Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

jorgelito · 10-31-2005, 03:52 PM

I'll answer your question Stevo; at least I will take a stab at it.

I think the "living wage" varies from place to place - it would be very different from LA to say Bismark (I'm guessing).

The last statistic I read to make a living wage in Los Angeles:
- $13.75 /hr

To afford the median home in the Los Angeles area (home price - $435,00 for 2BD/2BA condo):

- Household income must be at least $119,000 (at 30-year mortgage. 6%)

So I think it may be more of a cost of living versus standard of living.

In Los Angeles, the cost of living is way disproportionate to the standard of living.

So, I don't think a minimum wage would do much to help here. In fact, it may make things worse. Jobs could potentially leave the area (as many film jobs already have), further diminishing the tax base reducing social goods and services (I'm talking basic ones like road repair). Because a ridiculous amount of people insist on coming to LA already, any artificial wage set would (I think, but not sure) induce even more people to come to LA (EX: $13.50 for a cleaning job or something) further straining the city.

I'm not an economist but I do understand basic market economics and supply/demand. What I don't understand is how come in lean times workers are laid off and CEO etc get raises. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Or when CEOs are laid off they get $150 million to leave. Hell, pay me $100 and I'll leave my sh*tty job right?

Perhaps there is another phenomoneon at work:
These "low wage" jobs - after the war, weren't they designed as part-time gigs for high school kids lookin' to make an extra dollar or two or houswives with some time as opposed for anyone to actually "make a living" off of? Additonally, the "part-time" nature of these jobs meant no benefits etc. The main benefit was low prices on consumables - products everyone could afford and keep inflation in check.

But then "something happened" and more and more people became reliant on these type of jobs for subsistence. Maybe the oil shocks? created demands for more imports, home grown companies can't compete so start looking for solutions, one of them being moving manufacturing abroad.

Wasn't there a time (post-war)when a family of four only needed one breadwinner? And that could be a postal job, and they could afford a house with a yard and picket fence and one car? Could this be a false or artficial construct - meaning, post war, many GIs bought affordable houses with their bonuses/benefits which isn't real representative of living cost or price of goods. I always wondered about this. It seems like things were way different back then. Or did we pay for it because it was all debt?

As far as the Ford model, didn't he have to revoke the wage he set cause it ended up costing too much? I can't remember but I'll look it up next week after midterms (not trying to antagonize you Pan, just trying to analyze this issue further and stuff).

As for my personal opinion, I like to think we are better than that or this. I don't think we need to go socialist, but I do think for such a powerful and wealthy nation, our bottome line or "lowest" level should be higher than it is. Meaning, our "poverty" should be modest, but not destitute. "Poverty" in America should mean a real basic lifestyle - modest shelter, basic food needs met, modern plumbing etc. No cable, tv, or internet should be subsidized etc (in my opinion). Anything else, well, go out and compete for it. Get an education, learn a trade, etc. If you want that plasma tv, well, you gotta work for it. We need real welfare reform too. Redistributive economics isn't the solution in my opinion. We still need to be incentive based (at least for now until we evolve). But that doesn't mean we should trample people into the ground. I still beleieve our private sector oes better than the public sector even in charitable works. I think big business should decide for themselves. Like Pan did. He ran a successful business based on his ideals and stuff. There are a few corporation like that (at least in my opinion). For example, I like Starbucks: I think they are a good, socially conscious company (no I'm not naive, I mean in a relative way). Southwest Airlines seems to be pretty good too as is UPS (or was it FedEx?). I guess basically, while minimum wage is well-intentioned (and I appreciate that), I just don't think it works well.

Anyways, just my opinion.

10-31-2005, 03:52 PM	#59 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I'll answer your question Stevo; at least I will take a stab at it. I think the "living wage" varies from place to place - it would be very different from LA to say Bismark (I'm guessing). The last statistic I read to make a living wage in Los Angeles: - $13.75 /hr To afford the median home in the Los Angeles area (home price - $435,00 for 2BD/2BA condo): - Household income must be at least $119,000 (at 30-year mortgage. 6%) So I think it may be more of a cost of living versus standard of living. In Los Angeles, the cost of living is way disproportionate to the standard of living. So, I don't think a minimum wage would do much to help here. In fact, it may make things worse. Jobs could potentially leave the area (as many film jobs already have), further diminishing the tax base reducing social goods and services (I'm talking basic ones like road repair). Because a ridiculous amount of people insist on coming to LA already, any artificial wage set would (I think, but not sure) induce even more people to come to LA (EX: $13.50 for a cleaning job or something) further straining the city. I'm not an economist but I do understand basic market economics and supply/demand. What I don't understand is how come in lean times workers are laid off and CEO etc get raises. That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Or when CEOs are laid off they get $150 million to leave. Hell, pay me $100 and I'll leave my shtty job right? Perhaps there is another phenomoneon at work: These "low wage" jobs - after the war, weren't they designed as part-time gigs for high school kids lookin' to make an extra dollar or two or houswives with some time as opposed for anyone to actually "make a living" off of? Additonally, the "part-time" nature of these jobs meant no benefits etc. The main benefit was low prices on consumables - products everyone could afford and keep inflation in check. But then "something happened" and more and more people became reliant on these type of jobs for subsistence. Maybe the oil shocks? created demands for more imports, home grown companies can't compete so start looking for solutions, one of them being moving manufacturing abroad. Wasn't there a time (post-war)when a family of four only needed one breadwinner? And that could be a postal job, and they could afford a house with a yard and picket fence and one car? Could this be a false or artficial construct - meaning, post war, many GIs bought affordable houses with their bonuses/benefits which isn't real representative of living cost or price of goods. I always wondered about this. It seems like things were way different back then. Or did we pay for it because it was all debt? As far as the Ford model, didn't he have to revoke the wage he set cause it ended up costing too much? I can't remember but I'll look it up next week after midterms (not trying to antagonize you Pan*, just trying to analyze this issue further and stuff). As for my personal opinion, I like to think we are better than that or this. I don't think we need to go socialist, but I do think for such a powerful and wealthy nation, our bottome line or "lowest" level should be higher than it is. Meaning, our "poverty" should be modest, but not destitute. "Poverty" in America should mean a real basic lifestyle - modest shelter, basic food needs met, modern plumbing etc. No cable, tv, or internet should be subsidized etc (in my opinion). Anything else, well, go out and compete for it. Get an education, learn a trade, etc. If you want that plasma tv, well, you gotta work for it. We need real welfare reform too. Redistributive economics isn't the solution in my opinion. We still need to be incentive based (at least for now until we evolve). But that doesn't mean we should trample people into the ground. I still beleieve our private sector oes better than the public sector even in charitable works. I think big business should decide for themselves. Like Pan did. He ran a successful business based on his ideals and stuff. There are a few corporation like that (at least in my opinion). For example, I like Starbucks: I think they are a good, socially conscious company (no I'm not naive, I mean in a relative way). Southwest Airlines seems to be pretty good too as is UPS (or was it FedEx?). I guess basically, while minimum wage is well-intentioned (and I appreciate that), I just don't think it works well. Anyways, just my opinion.