I don't think a "living wage" is the same as a "fair wage."
Here's why: a Union never requests a "living wage" of its constituents' employers. If an employer paid a "living wage," it could keep more employees, take care of them better and still turn a profit - provided the employer's business remains robust enough to support the wages and profit margin needed to also pay all the investors that lent it money to keep it in business long enough to acquire employees.
Unions generally demand a "fair wage" instead. This demand almost always results in the laying off employees to make up for the change in salary of the employed. It also increases the cost of the goods the employer produces in order to keep the profit margin where it needs to be to compensate everyone demanding a piece of the pie.
I'm in a lot of homes every day, homes of people like me who simply work for a living and homes of people who work for a Union. Lemme tell you, they're way above "living wage" even when they're out of work.
I don't deny that the cost of living has increased over time, nor that wages have not (my own salary hasn't increased in four years due to the recession). I simply shake my head when I read of people complaining of the hardship of not working because they are striking to demand a "fair wage." I mean, in a time when every company in the country is cutting back everything it can just to stay afloat, any wage is a fair wage, I think.
The 'fair wage' argument stems from the disparity of the income earned between the laborers who produce the goods and the heads of companies/boards that own the companies. in the 70s CEOs made about 300% more than the average employee. In 2010 it was closer to 3500% more. that is where the fair wage argument comes from. The excessive disparity of income. The rub is that as the boards and CEOs are taking massive wages and bonuses they are crying poor on behalf of the company and refusing salary increases of executing layoffs to 'save the company' So my take is that fair wage relates more to who is gleaning the highest rewards and who is actually the producers of the good/services. It's the entire reason unions came into being. a share of the wealth that the labor produces. A living wage is what you need to get by in the region you live. For instance, in CT if you earn under $40,000 a year you are functionally below the poverty line but, other parts of the country you can raise a family on that amount.
Here's why: a Union never requests a "living wage" of its constituents' employers. If an employer paid a "living wage," it could keep more employees, take care of them better and still turn a profit - provided the employer's business remains robust enough to support the wages and profit margin needed to also pay all the investors that lent it money to keep it in business long enough to acquire employees.
Unions generally demand a "fair wage" instead. This demand almost always results in the laying off employees to make up for the change in salary of the employed. It also increases the cost of the goods the employer produces in order to keep the profit margin where it needs to be to compensate everyone demanding a piece of the pie.
I'm in a lot of homes every day, homes of people like me who simply work for a living and homes of people who work for a Union. Lemme tell you, they're way above "living wage" even when they're out of work.
I don't deny that the cost of living has increased over time, nor that wages have not (my own salary hasn't increased in four years due to the recession). I simply shake my head when I read of people complaining of the hardship of not working because they are striking to demand a "fair wage." I mean, in a time when every company in the country is cutting back everything it can just to stay afloat, any wage is a fair wage, I think.
Oh, I could rant for days....
Reply
in the 70s CEOs made about 300% more than the average employee. In 2010 it was closer to 3500% more. that is where the fair wage argument comes from. The excessive disparity of income. The rub is that as the boards and CEOs are taking massive wages and bonuses they are crying poor on behalf of the company and refusing salary increases of executing layoffs to 'save the company'
So my take is that fair wage relates more to who is gleaning the highest rewards and who is actually the producers of the good/services. It's the entire reason unions came into being. a share of the wealth that the labor produces.
A living wage is what you need to get by in the region you live. For instance, in CT if you earn under $40,000 a year you are functionally below the poverty line but, other parts of the country you can raise a family on that amount.
Reply
Leave a comment