I wish we treated “minimum wage” in the US like the name was supposed to imply, i.e., the minimum wage needed to survive. I would be okay with minimum wage if it allowed someone to afford shelter (maybe with roommates), food (cooking at home), utilities (electric, gas, internet), and other basic necessities like clothing. I would have included health care, but that’s a whole different topic. Minimum wage in Bumfuck, Texas should be different from Cityfuck, California. But instead we treat it as the minimum employers can pay someone, regardless of a typical human’s everyday needs.
Now, a “living wage” might be a step above that minimum, covering amenities/situations like living alone, having kids, entertainment, travel, advanced education, etc. The kind of things that are a step up from the survival-based minimum, but things everyone needs for a fulfilling life. But I want to start with a minimum, because that’s more achievable in US politics right now, has wide support, and is truly necessary for the people struggling right now.
Humbly, I have to disagree that a minimum wage should be a survival wage.
If a job is important enough to society to actually do it, it should pay enough to live a good life, not just living to work. And of course this would be based on the local economy and not a national minimum.
I don’t believe anyone should have to forgo basic comforts (small trip, eating out, etc) or pursuit of personal goals (like raising a family) in their one life just because they don’t have other employment opportunities - something not necessarily within their control at all.
Nobody asked to be here, and we really need to stop acting like they have a choice but to participate. Let’s give people some dignity. If a job is worth doing, it’s worth a living wage, full stop.
https://ia803104.us.archive.org/18/items/patagonia1138_gmail_SVH/hunter-s-thompson-hells-angels.pdf
In the middle of the book there’s a section on the economics of being a biker/artist/hippie circa 1970.
A part time waitress could make enough to support herself and her musician boyfriend, and a biker could work six months as a union stevedore and take off two years to live on the road.
Living wage implies it’s enough to keep you alive, we need to move to a thriving wage.
Living for me is not “enough to keep you alive”. That’s surviving wage. Living means not worries or stress if you don’t get one salary.
Rent + Electricity + water + Internet + heat (if separate from electricity).
So, in my case, $2,000 (mortgage) + $100 + $100 + $60 + $200.
$2,500 to cover basic living expenses, then food/gas/insurance is on me.
These findings are useful for comparisons across cities, but their actual numbers are absurd. The number of things they admit they do not account for is enough to triple every single wage, and there are even more things they don’t account for, like when two parents work, they need to pay for childcare.
so what’s the “child care” section for?
I don’t know, but it doesn’t change. If you make less than the average, you hbe to spend more on childcare because you need to work more hours, and working fewer hours to cut childcare costs may actually save more money than you’d earn, depending on hourly wages.
I’m wondering what childcare looks like in your area… In my area, part time daycare isn’t really a thing; You fork out the cash for full-time, whether you use it or not.
I actually think this chart is spot on for my area. We’re single income with one kid and we’re right around the amount they list.
If we didn’t have a good mortgage rate and if we were both working for the same amount then we would just barely scrape by.
Simple formula really: rent + expenses (phone, electricity, water, etc.) + food = 1/3 of your income
And yes, I know many are far below this, but the question was “living wage” not “surviving”.
Does it matter when one party fights against it and the other party fights against it even harder?
Not with that attitude.
