Originally Posted by
Kevin
One of the major issues I'm noticing in all these arguments is a sense of monetary value. Even within a single country, $5 in one place is not the same as $5 somewhere else. A standard of living is not quite as relevant (especially so in the United States) from one area to the next, when they aren't the same.
First let's look at the Twin Cities (a metropolitan area of around 5 million people within Minessota, United States): The standard of living here consists of *roughly* $650/month rent, $100-150 utilities and $150-400 food, depending on how one chooses to spend their money. It is also entirely possible to find apartments at $300/month or $1800/month. But that's not the standard, those are just adjustments if people wish to live nicer or live cheaper. Likewise, let's look at a medium sized metropolitan area of Iowa with around 600,000 people. The standard of living drops to about $450/month rent, $80 utilities and roughly the same in food (with of course much cheaper or more expensive rents existing). OR let's jump to the State of Washington and look at Seattle where a standard living is roughly $750/month rent $200 utilities and $200-500 food. And yes, there are plenty of cheaper AND more expensive cities within the U.S.A. alone.
Granted, my example states have different minimum wages, however they are NOT representative of those different costs. An Iowan minimum wage in the aforementioned metro area will absolutely cover 100% of bills with a significant portion of money still remaining, absolutely no problem. I think it's perfectly fine for McDonald's workers to earn $7.50 there, ESPECIALLY considering the fact that McDonalds has a fairly high turnover and anyone that actually dedicates themselves to staying even just 3 years is typically a manager with almost double the pay already. Maybe that example isn't a typical case, but from the number of friends I've had working both for McDonald's and Hardees and their testimonies, that applies (I will grant those testimonies are 100% within the Iowa area). However, in Seattle, if someone is getting paid $7.50 for that same work, I do NOT agree with that. Someone could live off that even still, but there would be absolutely no spare money, and they would be forced into a minimalist lifestyle (which actually suits many people just fine, but we're referring to standards, not what people are capable of). But even in that case, a pay of $11 or so would be plenty high considering the differences in costs of living in relation. Will they ever make it anywhere doing the bare minimum work at a McDonalds? Probably not, although with dedication they could reasonably hit the $20/hr mark even there - but it would earn enough to help pay for schooling or the necessary time to apply to other better jobs.
As it stands, I don't think there should be a universal pay raise, so much as a respective pay raise. But it can't be a government instated one either, simply due to the size and infrastructure of changes that would be required... Individual cities/metropolitans would require specific pays as opposed to other areas, because you could simply take Seattle's new minimum wage and simply live in a much cheaper portion of Washington. My 2 cents isn't the same as the next guy's 2 cents, and that's something that needs to be brought into consideration. How do they differ?
Another thing to take into account is how willing people are to actually use their money intelligently... I am quite capable of eating healthily and with variety off ~$100/month, but instead I get lazy and eat out and average ~$300/month instead. Being capable of living off of $1200/month and actually doing so are very different things...
Edit: Also, I've been gone for a month. Sup, everyone.