Replies

I've some living wage questions. How do you set it without being unfair? Suppose, a living wage is defined as that which will raise a family above the poverty level. To be fair, shouldn't it vary with the size of the family? Shouldn't a family living at the poverty level get a raise if they have another kid? Should a wage earner with fewer kids get less money that one with more? To be fair of course. What if a kid dies, should there be a wage cut?

Hey, I know what you are!!! You're one of those Randite Freepers that parsy's been warning us about. You're an evil person!!! BEGONE, nasty Randite!

PS...I think I'm one, too!!! ;^)

You ask some good questions. Why don't you hit that third link in the post and read that FAQ. I found it informative and logical. parsy.

"I've some living wage questions. How do you set it without being unfair? Suppose, a living wage is defined as that which will raise a family above the poverty level. To be fair, shouldn't it vary with the size of the family? Shouldn't a family living at the poverty level get a raise if they have another kid? Should a wage earner with fewer kids get less money that one with more? To be fair of course. What if a kid dies, should there be a wage cut?"

In a deconstructionist sense, the answers to your questions should be yes. In real life, however, a system such as this would prove very problematic. I like the "link" approach. It assumes a family of three. That way you are not subsidizing rampant reproduction, but neither are you forcing workers into peonage. Basing your wage base on this size family is realistic. Doesn't the average American have 1.6 to 2.1 kids or something like that. "Fairness" is a concept. It is not an absolute. (Methinks you are trying to force the debate into a continuum argument where the hapless debatee (moi) richochets back and forth between points on the line and makes an idiot out of himself. Natch, yours truly is too clever to fall for that!)

If your deconstructionist line of thinking were followed, silly results would ensue. Why not reduce the pay of a CPA whose non-working wife died from $75,000/year to $50,000? What you need to understand here is that you are dealing with floors and minimal amounts. While we probably cannot target wages to the amount of house note an employee has in the upper levels of salaries, we pretty well have the knowledge of what the minimum needs are for shelter. You can't hardly find a place to live for less than $400/month. On the other hand, you may spend $1,000/month or $2,000/month or $100,000/month. Notice also how at the higher levels of housing, you start to see wide swings in the amount of a "fair" wage. (In other words, a $1000 increase in monthly housing costs increases the necessary fair wage more than increases from $200 base to $500 base would.) In other words, it is easier to calculate fair/livable minimums than fair maximums. parsy.