"Socialist" Pay Structure downs Seattle Company

Yet you can't tell me a legitimate wage. I think 7.50 is too low and 15 is too high

Well as Newjak has mentioned 'living wage', let's take the wiki definition for the UK idea of that concept:

"A person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education, and childcare"

I don't know what that number is for the US. or any particular state in the US, but it seems like a good baseline.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well as Newjak has mentioned 'living wage', let's take the wiki definition for the UK idea of that concept:

"A person working forty hours a week, with no additional income, should be able to afford the basics for quality of life, food, utilities, transport, health care, minimal recreation, one course a year to upgrade their education, and childcare"

I don't know what that number is for the US. or any particular state in the US, but it seems like a good baseline.

"Living wage" is one of those terms that seems to be very nebulously defined in discussions.

That's a ****ing good definition and one that I'm stealing for conversations like these, in the future. But, yes, I agree with that definition...basically, it means "Hey, let a human be able to live like a human but without much luxury."

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yet you can't tell me a legitimate wage. I think 7.50 is too low and 15 is too high

I agree and that wage should vary by state. I think something closer to 16.50 for Manhattan is necessary and 9.50 for places like Arkansas is more accurate.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yet you can't tell me a legitimate wage. I think 7.50 is too low and 15 is too high

Why is 15 too high?

It's only a 31200 dollar a year salary. 15 dollars times 40 hours/week times 52 weeks. Keep in mind that is before taxes.

As for the average cost of living it depends on where you are looking at but I've seen statistics it could be 20K a year.
[ur]http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Cost_of_Living[/url]

To 56K for the cost a family with three children
http://cost-of-living.startclass.com/l/615/National-Average

I'm sure you can find other statistics as well.

Originally posted by Newjak
Why is 15 too high?

It's only a 31200 dollar a year salary. 15 dollars times 40 hours/week times 52 weeks. Keep in mind that is before taxes.

As for the average cost of living it depends on where you are looking at but I've seen statistics it could be 20K a year.
[ur]http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Cost_of_Living[/url]

To 56K for the cost a family with three children
http://cost-of-living.startclass.com/l/615/National-Average

I'm sure you can find other statistics as well.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about children. Yeah, children make living much more expensive.

Part of living beyond your means is thinking about a family. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone making $11 an hour while having 6 kids. You should have thought of that before you started creating more in the way people.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Part of living beyond your means is thinking about a family. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone making $11 an hour while having 6 kids. You should have thought of that before you started creating more in the way people.

So what should we do about those millions of people that have children when they took reasonable precautions with things like birth control and condoms?

For your information:

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

Should we tell people to just stop having sex? 6-12% failure rates seem quite high...lots of babies made that people don't want to be made.

Granted, many of the people with children don't use contraceptives but there are still tons who do. It is just not as easy as you make it seem: we can't punish those who have babies when they can't afford it.

And what do you propose? Reward those with many children by "increasing" their wages?

What this particular business owner has tried to do is not to provide a "living wage" but further than that, to provide a wage where beyond which increased wages don't increase the overall well being (as I'm sure everyone here has read in their local pop sci publication as well)...to me it seems like a very interesting philosophy, of course it's also nice that it gives him some publicity

Originally posted by psmith81992
And what do you propose? Reward those with many children by "increasing" their wages?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What this particular business owner has tried to do is not to provide a "living wage" but further than that, to provide a wage where beyond which increased wages don't increase the overall well being (as I'm sure everyone here has read in their local pop sci publication as well)...to me it seems like a very interesting philosophy, of course it's also nice that it gives him some publicity

How is it interesting? Look at the problems it caused. There's nothing interesting about paying someone less deserving the same salary.

Originally posted by psmith81992
We did. It's called capitalism which, through all of its faults, is still infinitely better.

👆

Originally posted by psmith81992
How is it interesting? Look at the problems it caused. There's nothing interesting about paying someone less deserving the same salary.

I know it has been mentioned in this thread before about the company not being dead yet. To truly know how this particular company will fair through all this we should probably wait for a little bit.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Part of living beyond your means is thinking about a family. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone making $11 an hour while having 6 kids. You should have thought of that before you started creating more in the way people.

Precisely. My thoughts exactly. Those are most of the people who depend on Welfare. Then they wanna have more kids so they can get even more.

I'm going to get a job with this company and latch on to the tities.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm going to get a job with this company and latch on to the tities.

I doubt you could get hired.

And what do you propose? Reward those with many children by "increasing" their wages?

I would hardly call a living wage a reward.

Originally posted by snowdragon
I doubt you could get hired.

I would hardly call a living wage a reward.

I'm pretty sure a MBA in finance is enough to get hired at a credit card processing company. But thanks for you vote of confidence double d.

I love that definition of living wage that Ush posted. I had never seen it before.

Originally posted by Star428
Precisely. My thoughts exactly. Those are most of the people who depend on Welfare. Then they wanna have more kids so they can get even more.

This gets trickier when you take a less extreme case. Say, someone making $11/hr. who wants a family, but realizes they can't afford it on such wages. Should such a person not have children?

Also, "getting even more" is a bit of a misnomer. The cost of raising a child is astronomical. They're certainly not "getting more,' relative to the cost, as their number of children increases.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm going to get a job with this company and latch on to the tities.

You know they've received a flood of applications, yeah? They're probably turning down highly qualified candidates with master's degrees left and right. Yes, under normal circumstances, you could probably get hired or at least have a decent chance. But when you're up against 1,000 other applicants?

This gets trickier when you take a less extreme case. Say, someone making $11/hr. who wants a family, but realizes they can't afford it on such wages. Should such a person not have children?