Island! We're #1!
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 12:50 PM on November 12, 2008

That comment irked me, too, rokusan. Two adults living in a 2-bedroom townhouse, even an average one, even if they rarely go out and don't have cable (*gasp*), are by no means barely scraping by.
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:51 PM on November 12, 2008

If you mean "live in the suburbs" and "work without spending 2 hours commuting", or "required in order to be able to pick and choose any job no matter how inconveniently located", then maybe, but that's hardly the same as "you HAVE to have a car in order to work."

I don't know. I think it's more complicated than you think. There's been a lot of sociological research done, I think, that suggests that geographic isolation is a huge problem for poor people in America. People who don't have cars or access to good public transit have trouble getting good jobs, in part because those jobs are increasingly located in suburbs, which often aren't served well by public transit. Even if public transit exists in a given low-income area, it's often unreliable, and bosses are not especially sympathetic when you regularly show up an hour late because the bus never came. If you live in a poor area and don't have a car, your food costs go up, not only because long commutes give you less time to cook and make you more reliant on processed food, but also because you're stuck shopping at expensive and poorly-stocked grocery stores. As I said earlier, long commutes mean higher child-care costs.
posted by craichead at 1:02 PM on November 12, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Is it me or have they left out District of Columbia in their drop down menu?
posted by onepapertiger at 1:02 PM on November 12, 2008

Yes.
posted by everichon at 1:05 PM on November 12, 2008

Even in car-crazy Los Angeles, it'd be more than possible to live and work without a car. What's all that public transportation for? Only non-working people?

I actually did this, and unless you luck out and find the world's best location to live in, it is impossible to live in Los Angeles without a car. Seriously, I lived in Westwood within walking distance of UCLA and after I got laid off, I couldn't find a job that would actually be able to pay for my (incredibly low) rent and living costs. And I needed good health insurance, which you just don't get when you're working retail. I moved back to nice, safe, commie pinko Massachusetts when my lease ran out.

Other fun things you learn while living without a car in LA: 1) no one watches for pedestrians while driving at night, and 2) the concrete drainage things in the street are the exact width of your bike tire.
posted by giraffe at 1:06 PM on November 12, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

I can't think of a single city in the USA in which that's true.

I believe desjardins was refering specifically to where she lives (Nothern Illinois, outside any major city). The site is about specific locations, and it's unreasonable to expect everyone to live in a city. It's not fair to discount the necessity of owning a car in many parts of the country just because it's possible to live somewhere else instead.
posted by burnmp3s at 1:08 PM on November 12, 2008

Fair Market Rent calculator for 2008. This is a little more in line with reality.
posted by desjardins at 1:17 PM on November 12, 2008

Interesting, desjardins. I'm actually paying about $50 a month less than the Fair Market Rent calculator says. I'm going to have to check out their methodology.
posted by craichead at 1:30 PM on November 12, 2008

rokusan: There is no business that pays a living wage, even as defined by the FPP link (which is too low), within walking or biking distance of my house. There are no buses, no trains, no nothing within walking or biking distance of my house. Theoretically, I could work from home and bike to the grocery store. I doubt many people in my neighborhood do this. I'd be SOL if I needed clothes. Yes, I choose to live here, and no, I'm not complaining - rather I'm pointing out the inaccuracy of the data.

MrMoonPie: I didn't mean to say that we were scraping by, at all. Besides my income, we have my husband's, which is double mine. On mine alone, yes, we would not be able to afford our current standard of living. Of course we could lower that (I went to Starbucks this morning). My point again is that the data is inaccurate.
posted by desjardins at 1:30 PM on November 12, 2008

How they calculate Fair Market Rents [*.doc file, sorry]
posted by desjardins at 1:34 PM on November 12, 2008

Also, desjardins wasn't saying that a 2 bedroom townhouse should be affordable on a living wage, she said the housing allowance for two adults on the site was less than 28% of what she spends renting a two bedroom townhouse.
posted by snofoam at 1:47 PM on November 12, 2008

(Which would presumably cover a .56 bedroom townhouse.)
posted by snofoam at 1:50 PM on November 12, 2008

Yeah, for Culver City (which is just across the street, so I used it instead of the broader "Los Angeles"), they say that you should be able to get housing for $433 a month, which is insane. God, please, show me an ad for housing that cheap where you don't have to be a woman willing to blow the dude who owns the house.
posted by klangklangston at 3:19 PM on November 12, 2008

The expences for my location are completely spot on for people living in a LOWER class way, not a middle class way (think two adults in 550 sq foot one bedroom - and that's nicer than what we used to have). I know North America isn't supposed to have a lower class, but it does. The rental estimate is a bit lower than my current rent, but then again my transportation is lower than their estimate because I pay extra rent for a location within walking distance of my work. And the medical and food look spot on.

So are the data perfectly accurate for my community, but very wrong for others? It's possible - it's also possible that this really does reflect how lower class people all over America live.
posted by jb at 3:55 PM on November 12, 2008

Interesting that the graph for average wages for jobs in San Francisco actually is lower than the state minimum wage for California ($8).
Example:
Food Preparation & Service-Related $7.81

That will be a fun statistic to think over. Maybe the tips just aren't that great.
posted by idiotfactory at 4:09 PM on November 12, 2008

"The numbers for Typical Hourly Wage seem odd. Architecture and Engineering shows $24.91. Architects and engineers make a lot more than that don't they? Or does the number include every person who works in an office that does architecture or engineering?"

As an architect I can say that the averages I saw were about right for someone with 5-7 years of education and 5-10 years of experience in an office after that. It may include folks with associates degrees, but I don't think it would include other office support type staff. The area I'm in (central Vermont) listed closer to $29 an hour and my first thought was that was too high. Otoh, I don't worry about living close to the livable wage threshold either.

All these debates about what are the right numbers show how hard it is to pin down what is fair. I think it is reasonable to say that minimum wages aren't cutting it though.
posted by meinvt at 5:13 PM on November 12, 2008

Now, I'm just out of college, and taking a year off to work before graduate school, so nobody would ever expect me to be making buckets of money at this point, but still... I'm roughly $20,000 below living wage for a single adult.

This is made possible by living in a co-op (which means extremely economical food and housing), riding a bike everywhere, purchasing very few non-essential goods and services, and, critically, receiving free health insurance and care from Massachusetts. I don't have much money to spare, but the fact that I "break even" is pretty cool, and I think it speaks to the power of co-operative living. It's really satisfying to be able to afford quality meals and comfortable living space for so little.
posted by Cygnet at 5:13 PM on November 12, 2008

Note that although you can drill down to different areas within a county, they provide the same information on each area.

E.g., for Los Angeles county, 4 diverse places seperated by 10 miles or more (Culver City, East LA, Beverly Hills, and Burbank) all list $739 as the average cost of housing for one adult. IMHO it's a bit disingenous to do this-- make it look like you can drill down to city/municipality level but then really provide aggregate data for a county-- but I'm a librarian so I get ticked at things like this.
posted by holyrood at 5:26 PM on November 12, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Food stamps for a single person is about $160. Is it possible to live on that? Yes, but barely, and if anyone has ever noticed that food stamp users are often over-weight, it's because the cheaper foods are usually much higher in fat, and of course, less healthy (one explanation).

The rent figure was way low for my area. The typical rent would be $100-$150 higher for a very modest apartment in a borderline area. Also, I noticed there was no allotment for utilities. In the northeast, heating fuel during the winter is high, and natural gas for us is the cheapest at the moment. Utilities average about $225/mth, averaged out over the year.

And what if you're a single parent paying child support?

Two years ago, a friend and I were organizing for a union at a University in the area which was paying the custodial staff (about 125 employees) $8.05/hr. I estimated that the living wage was at $10.50 at the minimum. Two weeks before our vote, management, who learned we were organizing (they had a few spies which we used to our benefit) called everyone in for a meeting and they announced that the president of the U. examined the current wages and thought we should earn more. They raised everyone across the board to $10/hr., $.50 shy of my estimate, but close enough for most people. Now, the dozen or so employees who had been there a long time (10-15 years) were already making $10-$10.50/hr. Their pay remained the same. So, in other words, the guy who was hired last week and had absolutely no experience or practical knowledge was making the same (or nearly so) as the employee who had worked there for 10 years! Ninety percent of the employees were then very happy, and the ten percent who were there for a long time were extremely pissed off. It was a brilliant move on their part.

The arguments against raising the minimum wage have absolutely no merit. The typical argument goes like this: If you raise the dishwasher's wage from $7.15/hr to $9.15/hr the restaurant owner then has to raise prices accordingly and then people won't be able to afford to eat out. The restaurant will close, and the dishwasher is now out of a job which is worse than earning $7.15/hr.

It would be great if business owners could pay people only $3/hr, or better yet, own slaves. Then the cost of a meal would go down and more meal would dine out, more people would be employed, etc. First and foremost this is a moral issue. Every human being who is willing to work has a basic right to be paid enough to live. If that means paying $9.15/hr, then that is the true cost of doing business. Consequently, what must be charged to the customer represents not only the reasonable profit a business owner needs to make, but a moral admission that all people have a right to live in a safe and healthy environment. To argue otherwise is to say that some people don't deserve a roof over their head in a safe environment, enough and healthy food, medical care, and clothing. These are the absolute minimum rights that every human being has, and that is precisely what is meant by the term, a living wage.
posted by sluglicker at 5:43 PM on November 12, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Report Shows Stagnant Upward Mobility in U.S.

maybe it's time to roll out guaranteed minimum income (+ service? :) which, along with universal health care and flophouses, should make our (national) socialist utopia complete!
posted by kliuless at 5:44 PM on November 12, 2008

> Who made these living wages? Seriously? Have they tried living under them?

Their $13,651/yr pre-tax estimate is right about where my gross pay for this year is going to land. I currently have a comfortable life in Northern Alabama. Thus, their living wage figure is correctly calculated for this location.

Their housing cost estimate is $100 shy of mine, while their transportation cost estimate is more than $100 over my own. *shrugs*
posted by simoncion at 5:49 PM on November 12, 2008

These are the absolute minimum rights that every human being has, and that is precisely what is meant by the term, a living wage.

You're just handwaving. You mentioned one of the concerns with a minimum wage (increased unemployment), but then just merrily skipped past it. You disregarded some of the other concerns (e.g., increased inflation).

Your facile "slaves" comment ignores the fact that a great many people make more that the legal minimum wage, and you don't explain why employers are unable to pay everyone the legal minimum. Surely understanding this is key to identifying why some people are apparently unable to attain a particular standard of living without government assistance, which strikes me as a question underlying your entire project.

At bottom, your argument is based solely in silly moralizing, and even if someone was sympathetic to your moral intuitions, you don't explain why a minimum wage is the best way to solve the problems you identify.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:13 PM on November 12, 2008

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America, actually, I think I was pretty clear on just about everything. Now, you might not agree with me, but you haven't stated why other than my belief in human rights is handwaving and that I make facile comments. The issue of why some people do better than others isn't really a part of this discussion. Some people, I guess, are les intelligent and some people are less ambitious than others. But that's not the issue. A few other points you made are way off-topic, so let's not derail this, please.

your argument is based solely in silly moralizing

Excluding the silly part (I don't think it's silly) well, yes. I thought I stated it was a moral issue.
posted by sluglicker at 6:27 PM on November 12, 2008

Why isn't Washington, DC available as a residency option for this calculator?
posted by parmanparman at 6:43 PM on November 12, 2008

childcare for $423 a month! Somebody did no research.
posted by debbie_ann at 7:00 PM on November 12, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

childcare for $423 a month! Somebody did no research.

Damn straight. My wife quit her job to stay at home with the kids - just to keep from paying the damn daycare. It's ridiculous. For 2 children - in a surprisingly affordable city in the South - we were paying a bit over $1,000 a month for daycare. And that was nowhere near the best to be had.
posted by bradth27 at 7:15 PM on November 12, 2008

"You're just handwaving. You mentioned one of the concerns with a minimum wage (increased unemployment), but then just merrily skipped past it. You disregarded some of the other concerns (e.g., increased inflation)."

From what I recall, the increased unemployment is a bit of a red herring—there's usually an initial dip in employment, then a pretty rapid recovery. The inflation argument is a lot more complex, and I don't have enough data to argue it one way or another.

"Your facile "slaves" comment ignores the fact that a great many people make more that the legal minimum wage, and you don't explain why employers are unable to pay everyone the legal minimum. Surely understanding this is key to identifying why some people are apparently unable to attain a particular standard of living without government assistance, which strikes me as a question underlying your entire project."

Eh… That seems more like a distraction, as the reason that some employers are "unable" to pay the legal minimum wage is the same reason that some employers are "unable" to abide by environmental regulations or make sure their workers aren't mangled in pipe foundries. They have determined that it isn't in their short-term interest.

As we've decided that one of the roles of government is to protect the long-term interests of the people, government working to ensure a certain standard of living (especially given that this has plenty of ancillary economic value) is within the purview.

At bottom, your argument is based solely in silly moralizing, and even if someone was sympathetic to your moral intuitions, you don't explain why a minimum wage is the best way to solve the problems you identify."

Some people are sympathetic, and convinced by, moral arguments. Others are not. That you are among the latter does not discount the former.
posted by klangklangston at 8:04 PM on November 12, 2008

Rokusan In most smaller midwestern towns/cities its very much true that a car is a genuine necessity. Take, for example, the place I'm living now, Amarillo TX. There is public transit in the form of buses. The routes don't go much of anywhere useful, its never on time, and much more important than any of the above: it only runs from 6am to 6pm.

If your job starts at 8am, and it'd take more than two hours to get there by bus (quite possible) you're SOL, if it does take less than two hours wait until the bus is late, or never shows up (as happens frequently) and discover that you get fired for being late too often. Got a job that requires working past 4pm (two hour transport time, remember), you can't take the bus home. The only job you can find is a night job? Or requires working the closing shift sometimes? No public transit for you bub.

Job and housing may well be more than 10 to 15 miles apart, bikes aren't all that practical and (in a city with no bike paths, and drivers who seem to take bikes as a personal affront) you won't be bicycling.

I'm aware that the concept of "you must own a car" is alien to many people, especially those fortunate to live in areas where public transit is workable (if horribly inconvenient). There's a tendency among those people to see the working (if terrible) public transit and say to themselves "well, it isn't that a car is really necesary the whiners just don't have the willpower/whatittakes to use it". But its simply not true. For many places a car is not optional. If you've never lived in one, count yourself lucky, but don't assume that your experience is universal.

I love the concept of public transit. It was one of my favorite parts of living in Tokyo, I could hop a bus or train and get anywhere. But that isn't the way it is in a large part of the USA. A car isn't a luxury in Amarillo TX, its a necessity, any calculation of cost of living here that fails to take that into account is simply going to be inaccurate.

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America I'm always amazed by the fact that people on the right prattle endlessly about the wonder, grandure, and all powerful Capitalist Free Market, yet somehow that amazing, godlike, and in all ways perfect panacea can't seem to pay people who work for a living enough money to live a non-rat infested life. Funny that.

I look at it like this: any economy where a full time job does not equal basic economic security, that is, a non-rat infested life, is a broken economy. I don't care if it has a great Dow Jones Average, or if the "GDP" is high, or any of the that. Anyplace you work 40 hours a week and can't live somewhere that isn't a shithole, eat a healthy diet, have health care, pay the energy and communication bills, etc then the economy in that place is fundamentally broken.
posted by sotonohito at 8:46 PM on November 12, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

Needing a car? Of course. When I lived in Michigan, as a bright young man seeking a job, employers with jobs worth having wouldn't even talk to me, because I owned no car. There were buses, which ran from 6am to 6pm. Mostly, anywhere in reach of the bus was within 1 hour of anywhere else, or less. This didn't seem to matter, in the land of General Motors. I did the best thing I could: I moved to New York City. End of problem.
posted by Goofyy at 3:23 AM on November 13, 2008

Sweet! The living wage for my area is nearly twice what I make each year! And I'm a federal employee!

::shakes fist at federal government for using americorps as a way to avoid paying minimum wage::
posted by lunit at 6:56 AM on November 13, 2008

From what I recall, the increased unemployment is a bit of a red herring—there's usually an initial dip in employment, then a pretty rapid recovery.

It's not hard to see why that might be true. If there were, for lack of a better term, an unskilled labor consumer surplus, raising the legal minimum wage within the amount of that surplus should just shift it to the worker.

I just think that was worth saying, because it raises the possibility that increasing the minimum wage to an arbitrary level might not have the same consequences as past increases. The basic problem, as I see it, is that the value of an unskilled worker's labor really has nothing to do (as far as I can tell) with the amount of money the unskilled worker needs to attain a particular standard of living.

That seems more like a distraction, as the reason that some employers are "unable" to pay the legal minimum wage is the same reason that some employers are "unable" to abide by environmental regulations or make sure their workers aren't mangled in pipe foundries.

That isn't what I meant. For example, my employer would go out of business if it tried to pay workers in my position the statutory minimum wage. It's "unable" in any meaningful sense to pay us the minimum wage. It has to pay more.

The original post seems to ignore this the fact, but I think understanding it and explaining it would be important to understanding why some people are paid less than they need to attain a particular standard of living.

As we've decided that one of the roles of government is to protect the long-term interests of the people, government working to ensure a certain standard of living (especially given that this has plenty of ancillary economic value) is within the purview.

Nobody is arguing about this. The question is simply whether a payroll tax on employers of unskilled laborers is the right way to do it.

Some people are sympathetic, and convinced by, moral arguments. Others are not. That you are among the latter does not discount the former.

Some people thought passing Proposition 8 was their moral duty. Whatever. Just do what you're going to do, and spare me the moralizing.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 7:12 AM on November 13, 2008

I really don't see how moralizing can be avoided. Most laws are established based on a moral belief. Theft, murder, fraud, etc. all exist because most people think it's morally wrong to do these things. Unless you truly believe that there is no such thing as morality, and that it only exists in the fantasies of certain people, I don't understand why you object to it as part of the discussion on living wage proposals.

I've always understood inflation to be the result of increasing the money supply, not merely that things cost more. That view is apparently no longer in favor, but I'm not sure that isn't just disinformation.

I would think people who oppose raising the minimum wage for the reasons you've stated would be in favor of decreasing the minimum wage. If your economic theories are true, wouldn't that actually help workers? It should create more jobs and lower prices.

At the university example I gave in my first comment, based on increasing the entry-level custodian wage by $2/hr plus a general increase in other things such as fuel, office supplies, etc., they determined they had to raise tuition by $200 a year. Instead of $27,200/year, it became $27,400. Enrollment went up the following year by 2%.

In the restaurant example I gave, they would have to raise their price-per-plate by 30 or 40 cents (broad generalization). So instead of paying $6.45 for the meatloaf and mashed potatoes, we would have to pay $6.85. That's OK with me. Additionally, all businesses would be effected, which means the basic competitiveness between them (ratio of cost/price) would remain the same.

It's not really an arbitrary wage, unless you think any minimum wage is arbitrary. It's based on very specific criteria which I stated above.
posted by sluglicker at 9:11 AM on November 13, 2008

they determined they had to raise tuition by $200 a year.... Enrollment went up the following year by 2%.

Eh? Correlation is not causation. You could say "More people wore pink hooded sweatshirts the following year" and it would make as much sense.

It's based on very specific criteria which I stated above.

The criteria is based on costs of living, which would rise if the minimum wage was increased. If grocery stores have to charge more for food now that they have to pay their workers more, those same workers are now paying more for food. That's great that you don't mind paying 40 cents more for dinner, but others may be more affected by that increase than you are. Just give the 40 cents to someone who needs it.
posted by desjardins at 9:38 AM on November 13, 2008

"It's not hard to see why that might be true. If there were, for lack of a better term, an unskilled labor consumer surplus, raising the legal minimum wage within the amount of that surplus should just shift it to the worker.

I just think that was worth saying, because it raises the possibility that increasing the minimum wage to an arbitrary level might not have the same consequences as past increases. The basic problem, as I see it, is that the value of an unskilled worker's labor really has nothing to do (as far as I can tell) with the amount of money the unskilled worker needs to attain a particular standard of living."

Not only that, but there's a virtuous circle effect of raising wages in the lowest quintile, as those folks tend to spend more than they save—it increases the amount of money in circulation, but we're generally running at less consumption than what we can actually produce (both globally and nationally), so it puts more money in the pockets of people who provide consumer goods and services, which leads to even more jobs. And while I can see, based on that, an argument regarding inflation, I mentioned earlier that I don't have the data to argue it one way or another (it might not be system-wide inflation, it may not be significant due to the production capacity surplus, etc.).

"That isn't what I meant. For example, my employer would go out of business if it tried to pay workers in my position the statutory minimum wage. It's "unable" in any meaningful sense to pay us the minimum wage. It has to pay more.

The original post seems to ignore this the fact, but I think understanding it and explaining it would be important to understanding why some people are paid less than they need to attain a particular standard of living."

Right, yeah, totally misunderstood your point. I apologize. I'd argue that there are several reasons why a profession like yours would be more likely to have to pay higher wages than minimum (often by a significant premium), including tradition, relative scarcity, intra-professional staffing competition, prestige, and social value. I'd also say that I have known more than a couple lawyers, especially just starting out, who have effectively worked for less than minimum wage relative to their hours, but they were generally people who had chosen that path, not folks who had it thrust upon them (I knew young lawyers who worked between 80 and 100 hours a week for places like the Michigan Poverty Law Center and who were paid, per hour, less than I was for working on their website, but I'm not going to argue that this should be compared to jobs like landscaping).

But I will concede that the market value of labor does not necessarily coincide with the "living standard" of laborers. In fact, there's pretty clear historical evidence that there are powerful structural incentives for employers to keep standards of living low for as many people as possible.

"Nobody is arguing about this. The question is simply whether a payroll tax on employers of unskilled laborers is the right way to do it."

Well, if we agree on the goal, what's your proposal for a better way to do it? I fully grant that there are other methods for approaching the broad goal of ensuring a certain standard of living for all Americans, and tend to support them variously. But requiring minimum wages seems like a pretty simple way to address at least part of the problem.

"Some people thought passing Proposition 8 was their moral duty. Whatever. Just do what you're going to do, and spare me the moralizing."

In spite of an otherwise civil comment, allow me to roll my eyes here. There is nothing in the political realm that is not at some level an issue of morality and playing at being above it is a tiresome pose. Again, that you may not be convinced by a certain strain of argument does not mean that argument is invalid.
posted by klangklangston at 10:08 AM on November 13, 2008

Correlation is not causation. You could say "More people wore pink hooded sweatshirts the following year" and it would make as much sense.

No, the argument was that if prices rise (tuition), less people (students) will be able to afford it. In this case, that argument didn't hold up. The rise in enrollment was typical of any year. So, in a way I agree with you. Raising the minimum wage would have no effect one way or the other on the economy. Certainly, there would be no way to measure it.

"That isn't what I meant. For example, my employer would go out of business if it tried to pay workers in my position the statutory minimum wage. It's "unable" in any meaningful sense to pay us the minimum wage. It has to pay more.

The original post seems to ignore this the fact, but I think understanding it and explaining it would be important to understanding why some people are paid less than they need to attain a particular standard of living."

Maybe I'm just slow, but I don't understand this at all. Your employer has to pay you more than minimum wage or it would go out of business? If I need $1000/mth to live, I need to earn less than that amount to achieve it? What? I guess I didn't address this "fact" because it reads like complete gibberish to me. Please explain what you mean.
posted by sluglicker at 12:16 PM on November 13, 2008

"Maybe I'm just slow, but I don't understand this at all. Your employer has to pay you more than minimum wage or it would go out of business? If I need $1000/mth to live, I need to earn less than that amount to achieve it? What? I guess I didn't address this "fact" because it reads like complete gibberish to me. Please explain what you mean."

In order to attract people with the skills necessary to conduct his employer's business, they must offer a wage that is significantly above minimum or no one would work there (or make the investment in skills required, were this an industry-wide cartel situation).
posted by klangklangston at 1:02 PM on November 13, 2008

I'm guessing then, that was what you were referring to when you mentioned the legal profession? If so, you answered that point. It's difficult for me to address his comments when they're so vague.
posted by sluglicker at 2:40 PM on November 13, 2008

These numbers are way to low.

Supporting a family of four in Seattle on a yearly salary of $26K without assistance? Good luck with that.
posted by tkchrist at 3:36 PM on November 13, 2008

ooops. For four It adjusted to $44K. Still. That's pretty god damned meager.
posted by tkchrist at 3:38 PM on November 13, 2008

ooops. For four It adjusted to $44K. Still. That's pretty god damned meager.
posted by tkchrist Fresh [+]

Yes, yes it is. And lots of families are living on that - or less.

Everyone commenting here: these people (who made the calculator) really care about poverty. They are trying to argue that many people don't have a living wage. They put a great deal of time and effort into arguing against low wages. Don't you think if the minimum cost of living were higher, they would say so? It would only help their argument more.

If all of these calculations look too low - well, welcome to the reality of poverty. It isn't a matter of "wow, a $600/month apartment is hard to find in my city, unless you go where there are roaches and garbage outside" - you just go where there are roaches and garbage outside. Maybe you don't understand the costs of living, because these are the costs of living poor. It really does suck. The conditions suck, the groceries suck, the food out doesn't happen and other things suck.
posted by jb at 3:52 PM on November 13, 2008

"If all of these calculations look too low - well, welcome to the reality of poverty. It isn't a matter of "wow, a $600/month apartment is hard to find in my city, unless you go where there are roaches and garbage outside" - you just go where there are roaches and garbage outside. Maybe you don't understand the costs of living, because these are the costs of living poor. It really does suck. The conditions suck, the groceries suck, the food out doesn't happen and other things suck."

Uh, no, what I was objecting to wasn't that it was hard to find a non-squalid apartment for the amount the cite, it's that (as was so brilliantly illuminated by Holyrood above) the data isn't accurate in the way they present it. They treat all of LA county as one homogeneous mass, when it's really not (and LA county is probably one of the worst counties to treat as if it is). A living wage IS higher in Culver City than in East LA. But they don't treat those as actually different locations, despite listing them as different places.
posted by klangklangston at 5:15 PM on November 13, 2008

Well, if we agree on the goal, what's your proposal for a better way to do it?

I would like a well-implemented earned income tax credit, personally. An EITC is a refundable credits (meaning that you can end up paying negative tax--that is, paying no tax and getting a refund anyway) based on the amount of earned income (like wages) you've earned.

Advantages:

Paid out of general revenues. Unlike the minimum wage, the burden is borne by the general tax base, instead of being implemented through a special payroll tax on employers of unskilled workers. This makes more sense to me, since presumably the obligation is on society as a whole, so the cost should be too.

Fewer distortions. Since an EITC is funded out of general revenues, labor market and other distortions are easier to avoid. Additionally, increased profits due to low labor costs will be subject to tax, which funds the EITC!

Better incentives. A properly implemented EITC punishes people less for working (compared to a general welfare scheme), since people are more likely to be better off earning more on their own. An EITC won't encourage employers to substitute for unskilled labor.

Disadvantages:

Can be complicated to figure out entitlements.

Doesn't help people who aren't working (but neither does the minimum wage).

May cause inflation (to the extent any other increase on the cost of production would)--but, since it's paid of general revenue, any effects of funding an EITC are easier to manage.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 8:10 PM on November 13, 2008

A final disadvantage—It would be easy to dismiss with charges of expanding welfare or socialism.

But on the balance, I'd support eliminating the minimum wage for a living-standard guarantee through EITC.

What's the next step?
posted by klangklangston at 1:52 PM on November 14, 2008

@lunit: Americorps people are not federal employees. They're only considered federal employees for imited purposes and you're getting that non-competitive status in any govt jobs you might apply for later. You're a volunteer. And you volunteered to be a volunteer. So you're getting more than what you deserve because you have a stipend. Most volunteers don't get paid for anything. You could be upset if you were a custodian or working at FedEx Kinko's, but Americorps people have no real right to complain since you guys made the decision to pursue your passions and not get real jobs.
posted by onepapertiger at 9:31 AM on November 23, 2008