 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Subsistence Wages (was Re:Actulalising anarchism) |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Andy F. |
 Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:438c0a69.71089995@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
[quote:fe30e7c47c]On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:08:40 -0000, "Andy F." <never.mind@tesco.net
wrote:
royls@telus.net> wrote in message
news:438b3fcb.19212268@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
On 27 Nov 2005 18:53:00 -0800, alex.j.k@gmail.com wrote:
Quirk wrote:
alex.j.k@gmail.com wrote:
Subsistence wage is the wage that permits one to live -- it is
_not_ the wage that lets you pose as a worry-free bourgeois in order
to
get chicks.
"Live" as in "Cost of Living," which in any meaningfull conversation
regarding politcal economy does not mean the minimum requirment to
keep
you alive.
In any meaningful conversation on political economy, "subsistence
wage" is _not_ the wage that lets you live the same life as the
community -- this is just a very silly definition by you, in your
comical attempts as saving face.
"Subsistence wage" is the wage needed for survival as the term
"subsistence" makes it quite clear.
Wrong. A subsistence wage is defined as the wage that just allows the
worker to keep working. A wage that allows the worker to survive but
makes him effectively unemployable is less than subsistence. In a
modern economy, a subsistence wage must include enough for the food,
clothing, shelter, utilities, hygiene expenses, etc. needed to
maintain the worker's employability, _without_ resort to charity,
including from government. Soup-kitchen and dumpster-diving survival
is not a subsistence wage.
It's more than that. A subsistence wage should enable the worker to raise
at
least 2 children. Otherwise, they will eventually stop working with no-one
to replace them.
Good point, but the child-rearing phase lasts only about half one's
working life.
It could be argued that average wages are in fact below subsistence level
in
most Western countries.
Hehe. Which would neatly explain why the birth rate is well below
replacement level, except that birth rate is apparently unrelated to
income...
It would be interesting to see some figures relating birth rates with[/quote:fe30e7c47c]
incomeand property prices. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a link.
Middle class people tend to wait until they have a decent place to live
before they start having children. With house prices what they are now, this
usually means two people getting well-paid jobs, paying off student loans,
saving up a deposit, buying a house with an enormous mortgage and then
getting far enough ahead of the mortgage payments to consider the extra
expense of having children.Because of this, women are often 30 years old
before they start having children, which makes it difficult to have large
families. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:36 pm
|
|