You're viewing a single thread.
There should be no profits, no bonuses, and no dividends until every worker (not employee, it doesn't matter what your relationship with the company is if they benefit from your labour) is making at least a living wage with full benefits. Executive pay should be capped at a multiple of the pay of the lowest paid worker or of the average pay paid to all workers. whichever is lower.
There should be no profits, no bonuses, and no dividends until every worker (not employee, it doesn’t matter what your relationship with the company is if they benefit from your labour) is making at least a living wage with full benefits.
To get anywhere, you must define "living wage" concretely. You can use variables of course, but without at least a 'formula', "living wage" is just a meaningless, unachievable talking point. You at least have to know what you're aiming at, to have any hope of achieving it--you'll never get anywhere just saying "living wage", because 'enough to live on' does not nearly have the same definition for everyone. So, what's the baseline, in your view?
Example: 'the living wage should be enough money to afford [list of things] with $X leftover for discretionary spending/saving.'
the definition of living wage is already defined by MIT
They actually have a pretty decent website that calculates it for you here
Okay, let's see what we've got here.
Assuming 1 childless worker, got a list of things here (would like to know more about how these numbers were arrived at, but I'll take them at their word).
Food, medical, housing, transportation, civic (apparently this is recreation etc.) Internet/mobile, and "other" (saving?)
I looked up an area near me. They give annual values, but I, like most Americans I imagine, can relate more easily to monthly costs, so I divided everything by 12. So here's what MIT says a "living wage" should pay for, per month:
Food: $406. That seems like a LOT for a single adult. My roommate and I spend less than this for the both of us and we buy groceries together, so I know how much our combined cost is.
Medical: $276. Can't really comment in either direction about this, fact is that medical costs vary SO much from person to person, and even for the same person at different stages of life, that I'll just give the benefit of the doubt that that's the correct cost on average.
Housing: $1615. My rent is less than this, and I'm talking about the actual rent, not just the 50% of it I pay (as I said, roommate). I could see this being more or less accurate for my area for someone just moving in someplace, though.
Transportation: $897. What the fuck? If you have shitty credit AND you financed an expensive car for a shitty rate, then maybe you could get here, not that requires a series of bad decision making. NOBODY should be paying anything close to this a month for a car, even if you get gas weekly.
Civic: $251. That's significant, $60+ every week? Doing/buying what?
Internet/mobile: $117. That sounds fine, assuming middle of the road Internet and standard mobile plan.
Other: $368. Well, what can you really say about "other"?
So, other than a few of those categories being WAY out of proportion imo, the biggest issue I see here is that MIT is giving different, separate "living wages" for 3 categories of people (1 alone, 2 with 1 working, and 2 with both working (why isn't this just the first category doubled?)), and for 0 to 3 children. So, some issues I'm seeing:
-
It's one thing to force a company to pay a worker more if they have a kid(s), and/or live with someone who doesn't work, but you can't force a company to hire these people. Considering that the value of the labor itself obviously does not increase based on those things, this seems like it'd obviously create massive direct (there's likely some that's indirect, but the fact is that your boss is not entitled to know anything about your living situation) incentive against hiring anyone other than single childless individuals.
-
Typically an employer is not even entitled to know such personal details about a worker/applicant in the first place. But if we put these into effect, they would have to, in order to know which category you fall into, which leads back into 1 above.
-
There is a LOT of work that does not generate nearly that amount of value (in the case above, around $27/hour assuming 40hr work week) for the business, but are things the business can't function without. It's easy to say "if you can't afford to pay every single one of these positions at least this living wage, then you can't afford to be in business", but the fact is that this would place huge obstacles in the way of a small business getting up and running to any real degree. Megacorporations have pockets deep enough to eat the cost though, and so they'll become even better at driving small business to extinction than they already are, and hasten us toward a society where they're the only real game in town. And I shouldn't have to list the reasons that an 'employer monopoly' is a REALLY bad state of affairs for the working population.
"Just increase the minimum wage to a living wage" is not the 'duh, just do it' obvious solution it's made out to be.
You make good points, but I have to disagree with #3. If a business cannot exist without a certain type of labor, then that labor is responsible for 100% of the business's produced value. Yes, this might result in a $45 burger and fries, but we've been coasting on exploitation for decades and have been sheltered from the true cost of goods and services.
Plus, there are a plethora of jobs that are overdue for being replaced by robots, but haven't yet because exploiting humans is cheaper. If someone who mops the floor gets a $35/hr wage, we might finally get a commercial-grade mopping robot that doesn't get the damn mop head caught on every chair leg and fridge wheel.
I'm mobile so I can't check those numbers, but they leave the sources they got for the calculations they provided, by category here
I know the numbers are pretty on point for for poverty vs living wage for my area, but like any actual research studies YMMV, but they do have sources of why they have the numbers they do, and they are by verified/reliable sources
-
The classic definition is the wage needed to cover the basic needs of the family including things like rent, childcare, transportation, etc. I would go one further and say that the family needs to not be living paycheque to paycheque. They should be able to save for the future, go out once in a while, educate their children, save and pay for university, and advance themselves. They should be able to live.
The classic definition is the wage needed to cover the basic needs of the family including things like rent
Rent where? Rent costs vary wildly.
childcare
What sort of childcare, and how many children is it meant to support? Or do you get $X per child? And if so, is there a maximum number of children, where having more won't get you more money?
transportation
Over what distance? And how, owned vehicle or public transportation? If owned vehicle, what kind of vehicle? Used/new? Price ranges for vehicles also vary wildly.
I would go one further and say that the family needs to not be living paycheque to paycheque.
That entails what amount of extra money? And what do you do about people who willfully choose to spend it instead of saving it? Are you aware that in the US, 1 in 4 of people earning $150k or more live paycheck to paycheck? Just because one has money to save doesn't mean they're going to do it.
go out once in a while
Again, far too vague. How often? And how much money does 'going out' cost? You'd have to figure both of those out, and multiply them by each other, to ensure this goal is met.
educate their children
Taxpayer-funded public school already covers this. Unless you feel everyone should be entitled to the cost of private schooling?
save and pay for university
University tuition is another massive variable, so you'd need to decide how much is given for tuition. Also, if someone does not go to college, do they not get that part of the money?
and advance themselves.
The vaguest criterion yet. It's pretty much impossible to say if a given minimum wage satisfies 'everyone can advance themselves'.
As anyone can see, this "classic" definition is still full of major holes, and not nearly complete enough to even conceptualize a goal such that progress toward it can even be measured. Just saying "living wage" over and over will never get anyone anywhere.
Okay, but the point is - more bro.
You can argue til you're blue in the face and you're not wrong but it's besides the point, until they actually fucking agree to move the posts in the right direction.
Then work out all the details you want homie.
Okay, but the point is - more bro.
And my point is that without even being able to say how much more, not only do you know when you've reached the goal, but to opponents you come off as greedy and entitled with "I don't know, just gimme more bro".
That shit is just not going to work, ever.
You misunderstand the entire basis of the argument. A finely tuned plan is great and there are people to figure that out - but that's rolling the ball along, shaping and tuning it as it goes.
You can't do that, when there are giant chains on the ball preventing it from moving.
Cut the chains, then we'll talk.
I've said my piece, you said yours, I'm sure you'll disagree so agree to disagree. Good day
K
Profit is theft, labor that is not compensated in accordance with its value.
The owners/investors deserve to origin but so do the workers. All of the profit going to the owner/investors is theft. That's why I say that there should be no profit, bunnies or dividends until everyone is fairly compensated and the profit should be shared with the workers in proportion to their contribution which is huge. No workers, no company, no profit.