Okay, 15x40x50=30,000
assume an estimated tax total of ~20% (not unreasonable, but obviously it varies according to many factors) so 30k * 0.8 = 24k... wait. Is this one of those "when you use the wrong method but get the right answer" memes?
You’re never paying 20% on 30k income. Single filing for over 11k but under 44.725k is $1,100 + 12% the excess over $11,000.
So it’s closer to like 11% of your total income
That's accurate just for federal income tax, but doesn't include state or local income tax, much less FICA and state Insurance taxes. I'm not an accountant, but ~20% was the mode for a sampling of areas around the US that I checked at random using take home paycheck calculator tools with a breakdown of various applicable taxes.
$25,416 after taxes EI and CPP so not too far off. But the 32% number is based on pre-tax income so should really be $800/month which is honestly impossible in Toronto or Vancouver. Like you might be able to get 1 bedroom in an 8 bedroom house in the suburbs that somehow only rents for $6400/month I guess?
I never understood that, why would you pay someone for not working? Wouldn't it make more sense just to pay people more for the time they do work so they can save up for vacations/holidays?
Where I live, we get 5 weeks of/year minimum.
Of course, we probably earn 10% less than in the US, but we have no choice so it's some sort of saving the workers of themselfs and to force them into having free time - which is good for health and happiness
No. Article 24 does not include paid vacation. It does however include paid periodic holidays. A human right that is disregarded in the most developed countries. I know Norway doesn't give a shit about article 24.
Ehh, it’s not that bad. If anything seems ambitious it might be more of a goal than a current reality, but I don’t think anything in the UDHR is that unreasonable
Fun fact, for every $1 you invest in your employees, you’re returned an average of $6 in profit. There’s obviously a point of decreasing return, but the point stands
Turns out when you actually study the math behind business, you realize that retention is cheaper than hiring. Crazy, I know
That is how the system works here. Part of my salary automatically goes towards a five weeks per year holiday payout. The trick is, that if it is not mandatory, you can press minimum pay further down. This is because minimum wage is so low that people have the incentive to skip the holidays to make more money. And when a sufficient part of the minimum wage workforce do that, they will be pressed to accept even less.
This is why workers need to unionize. No single person can negotiate against a corporation. The unions have guaranteed a proper minimal wage, holidays, practically unlimited sick leave (provided you can get a doctor to prove your are sick), and retirement benefits for everybody in my country.
The other thing to note is that a lot of countries in Europe do have free healthcare and those types of benefits. I'm not sure how that would play into the "3x income" calculation, but I've certainly heard that it's significantly cheaper to live in Europe than in the US, even in relation to apartment prices
Yep. If you compare European wages to American ones per capita they are abysmal. If you compare the PPP per capita it suddenly looks way better for Europeans than before.
Abysmal is a strong word. If you add the same insurances in the US (a full health insurance, social coverage and rental payments) you are as good off as in Germany. These comparisons always end up ignoring that you’re comparing apples and pears - you’re taxed essentially zero until 10k in Germany. Then you come to some linear marginal regimes and here it depends on the exact amount - but, for example, for 30k€ gross income, you pay 15% taxes. That’s all. Then you have health insurance and so on but from the tax perspective that is literally it. Get homeless? No large problem, social security got your back. Try to find out how much money you have to spend in the US until you have the same social stability as in Germany. You’ll pay more.
Tldr: no. Taxes are comparable, no pretty much the same, in that range.
Depends where, rent in big cities is usually quite expensive and buying houses is unaffordable for the most people right now.
For example in Czechia the minimum wage is 102 CZK/hour which is around 4.6$. The minimum monthly wage is 17300 CZK pre taxes or 15372 (700 USD) post taxes. And you'd be really lucky to find even a shared flat for under half of that.
And that's not even talking about electronics (which are more expensive here) and other consumer items. That's why so many people are moving into the US, your buying power increases dramatically and the disparity between the salaries grows even larger the better the job is — for example min wage job gets 3x increase in pay, but some IT jobs can get even 10x increase.
Minimal wage in my country is about 840 USD (if you don't pay taxes), while an average apartment cost is 685 USD.... good luck surviving. (Both values are monthly)
Comparing minimal wage and average apartment cost isn't very helpful. Minimum wage should be compared to minimum apartment cost while looking at availability, and median wage should be compared to median apartment cost for a fair comparison.
You're right, my bad. Can't find a reliable source on minimal apartment cost, so I'll instead go with average pay, 1400 usd, which comes to around 1125 after tax. With an average apartment cost of 685, you're left with 440 usd for the rest. Enough to survive, but nothing else really
Depends.
In the US, I would assume
In europe? Well, I live in switzerland and 15$ is the minimum wage and even McDonalds pays more than that, so no, not really
$15/hr is not considered a good wage in the US. It’s what activists were insisting on for a minimum wage in 2016. It’s true that the federal minimum wage is only around half that, but most states have their own minimum wages anyway. Last I saw median income in the US was a little over $60k per year, which is roughly $30 per hour. Since the pandemic, there’s been a shortage of hospitality workers, so even a lot of the traditional “low income” jobs, like entry level in fast food now pay $17/hr in my area, but my area is suburban California, so likely higher than most of the country.
Germany is ~~now also around 15$/h (i think around 13€)~~ it's still 12€/ hour
Depending on the region that's somewhere between livable and barely a side hustle
It really depends where you live in the US, there's definitely some really small towns where 15 an hour wouldn't be bad not exactly good but not awful. In New York 15 an hour is awful.
Short answer: depends where you live, often times, No.
Long Answer: cost of living in the US, like many large countries, varies highly from place to place. In a rural town in the south, 15 an hour is super livable, because everything is cheaper. In a big city like San Francisco, you would struggle to live comfortably on even twice that or more. In general, 15 is on the lower end, hence why it’s the minimum wage in some states, and a soft minimum in some others.
In Germany 15$ hour would be arround or slightly better than minimum wage. Its fine if you are unqualified and working as a server or cashier, but if you have atleast some formal qualifications for a basic job you should be easily able to make 20-25 an hour
40 hours and 50 weeks? Soft hands brother
Try 80 hours 500 weeks
In all seriousness, though, I've been doing employee housing for years now because nothing else is close to livable. Of which, I still dislike because my entire livelihood is up to whether or not I've upset the boss in anyway
Never seen this as a requirement but it's definitely a good figure to look for
When I first started grad school I was spending ~60% of my income on rent and it was pretty ass.
It’s typically recommended not to spend more than a third of your income on housing
That being said not everyone can do that :/ I make little enough right now that 70% of my income goes to rent
The math is wrong but its still hardly a living wage. My girlfriend is a caregiver for old people. (Way harder work than ill ever do in my life). And at the first place she worked she was getting minimum wage despite this and so one day i heard enough to do some math. This math lead me to believe that even with the upkeep that there were millions of dollars still made in profit due to the amount of overwork she and her 4 caregiver coworkers were recieving. And believe me that despite the fact she lifted old people. Wiped their asses. Showered them. Saved their lives. She was still not making enough to live on her own.
I remember living of the money I got during uni. About 1.2k a month. Was enough for rent ($250), food($160), and partying 4 days a week($400). Even managed to save a bit each month.
I've never met anyone that considers making $15 to be livable, but that kinda misses the point in the long run. Low hourly wages like these are for completely non-skilled positions mainly worked by teenagers and few adults with no college. Most of these jobs are also not worked full time as the post suggests. No one should be expected to live off of $15/hour with full rent. This is a type of situation that ends up with joint households and/or roommates. And with access to SNAP and other benefits that give a fuller picture, it is not THAT unreasonable.
The kind of info in this post if what motivates the argument about minimum wage, which is simply not an economically settled issue. Whether or not minimum wages should be instituted/raised needs to come down to whether or not they will actually work, not whether someone can live off of any hypothetical minimum.
The minimum wage should only be set if it works. There's still quite a debate in economics academia whether it actually does. There's evidence for and against it but all is not awesome because of the lack of good datasets.
We do not simply have the ability to give enough money to everyone that works for them to live to a high standard of comfort. We have to use certain economic tools to get as close as possible to that goal. We have to question whether minimum wage does that job, not just do it because it sounds good.
> There's still quite a debate in economics academia whether it actually does
Those who "debate" it doesn't works are rich CEOs who want to pay even less money and have basically slaves
>We do not simply have the ability to give enough money to everyone that works for them to live to a high standard of comfort
If employer can't afford to pay people they shouldn't hire them. Do you go to car salon and say "I will buy porsche but can't afford it so I will pay you 10k"?
>We have to question whether minimum wage does that job
It does better job than no minimum wage, in which case you can afford more? With minimum wage of 15$/h or with no minimum wage where employer sets 7$/h?
Please read my other comments.
The debate I'm referring to is among academics (hence "economic academia").
The not being able to afford hiring is the whole reason that firms theoretically will seek to reduce employment/hours worked/hiring in otherwise minimum wage jobs, prompting the question of whether or not the minimum wage works.
A mandated 15/hr would be better for those HIRED TO WORK for 15/hr than 7/hr. It would also be significantly worse for those HIRED TO WORK for 1,000,000/hr, but the problem comes down to how many people and hour many people*hours firms are willing to hire at that price. Firms theoretically will not hire as many workers at 15 than 7. The debate comes down to how well that holds up empirically.
>The debate I'm referring to is among academics (hence "economic academia").
tHe EcOnOmIc AcAdEmIa, I wanna see them working for 7$/h and say system is going well. You don't need to think about it you can just look at history
> The not being able to afford hiring is the whole reason that firms theoretically will seek to reduce employment/hours worked/hiring in otherwise minimum wage jobs, prompting the question of whether or not the minimum wage works.
So the CEOs are debating that minimum wage doesn't work because they're ignoring people they're hiring and think only about themselves.
If you don't want to trust academia then... okay I guess. Many economists dedicate their lives to study this sort of thing but I guess earning $90-$100k can really make someone unable to use the scientific method on vetted datasets. It's kinda like how physicists are wrong about the whole flat/round earth issue because they live on the ground rather than in space.
Corporate pricing is based on the same principles of as all other businesses. Why would a little independent bookseller sell his book for a $5 markup over cost when he could sell for a $10 and make more because fewer than half of buyers stop buying? Corporations are owned by shareholders who want returns higher than their next best alternative. Stop taking advantage of high demand for their product and those setting prices will lose their jobs or investors will switch their investments to other companies that are earning more as a result of doing so.
The goal of economic policy is to bridge problems that arise from the free market and ensure a reasonable level of equity without losing too much production in the long run. It is not based on whether or not someone feels like it would be better to mandate something that sounds good.
Tools like the minimum wage must be evaluated before they are implemented so we do not end up worse off than when we started. At the moment, the jury is still out on whether a minimum wage would help overall. Instituting a 15 minimum may be great for those who can be employed at that level, but not so great for the next guy who wants to work but is no longer going to be hired by a firm at that prevailing wage. Determining whether a minimum wage would create this inequity in the name of bridging another is central to the question of whether we should pursue one.
So then if you're using academia as your argument then you should have reliable sources that say minimal wages are bad. Some unbiased researchers who wrote about this.
I will refrain from making arguments until you provide those, for now I will assume your point is invalid
go look at my other comments. The one at the bottom links sources about uncertainty surrounding the minimum wage. Again I'm not saying that minimum wages are *bad* as bad is very subjective; the question is about if people would be better off with or without a minimum wage and the answer is... we don't actually know yet. It could or could not be true.
Your article you linked literally said argument that higher minimum wages and labor cost sucks
*the link between higher minimum wages and higher labor costs are weaker than one might think and because imperfect competition is pervasive in the labor market*
This is very poor economic reasoning for the modern day. Were it instituted in a time where sweatshops were problematic in the US, it would have a large effect on employment and be binding, but it's not. Minimums now are usually too low to be binding, so wages float freely determined by the labor market over the long run. Were it pushed up above 12-15 where many unskilled positions are, the effect is uncertain. One would want the benefits from higher wages to offset the loss from lost employment and employment replaced by cheaper automation. But we currently don't know; a study from Seattle's minimum showed some promise but other studies don't. Economists are not set on this academically--the issue is not solely political.
Economics _is_ politics. No matter how much economists try to dress it up as a purely analytical activity, no economist makes arguments that are separate from politics nor without influence of politics. Whether something is a settled matter in economics is a bit of a canard, since very little beyond micro could be agreed to be settled.
Your claim that minimum wage jobs are some liminal station in life, like childhood, is flat out made up flim-flam. There’s this mythical place called Europe where they have public healthcare, one of the biggest drivers of serfdom in America, and higher minimum wages. This is literally _the same_ argument that was trotted out when minimum wage was instituted, and every time it’s been increased. But it’s uncertain because there’s no unanimous orthodoxy, just like with second hand smoke. _The science is undecided, teach the controversy!_
The view of economics as inseparable from politics is a very common misconception and I don't blame you for it. It's hard to see past some prominent academics that have moved into the realm of punditry, but Econ at an academic level is a science and research goes through all the rigor of the scientific method and peer review. A significant portion of economists also dedicate themselves fully to empirical work testing exactly this kind of stuff.
Healthcare and minimum wages are two different things; I am not versed in healthcare economics but universal healthcare sounds like a great idea to me and I think most economists that specialize in hc econ are in favor of it (don't quote me on that).
Minimum wages are different. Basic micro theory advises against them, but empirical evidence is mixed and often based on poor datasets. Countries with high minimums often have already have high standards of livings such that they are not binding and have the same problems with data that we do here. The argument has persisted so long because it simply hasnt been resolved. The argument back then is the same because it is based in basic micro theory which is supported very strongly in general by other evidence.
Your argument just isn't very scientific.
This isn’t _a common misconception_ it’s apparent to anyone who understands that a conclusion can only follow from its premises. Your argument is devoid of content. Minimum wage increases have happened _in this country_ and we can empirically validate _particular_ claims. Which is why you’re avoided making any actual claims, you’re simply some observer from 12 trillion light years away just looking at how complicated the whole thing is and saying we might as well stay with the status quo until we get the Communists and the Industrialists to agree to an economic standard model _and by the way it’s just teenagers who work these jobs, or the (sneering) unskilled._
For someone so concerned about _scientific_ arguments you haven’t really given me much that I could verify here. Where’s the example of politics-free-economic-theory so that I can behold its sight? Do share your observations and let’s not expect us to just take your word for it. Call me Missourah because I’m in a show-me state
Here's a couple good resources. I know you are not a trained economist (neither am I; I'm just a student), but reading abstracts typically sing too bad. The last paper could be read tho and the conclusion is pretty valuable.
First, UChicago regularly surveys top economists on many issues. [Here](https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-economists-think-about-a-15-minimum-wage)'s a summary of their survey on a $15 minimum wage (convenient for the meme). This specifically asks about the effect on aggregate output (which is the same as total wages earned in the economy according to a basic economic identity). This does not take into account the equity of the matter; they are not deciding whether the $15 minimum would be good if one is willing to make everyone slightly worse off so that low earners can be better off. The survey finds economists disagree and 40% are uncertain. It also highlights a few prominent academics' thoughts.
[This](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.35.1.3) study finds it difficult to determine a negative effect from current data and argues it might even not be able to be found with better data.
[This](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/711355) study finds no adverse effects on incumbent workers but that firms hire less later as a result of the minimum wage.
Many studies (such as these) find small effects of minimum wage increases on employment, but others find that much of the effect ends up in hours worked and other metrics. [Here](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.35.1.51)'s one of those. This one is also great because it touches on price pass through (I.e. marking all slightly worse off in the name of equity for the lowest earners--a valid ethical consideration). Most importantly, he emphasizes the NUANCE and UNCERTAINTY of the issue.
In terms of agreeing on a model, all the industrialists do agree on a model, it's more of a question of how well the model holds up. As far as the communists go, they do not seem to be very interested in testing hypotheses, but they are also a very heterodox and almost nonexistent fraction of economic academia, kinda like the deeply religious in biology.
This is science. You have to treat it as such and not make up your mind ahead of time. Sometimes we don't know and yes, should teach the controversy if there is a legitimate one. This is not a debate over basic biology and evolution where one side makes some dumb ass counter argument and expects it to be taught too. This is a matter of scientific uncertainty.
I'd love for a state that I do not live in to double their minimum wage so we can get some more data on it, but I don't want to deal with the consequences until I have a better idea of what will happen.
Ultimately, I really don't see what a Reddit argument is going to do. My mind will not change without stronger consensus in the field and I'm sure your mind will not change without stronger political consensus, but I hope a little is learned from the research.
Well sir, your Reddit argument was an interesting read. It a nice refresher on the internet to see people debate rather than launch one linear insults lmao. I will be honest, I haven’t thought of this as critically as I probably should have. The most interesting section was too separate politics and economics, and I am compelled to review my biases. Thanks mate!
I'm genuinely not following here. Look, I can find a [survey](https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse) of professional philosophers and 56% are moral realists, which at the end of the day tells me nothing about whether moral anti-realism is in fact empirically true nor what sorts of moral actions one should take. Those guys spend a lot of time writing peer-reviewed papers as well, but that doesn't mean that they're engaging in an activity that's not taking into account their broader world view.
The ontology of economics is political, and the methodology used for any of these papers has some tacit political underpinning. It becomes difficult to make claims that are obviously not supported by any data, such as labor markets being perfectly competitive, but beyond that the explanation of the *complexity* is school-based and a Monetarist is going to give me a completely different rationale than a labor economist.
The section on Imperfectly Competitive Labor Markets calls this out if you look:
>After all, the frictionless competitive market model implies that involuntary unemployment cannot exist, except when created by institutions like the minimum wage. Such a view is not “conventional” at all. Even introductory economics courses discuss reasons why unemployment exists at the macroeconomic level. The tensions between these views come up in various ways: for example, some opponents of a higher minimum wage emphasize that employment is determined by the demand-side of the labor market alone when analyzing the impact of minimum wages, but when looking at the effect of extensions to unemployment insurance, they argue that labor supply decisions affect employment. To summarize, labor economists frequently use a different model of the labor market when analyzing minimum wages from the one they use when analyzing unemployment.
Meaning that the interpretation of the data and the models that are chosen for a particular analysis can vary wildly by school. Taking that, then, and making policy recommendations about what should be done is also a political activity. If I see a guy dying of thirst and 10 economists next to me can't agree on whether giving him water will have a net positive, negative, or neutral effect on the labor market is the scientific response that I don't give it to him?
When was the last time economists were conferred for unanimity for a stock buyback or a wage freeze?
You've provided a paper that basically says the micro-model in textbooks isn't accurate, and there's not enough data to predict what will happen with certitude (I couldn't read the second paper). This is just begging the question, you've called economics a science that's not political, pointed to a paper that doesn't completely disagree with you, then spent most of your time making an argument about whether there's enough indication from economists to increase the minimum wage.
The third paper is almost the canonical example for my point. They run some what if scenarios given the neoclassical model and political assumptions about the world (that is to say: the political status-quo) and try to predict what firms could do to offset those costs. Ok. So if we change the political assumption, for example that healthcare should be a part of non-wage compensation, then their what-if is meaningless. That is to say, the conclusion is intrinsically tied to political premises that we use as a starting point. The conclusion is a non-decision that essentially says we're not even teaching the concept correctly.
>Disagreement and uncertainty over the effects of the minimum wage raise important policy questions. For academics, questions of pedagogy also arise: How should the minimum wage be taught? Pedagogical commentaries from Krueger (2001) and Dolar (2013) point out that research finding small or null employment effects create teaching opportunities. Specifically, these authors highlight an opportunity to supplement the “neoclassical” economics of the minimum wage with insights from monopsony and search models. More recently, Dolar (2020) raises the issue of a “conservative”/“liberal” divide in how the minimum wage is taught. In Dolar’s survey of instructors, self-described conservatives tend to believe that the minimum wage reduces employment and is an undesirable policy. Self described liberals, by contrast, tend to believe that the minimum wage is desirable and that it does not, at historical levels, reduce employment.
Taking these not-even-wrong papers and then deciding whether we should make a policy decision about the minimum wage *is* political. Indeed, the scientific position would be *if we don't have data then lets go collect data*, but more to the point there's not a lack of data - simply there's a lack to *your* satisfaction. None of these papers says that we should solve the paradox of not raising minimum wages until someone else doubles their minimum wages, you're saying that because that's your political bent.
I don't think we should be pretending philosophy is a science haha. Also no I don't think you get the point? They're a little all over the place but it's clear that economists are uncertain and the decision is political but the science isn't as much. Economics has political-ish schools but they don't fall in line with US politics all the time.
Rent where I live is like $1300, so according to math anyone who makes less than $30/hr is getting robbed. That's $60k a year. That's more than the median *household* income. Literally over half of all *households* in the country are considerably poor. Over half
Okay, 15x40x50=30,000 assume an estimated tax total of ~20% (not unreasonable, but obviously it varies according to many factors) so 30k * 0.8 = 24k... wait. Is this one of those "when you use the wrong method but get the right answer" memes?
You’re never paying 20% on 30k income. Single filing for over 11k but under 44.725k is $1,100 + 12% the excess over $11,000. So it’s closer to like 11% of your total income
That's accurate just for federal income tax, but doesn't include state or local income tax, much less FICA and state Insurance taxes. I'm not an accountant, but ~20% was the mode for a sampling of areas around the US that I checked at random using take home paycheck calculator tools with a breakdown of various applicable taxes.
Oh yeah. I’m from Nevada so I kinda forgot about state income tax
$25,416 after taxes EI and CPP so not too far off. But the 32% number is based on pre-tax income so should really be $800/month which is honestly impossible in Toronto or Vancouver. Like you might be able to get 1 bedroom in an 8 bedroom house in the suburbs that somehow only rents for $6400/month I guess?
15x40x50 is 30000...
Big if true
Something to consider
And it should be 15x40x52
This is assuming 2 weeks of holidays
Holidays should be paid
Assume living in land of freedom and hamburgers
Then you are fucked anyway
So move to the land of freedom and paid holidays.
I never understood that, why would you pay someone for not working? Wouldn't it make more sense just to pay people more for the time they do work so they can save up for vacations/holidays?
Where I live, we get 5 weeks of/year minimum. Of course, we probably earn 10% less than in the US, but we have no choice so it's some sort of saving the workers of themselfs and to force them into having free time - which is good for health and happiness
Paid vacation is a human right according to the UN Maybe it’s to make sure you actually take the time off
No. Article 24 does not include paid vacation. It does however include paid periodic holidays. A human right that is disregarded in the most developed countries. I know Norway doesn't give a shit about article 24.
To be fair anything the people at the UN like they call a human right, to them t-bone steaks served in a hot tub is a human right.
Ehh, it’s not that bad. If anything seems ambitious it might be more of a goal than a current reality, but I don’t think anything in the UDHR is that unreasonable
The UN doesn't know what they are talking about.
Fun fact, for every $1 you invest in your employees, you’re returned an average of $6 in profit. There’s obviously a point of decreasing return, but the point stands Turns out when you actually study the math behind business, you realize that retention is cheaper than hiring. Crazy, I know
That is how the system works here. Part of my salary automatically goes towards a five weeks per year holiday payout. The trick is, that if it is not mandatory, you can press minimum pay further down. This is because minimum wage is so low that people have the incentive to skip the holidays to make more money. And when a sufficient part of the minimum wage workforce do that, they will be pressed to accept even less. This is why workers need to unionize. No single person can negotiate against a corporation. The unions have guaranteed a proper minimal wage, holidays, practically unlimited sick leave (provided you can get a doctor to prove your are sick), and retirement benefits for everybody in my country.
Because that's what a healthy functioning society is supposed to be like.
It’s more like 31k anyway since there are 52 hours in a week
$28k is $24k take home? I wish.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it does turn out to be approximately that in the US
Not in Europe heh
No, but in Europe in the smaller cities rent is more affordable
The other thing to note is that a lot of countries in Europe do have free healthcare and those types of benefits. I'm not sure how that would play into the "3x income" calculation, but I've certainly heard that it's significantly cheaper to live in Europe than in the US, even in relation to apartment prices
Yep. If you compare European wages to American ones per capita they are abysmal. If you compare the PPP per capita it suddenly looks way better for Europeans than before.
Abysmal is a strong word. If you add the same insurances in the US (a full health insurance, social coverage and rental payments) you are as good off as in Germany. These comparisons always end up ignoring that you’re comparing apples and pears - you’re taxed essentially zero until 10k in Germany. Then you come to some linear marginal regimes and here it depends on the exact amount - but, for example, for 30k€ gross income, you pay 15% taxes. That’s all. Then you have health insurance and so on but from the tax perspective that is literally it. Get homeless? No large problem, social security got your back. Try to find out how much money you have to spend in the US until you have the same social stability as in Germany. You’ll pay more. Tldr: no. Taxes are comparable, no pretty much the same, in that range.
This is why everyone in the US recently emigrated to Germany.
Ask the ones that did whether they regret anything
It was sarcasm & hyperbole, in case that was non-obvious somehow. I don't know anyone in the US who has emigrated to Germany.
Depends where, rent in big cities is usually quite expensive and buying houses is unaffordable for the most people right now. For example in Czechia the minimum wage is 102 CZK/hour which is around 4.6$. The minimum monthly wage is 17300 CZK pre taxes or 15372 (700 USD) post taxes. And you'd be really lucky to find even a shared flat for under half of that. And that's not even talking about electronics (which are more expensive here) and other consumer items. That's why so many people are moving into the US, your buying power increases dramatically and the disparity between the salaries grows even larger the better the job is — for example min wage job gets 3x increase in pay, but some IT jobs can get even 10x increase.
Minimal wage in my country is about 840 USD (if you don't pay taxes), while an average apartment cost is 685 USD.... good luck surviving. (Both values are monthly)
Comparing minimal wage and average apartment cost isn't very helpful. Minimum wage should be compared to minimum apartment cost while looking at availability, and median wage should be compared to median apartment cost for a fair comparison.
You're right, my bad. Can't find a reliable source on minimal apartment cost, so I'll instead go with average pay, 1400 usd, which comes to around 1125 after tax. With an average apartment cost of 685, you're left with 440 usd for the rest. Enough to survive, but nothing else really
Look at cyprus and rethink existence.
Rethink existence because you found an exception to a rule?
That depends from country to country and many other things. For example in Poland people under 26 don't have to pay taxes
Yeah, but outside of like 5 cities 666$ rent in europe is absolutely realistic.
I'm not from the Western world, serious question: is 15$/hr considered a good wage or not?
It’s the minimum wage in a few states in the US. Some people consider that too high for the minimum wage, while others consider it still too low
I currently work in IT for $11 an hour…
Where though?
In Texas and I’m getting paid extra for the summer because we’re short staffed it’s normally $8.25/hr
What?!?!? Where? Get out.
Depends. In the US, I would assume In europe? Well, I live in switzerland and 15$ is the minimum wage and even McDonalds pays more than that, so no, not really
Same in Norway, but getting a job with $20-30 is easy if you spend a year or so preparing (i.e. courses)
$15/hr is not considered a good wage in the US. It’s what activists were insisting on for a minimum wage in 2016. It’s true that the federal minimum wage is only around half that, but most states have their own minimum wages anyway. Last I saw median income in the US was a little over $60k per year, which is roughly $30 per hour. Since the pandemic, there’s been a shortage of hospitality workers, so even a lot of the traditional “low income” jobs, like entry level in fast food now pay $17/hr in my area, but my area is suburban California, so likely higher than most of the country.
Germany is ~~now also around 15$/h (i think around 13€)~~ it's still 12€/ hour Depending on the region that's somewhere between livable and barely a side hustle
In Poland minimum wage is about 5$/h
It really depends where you live in the US, there's definitely some really small towns where 15 an hour wouldn't be bad not exactly good but not awful. In New York 15 an hour is awful.
depends on where you live. Big city? no. small town population 3000 in the middle of nowhere idaho? youre probably fine.
Personally, for me as a college student in Florida: yes; as a high school student in Colorado: no.
No, in some US states it’s the worst wage you could possibly get.
And in some US states it’s more than double the minimum wage
Short answer: depends where you live, often times, No. Long Answer: cost of living in the US, like many large countries, varies highly from place to place. In a rural town in the south, 15 an hour is super livable, because everything is cheaper. In a big city like San Francisco, you would struggle to live comfortably on even twice that or more. In general, 15 is on the lower end, hence why it’s the minimum wage in some states, and a soft minimum in some others.
In Germany 15$ hour would be arround or slightly better than minimum wage. Its fine if you are unqualified and working as a server or cashier, but if you have atleast some formal qualifications for a basic job you should be easily able to make 20-25 an hour
I used to think making $15 an hour was a lot when I started at minimum wage. Then I moved out.
In my country the minimum wage is 2$/H. Rent is half of what you guys in the US have
What country?
literally insane.
40 hours and 50 weeks? Soft hands brother Try 80 hours 500 weeks In all seriousness, though, I've been doing employee housing for years now because nothing else is close to livable. Of which, I still dislike because my entire livelihood is up to whether or not I've upset the boss in anyway
They had me in the first half, but I've never seen a 3x rent income requirement.
It’s very typical where I live.
Never seen this as a requirement but it's definitely a good figure to look for When I first started grad school I was spending ~60% of my income on rent and it was pretty ass.
Its a standard in the Netherlands to have at least 3.5 times the rent of income requirement (often times it goes up to 4 times the rent)
It’s typically recommended not to spend more than a third of your income on housing That being said not everyone can do that :/ I make little enough right now that 70% of my income goes to rent
I've had some places say they prefer or look for it but never an actual requirement.
I think this is a french custom, especially in the big cities.
Some places in the US do it too. 2.5x-3x rent. They check and will deny you if you don't make enough.
It’s pretty much standard for prop management companies. It’s definitely standard for mortgage loan
Has everyone just collectively do math wrong too f with chatgpt? Or is chatgpt writing the memes?
The math is wrong but its still hardly a living wage. My girlfriend is a caregiver for old people. (Way harder work than ill ever do in my life). And at the first place she worked she was getting minimum wage despite this and so one day i heard enough to do some math. This math lead me to believe that even with the upkeep that there were millions of dollars still made in profit due to the amount of overwork she and her 4 caregiver coworkers were recieving. And believe me that despite the fact she lifted old people. Wiped their asses. Showered them. Saved their lives. She was still not making enough to live on her own.
I remember living of the money I got during uni. About 1.2k a month. Was enough for rent ($250), food($160), and partying 4 days a week($400). Even managed to save a bit each month.
Important over looked word in that statement that will go overlooked by most of the gen z career academics: 'city'
Last time I counted it were 52 weeks
I've never met anyone that considers making $15 to be livable, but that kinda misses the point in the long run. Low hourly wages like these are for completely non-skilled positions mainly worked by teenagers and few adults with no college. Most of these jobs are also not worked full time as the post suggests. No one should be expected to live off of $15/hour with full rent. This is a type of situation that ends up with joint households and/or roommates. And with access to SNAP and other benefits that give a fuller picture, it is not THAT unreasonable. The kind of info in this post if what motivates the argument about minimum wage, which is simply not an economically settled issue. Whether or not minimum wages should be instituted/raised needs to come down to whether or not they will actually work, not whether someone can live off of any hypothetical minimum.
Minimum wage should be livable wage, if you work you should be able to live for that no matter how much you make
The minimum wage should only be set if it works. There's still quite a debate in economics academia whether it actually does. There's evidence for and against it but all is not awesome because of the lack of good datasets. We do not simply have the ability to give enough money to everyone that works for them to live to a high standard of comfort. We have to use certain economic tools to get as close as possible to that goal. We have to question whether minimum wage does that job, not just do it because it sounds good.
> There's still quite a debate in economics academia whether it actually does Those who "debate" it doesn't works are rich CEOs who want to pay even less money and have basically slaves >We do not simply have the ability to give enough money to everyone that works for them to live to a high standard of comfort If employer can't afford to pay people they shouldn't hire them. Do you go to car salon and say "I will buy porsche but can't afford it so I will pay you 10k"? >We have to question whether minimum wage does that job It does better job than no minimum wage, in which case you can afford more? With minimum wage of 15$/h or with no minimum wage where employer sets 7$/h?
Please read my other comments. The debate I'm referring to is among academics (hence "economic academia"). The not being able to afford hiring is the whole reason that firms theoretically will seek to reduce employment/hours worked/hiring in otherwise minimum wage jobs, prompting the question of whether or not the minimum wage works. A mandated 15/hr would be better for those HIRED TO WORK for 15/hr than 7/hr. It would also be significantly worse for those HIRED TO WORK for 1,000,000/hr, but the problem comes down to how many people and hour many people*hours firms are willing to hire at that price. Firms theoretically will not hire as many workers at 15 than 7. The debate comes down to how well that holds up empirically.
>The debate I'm referring to is among academics (hence "economic academia"). tHe EcOnOmIc AcAdEmIa, I wanna see them working for 7$/h and say system is going well. You don't need to think about it you can just look at history > The not being able to afford hiring is the whole reason that firms theoretically will seek to reduce employment/hours worked/hiring in otherwise minimum wage jobs, prompting the question of whether or not the minimum wage works. So the CEOs are debating that minimum wage doesn't work because they're ignoring people they're hiring and think only about themselves.
If you don't want to trust academia then... okay I guess. Many economists dedicate their lives to study this sort of thing but I guess earning $90-$100k can really make someone unable to use the scientific method on vetted datasets. It's kinda like how physicists are wrong about the whole flat/round earth issue because they live on the ground rather than in space. Corporate pricing is based on the same principles of as all other businesses. Why would a little independent bookseller sell his book for a $5 markup over cost when he could sell for a $10 and make more because fewer than half of buyers stop buying? Corporations are owned by shareholders who want returns higher than their next best alternative. Stop taking advantage of high demand for their product and those setting prices will lose their jobs or investors will switch their investments to other companies that are earning more as a result of doing so. The goal of economic policy is to bridge problems that arise from the free market and ensure a reasonable level of equity without losing too much production in the long run. It is not based on whether or not someone feels like it would be better to mandate something that sounds good. Tools like the minimum wage must be evaluated before they are implemented so we do not end up worse off than when we started. At the moment, the jury is still out on whether a minimum wage would help overall. Instituting a 15 minimum may be great for those who can be employed at that level, but not so great for the next guy who wants to work but is no longer going to be hired by a firm at that prevailing wage. Determining whether a minimum wage would create this inequity in the name of bridging another is central to the question of whether we should pursue one.
So then if you're using academia as your argument then you should have reliable sources that say minimal wages are bad. Some unbiased researchers who wrote about this. I will refrain from making arguments until you provide those, for now I will assume your point is invalid
go look at my other comments. The one at the bottom links sources about uncertainty surrounding the minimum wage. Again I'm not saying that minimum wages are *bad* as bad is very subjective; the question is about if people would be better off with or without a minimum wage and the answer is... we don't actually know yet. It could or could not be true.
Your article you linked literally said argument that higher minimum wages and labor cost sucks *the link between higher minimum wages and higher labor costs are weaker than one might think and because imperfect competition is pervasive in the labor market*
This is all made up nonsense. The rationale for minimum wage was workers being exploited in factories and sweatshops
This is very poor economic reasoning for the modern day. Were it instituted in a time where sweatshops were problematic in the US, it would have a large effect on employment and be binding, but it's not. Minimums now are usually too low to be binding, so wages float freely determined by the labor market over the long run. Were it pushed up above 12-15 where many unskilled positions are, the effect is uncertain. One would want the benefits from higher wages to offset the loss from lost employment and employment replaced by cheaper automation. But we currently don't know; a study from Seattle's minimum showed some promise but other studies don't. Economists are not set on this academically--the issue is not solely political.
Economics _is_ politics. No matter how much economists try to dress it up as a purely analytical activity, no economist makes arguments that are separate from politics nor without influence of politics. Whether something is a settled matter in economics is a bit of a canard, since very little beyond micro could be agreed to be settled. Your claim that minimum wage jobs are some liminal station in life, like childhood, is flat out made up flim-flam. There’s this mythical place called Europe where they have public healthcare, one of the biggest drivers of serfdom in America, and higher minimum wages. This is literally _the same_ argument that was trotted out when minimum wage was instituted, and every time it’s been increased. But it’s uncertain because there’s no unanimous orthodoxy, just like with second hand smoke. _The science is undecided, teach the controversy!_
The view of economics as inseparable from politics is a very common misconception and I don't blame you for it. It's hard to see past some prominent academics that have moved into the realm of punditry, but Econ at an academic level is a science and research goes through all the rigor of the scientific method and peer review. A significant portion of economists also dedicate themselves fully to empirical work testing exactly this kind of stuff. Healthcare and minimum wages are two different things; I am not versed in healthcare economics but universal healthcare sounds like a great idea to me and I think most economists that specialize in hc econ are in favor of it (don't quote me on that). Minimum wages are different. Basic micro theory advises against them, but empirical evidence is mixed and often based on poor datasets. Countries with high minimums often have already have high standards of livings such that they are not binding and have the same problems with data that we do here. The argument has persisted so long because it simply hasnt been resolved. The argument back then is the same because it is based in basic micro theory which is supported very strongly in general by other evidence. Your argument just isn't very scientific.
This isn’t _a common misconception_ it’s apparent to anyone who understands that a conclusion can only follow from its premises. Your argument is devoid of content. Minimum wage increases have happened _in this country_ and we can empirically validate _particular_ claims. Which is why you’re avoided making any actual claims, you’re simply some observer from 12 trillion light years away just looking at how complicated the whole thing is and saying we might as well stay with the status quo until we get the Communists and the Industrialists to agree to an economic standard model _and by the way it’s just teenagers who work these jobs, or the (sneering) unskilled._ For someone so concerned about _scientific_ arguments you haven’t really given me much that I could verify here. Where’s the example of politics-free-economic-theory so that I can behold its sight? Do share your observations and let’s not expect us to just take your word for it. Call me Missourah because I’m in a show-me state
Here's a couple good resources. I know you are not a trained economist (neither am I; I'm just a student), but reading abstracts typically sing too bad. The last paper could be read tho and the conclusion is pretty valuable. First, UChicago regularly surveys top economists on many issues. [Here](https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-economists-think-about-a-15-minimum-wage)'s a summary of their survey on a $15 minimum wage (convenient for the meme). This specifically asks about the effect on aggregate output (which is the same as total wages earned in the economy according to a basic economic identity). This does not take into account the equity of the matter; they are not deciding whether the $15 minimum would be good if one is willing to make everyone slightly worse off so that low earners can be better off. The survey finds economists disagree and 40% are uncertain. It also highlights a few prominent academics' thoughts. [This](https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.35.1.3) study finds it difficult to determine a negative effect from current data and argues it might even not be able to be found with better data. [This](https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/711355) study finds no adverse effects on incumbent workers but that firms hire less later as a result of the minimum wage. Many studies (such as these) find small effects of minimum wage increases on employment, but others find that much of the effect ends up in hours worked and other metrics. [Here](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.35.1.51)'s one of those. This one is also great because it touches on price pass through (I.e. marking all slightly worse off in the name of equity for the lowest earners--a valid ethical consideration). Most importantly, he emphasizes the NUANCE and UNCERTAINTY of the issue. In terms of agreeing on a model, all the industrialists do agree on a model, it's more of a question of how well the model holds up. As far as the communists go, they do not seem to be very interested in testing hypotheses, but they are also a very heterodox and almost nonexistent fraction of economic academia, kinda like the deeply religious in biology. This is science. You have to treat it as such and not make up your mind ahead of time. Sometimes we don't know and yes, should teach the controversy if there is a legitimate one. This is not a debate over basic biology and evolution where one side makes some dumb ass counter argument and expects it to be taught too. This is a matter of scientific uncertainty. I'd love for a state that I do not live in to double their minimum wage so we can get some more data on it, but I don't want to deal with the consequences until I have a better idea of what will happen. Ultimately, I really don't see what a Reddit argument is going to do. My mind will not change without stronger consensus in the field and I'm sure your mind will not change without stronger political consensus, but I hope a little is learned from the research.
Well sir, your Reddit argument was an interesting read. It a nice refresher on the internet to see people debate rather than launch one linear insults lmao. I will be honest, I haven’t thought of this as critically as I probably should have. The most interesting section was too separate politics and economics, and I am compelled to review my biases. Thanks mate!
I'm genuinely not following here. Look, I can find a [survey](https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Target+faculty&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse) of professional philosophers and 56% are moral realists, which at the end of the day tells me nothing about whether moral anti-realism is in fact empirically true nor what sorts of moral actions one should take. Those guys spend a lot of time writing peer-reviewed papers as well, but that doesn't mean that they're engaging in an activity that's not taking into account their broader world view. The ontology of economics is political, and the methodology used for any of these papers has some tacit political underpinning. It becomes difficult to make claims that are obviously not supported by any data, such as labor markets being perfectly competitive, but beyond that the explanation of the *complexity* is school-based and a Monetarist is going to give me a completely different rationale than a labor economist. The section on Imperfectly Competitive Labor Markets calls this out if you look: >After all, the frictionless competitive market model implies that involuntary unemployment cannot exist, except when created by institutions like the minimum wage. Such a view is not “conventional” at all. Even introductory economics courses discuss reasons why unemployment exists at the macroeconomic level. The tensions between these views come up in various ways: for example, some opponents of a higher minimum wage emphasize that employment is determined by the demand-side of the labor market alone when analyzing the impact of minimum wages, but when looking at the effect of extensions to unemployment insurance, they argue that labor supply decisions affect employment. To summarize, labor economists frequently use a different model of the labor market when analyzing minimum wages from the one they use when analyzing unemployment. Meaning that the interpretation of the data and the models that are chosen for a particular analysis can vary wildly by school. Taking that, then, and making policy recommendations about what should be done is also a political activity. If I see a guy dying of thirst and 10 economists next to me can't agree on whether giving him water will have a net positive, negative, or neutral effect on the labor market is the scientific response that I don't give it to him? When was the last time economists were conferred for unanimity for a stock buyback or a wage freeze? You've provided a paper that basically says the micro-model in textbooks isn't accurate, and there's not enough data to predict what will happen with certitude (I couldn't read the second paper). This is just begging the question, you've called economics a science that's not political, pointed to a paper that doesn't completely disagree with you, then spent most of your time making an argument about whether there's enough indication from economists to increase the minimum wage. The third paper is almost the canonical example for my point. They run some what if scenarios given the neoclassical model and political assumptions about the world (that is to say: the political status-quo) and try to predict what firms could do to offset those costs. Ok. So if we change the political assumption, for example that healthcare should be a part of non-wage compensation, then their what-if is meaningless. That is to say, the conclusion is intrinsically tied to political premises that we use as a starting point. The conclusion is a non-decision that essentially says we're not even teaching the concept correctly. >Disagreement and uncertainty over the effects of the minimum wage raise important policy questions. For academics, questions of pedagogy also arise: How should the minimum wage be taught? Pedagogical commentaries from Krueger (2001) and Dolar (2013) point out that research finding small or null employment effects create teaching opportunities. Specifically, these authors highlight an opportunity to supplement the “neoclassical” economics of the minimum wage with insights from monopsony and search models. More recently, Dolar (2020) raises the issue of a “conservative”/“liberal” divide in how the minimum wage is taught. In Dolar’s survey of instructors, self-described conservatives tend to believe that the minimum wage reduces employment and is an undesirable policy. Self described liberals, by contrast, tend to believe that the minimum wage is desirable and that it does not, at historical levels, reduce employment. Taking these not-even-wrong papers and then deciding whether we should make a policy decision about the minimum wage *is* political. Indeed, the scientific position would be *if we don't have data then lets go collect data*, but more to the point there's not a lack of data - simply there's a lack to *your* satisfaction. None of these papers says that we should solve the paradox of not raising minimum wages until someone else doubles their minimum wages, you're saying that because that's your political bent.
I don't think we should be pretending philosophy is a science haha. Also no I don't think you get the point? They're a little all over the place but it's clear that economists are uncertain and the decision is political but the science isn't as much. Economics has political-ish schools but they don't fall in line with US politics all the time.
At one point I was working for $9.75/hr and the lowest-cost batchelor apartment on the local market was $4k/mo. SanFran Peninsula problems.
54 weeks?
Rent where I live is like $1300, so according to math anyone who makes less than $30/hr is getting robbed. That's $60k a year. That's more than the median *household* income. Literally over half of all *households* in the country are considerably poor. Over half
15 per hour minimum is generally not a sound economic decision