Message from discussion Living wage
Received: by 10.66.75.39 with SMTP id z7mr3941343pav.26.1349667107337;
Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com>
Subject: Re: Living wage
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:31:42 +0800
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <addgahF24qqU1@mid.individual.net>
X-Trace: individual.net PRk1WZU92/+GBRSQa9v7YwzWT4ZqM5NEmAxJVm4iCvVEtyej3v
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 7/10/12 10:01 PM, JNugent wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 04:54, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>> Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I( don't think you are caricaturing the prosperity gospel people
>>>>>> at all. I've
>>>>>> read some of their stuff, watches some of their videos and even (a
>>>>>> couple of
>>>>>> times) heard some of them preach. But I don't think they are the
>>>>>> ones who are opposed to a "living wage".
>>>>> It would still help if you said what you mean by a living wage, with
>>>>> or without quotation marks, and what you mean by being opposed to it.
>>>> I would have thought the meaning is pretty obvious. It's a fairly
>>>> expression in English, and we say such things as "earning a living".
>>> But what you were saying about it didn't make sense.
>>>> The opposite of a living wage would be a "starvation wage" -- where
>>>> the wage
>>>> paid doesn't provide enough for basic nutritional needs.
>>> What if it pays enough for basic nutritional needs and shelter but not
>>> medical care?
>> My dictionary (Collins) defines it thus:
>> living wage n. a wage adequate to permit a wage earner to live and
>> support a
>> family in reasonable comfort.
>> Of course you could say that that is fairly vague, and people's
>> definitions of
>> "reasonable" might differ, and they might differ about the extent to
>> which it
>> might include such things as medical care.
>> It is probably one of those things that are more conspicuous by their
>> if, for example, the children in a family are clinically malnourished,
>> that might be difficult to determine if the family could not afford
>> examinations either.
> [Not necessarily aimed at the immediate PP:]
> In the UK, one is permitted to leave otherwise-compulsory education from
> the age of sixteen. In practice, because of the way rules work with
> respect to school terms, that usually means sixteen years and so many
> months. The age of sexual consent is also sixteen, as is the minimum age
> for marriage.
> I don't expect it's all that different in the USA, Canada, Australia or
> New Zealand.
> In theory, two sixteen year-olds could be out of education, married to
> each other and have produced a child by the time they attain their
> seventeenth birthdays.
> But is a 16-yr-old capable of earning, in employment, enough to maintain
> that family unit in self-contained housing and with enough to buy the
> necessities of life, let alone the nicer things?
> Unless he/she is a very exceptional person with wholly exceptional and
> marketable unique skills, I'd say that the answer has to be "no".
> So in that case, does that make that particular person entitled to
> higher pay than a 16-yr-old in a more usual personal situation (single,
> no responsibilities, living at home with parents, etc)?
> Enough pay to maintain a family, effectively meaning that he cannot be
> employed as an economic proposition?
> If it did mean that, how would it go down with employers? Or with other
> So if the "living wage" argument doesn't apply to 16-yr-olds (and it
> doesn't), at what age-point does it start to bite?
> And why?
The 16-yr-old mother would be entitled to a number of benefits as the
mother of a child under X years. However, neither father nor mother
would be entitled to an adult wage*, so they would require help from
parents or some charitable institution.
The conservatives are forever claiming that some women are deliberately
having babies out of wedlock to claim support from the government. I
would have thought there were easier ways to obtain money.
* I have an idea that the full adult wage starts at 18. I also have a
feeling that government (state or federal? - I don't know) are
contemplating making 13 years schooling compulsory for everyone.
This morning's paper had an article about a "study" that showed that
education levels can make as much as 14 years difference in life expectancy.