20 cents an hour

[lewisnotmiller]

What I am about to say is not directly related to the OP, but it is about disabled people. It's something that shocked me when a friend qualified for disability a while back. I could also mention how difficult it is to even get disability. It's so complicated that people get paid to assist applicants. The first one or two applications are routinely rejected, it seems. My friend applied and reapplied over a period of 18 months and eventually get her appeal supported in court. To be fair she did get 18 months back benefits paid.

Then they calculated how much she should get. They start with a standard amount (which may vary by person, I don't know that much about it). Then they start deducting stuff. If you have some income, off it comes. If you stay with people that don't charge you, or in some kind of subsidized facility, that has a standard "value". Off it comes. If someone helps you out financially, that comes off too, effectively making the gift of no value as the benefit is reduced by that amount, with the obvious result that a would-be charitable person will say screw this let the government pay it. Effectively, they are saying that if you are receiving any amount in benefit then there is a maximum income you are allowed to have at all.

You're talking about means tested benefits. That type of consideration doesn't only apply to disabled people, and it cuts both ways.

For example, I can't access solar energy rebates available to others due to means testing. This considers my wage (only) and doesn't make any allowance for costs, or the fact that my wife is not currently working.

Whether you agree with means testing benefits or not is a totally valid discussion, but not one that's limited to disabled people. Whereas paying below minimum wage to disabled people is a much more specific issue.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A couple of people here have mentioned a living wage, and that's where my head goes with this.
If that's too much of a leap, then at least consider it from a minimum wage point of view.

If, as a society, we decide we shouldn't be paying a person less than $20 an hour (as a round number...not saying that's actually it), then that's really the end of the story.

How we pay them that money is where we should focus our attention. If we want to encourage employers to employ people with disabilities, perhaps we offer a subsidy to cover an element of wage cost. The government could kick in $1, or $19 per hour...with vastly different costs and ramifications. But what shouldn't change is that the working individual gets enough money to live with basic dignity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A couple of people here have mentioned a living wage, and that's where my head goes with this.
If that's too much of a leap, then at least consider it from a minimum wage point of view.

If, as a society, we decide we shouldn't be paying a person less than $20 an hour (as a round number...not saying that's actually it), then that's really the end of the story.

How we pay them that money is where we should focus our attention. If we want to encourage employers to employ people with disabilities, perhaps we offer a subsidy to cover an element of wage cost. The government could kick in $1, or $19 per hour...with vastly different costs and ramifications. But what shouldn't change is that the working individual gets enough money to live with basic dignity.

Sounds like you are one of those dern socialists!! People working and expecting to get paid for it . . . Oh

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like that idea. And one needs to remember, The talents of many of these people will be under utilized. Perhaps besides working those that are able to move up and above should be provided with training. They could have their training paid for the by company that hired them with the companies getting a bonus if the employee is able to move out of a subsidized program to making money on their own. Winning all the way around if that happens.

 

[MikeF]

A couple of people here have mentioned a living wage, and that's where my head goes with this.
If that's too much of a leap, then at least consider it from a minimum wage point of view.

If, as a society, we decide we shouldn't be paying a person less than $20 an hour (as a round number...not saying that's actually it), then that's really the end of the story.

How we pay them that money is where we should focus our attention. If we want to encourage employers to employ people with disabilities, perhaps we offer a subsidy to cover an element of wage cost. The government could kick in $1, or $19 per hour...with vastly different costs and ramifications. But what shouldn't change is that the working individual gets enough money to live with basic dignity.

What constitutes enough money to live with basic dignity?

What constitutes basic dignity?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What constitutes enough money to live with basic dignity?

What constitutes basic dignity?

Philosophically, there's plenty to discuss with this. But I was trying to be simple and pragmatic.
So a living wage. Or at least equivalent of the minimum wage.

Those are vastly different in the USA, and a little different in Australia, but basically being able to provide shelter and food for oneself via work.

From memory, the current minimum wage for an adult in Australia is around $21/hour or so.

 

[PureX]

IMO

No, the purpose of business is business.

That's nonsensical. Like saying the purpose of sports is to be sporting. It's a meaningless tautology.

 

[PureX]

Shouting now?

I don't think an argument has been put forward to pay able-bodied people less than the minimum wage, unless you are putting teenagers into the category of the disabled.

The ability of one's body is irrelevant. Many jobs require no particular physical abilities to perform. This is about employers looking for ecuses not to compensate people for their time and the use of their mind. And it's wrong to support that kind of bigoted exploitation. Old, teens, handicapped, none of this matters. Because it's the purpose of commerce to serve humans, not the purpose of human to serve commerce.

To your point above, should we also take away the home mortgage deduction, any take breaks related to having children, being married etc? Why allow breaks and incentives for those choices at the expense of others who make different choices? Why give any exceptions, deductions etc, based on life experience and life choices? Why not simply have an impartial tax bill strictly tied to earnings?

Taxation has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[PureX]

What constitutes enough money to live with basic dignity?

What constitutes basic dignity?

It's not rocket science. In the U.S. it would probably be somewhere around $18-$22 an hour depending on where one lives.

 

[MikeF]

Philosophically, there's plenty to discuss with this. But I was trying to be simple and pragmatic.
So a living wage. Or at least equivalent of the minimum wage.

Those are vastly different in the USA, and a little different in Australia, but basically being able to provide shelter and food for oneself via work.

From memory, the current minimum wage for an adult in Australia is around $21/hour or so.

I am an advocate for a minimum standard of living, or as you put it, to live with basic dignity. What I find difficult is how to not only define it, but how to implement it. When I asked you what constitutes living in basic dignity, I was more interested in a description of the living conditions you consider to be basically dignified. Does it constitute housing with a bedroom separate from the rest of the living area? Certainly it would include toilet facilities, but must they be in the persons unit, or can they be communal? Should laundry facilities be in the unit, in the building, or simply available in the neighborhood? Some have suggested it includes cable service, cell phone, and an automobile. We must also consider nutritional requirements and clothing. To what standard should one be compensated to meet basic dignity. Is it enough to be able to shop groceries at Walmart or other discount retailers? For clothing, are charity shops and stores that sell good used clothing sufficient to meet basic dignity, or does dignity require something more?

And after all these needs have been met, what about pocket money, discretional spending, entertainment? How much is required to live in dignity?

Now, is society going to guarantee this minimum standard of living regardless of ones ability or willingness to work? How do we determine ability and what types of jobs fit those abilities? What if one is only able to fulfill non-skilled jobs, for whatever reason, yet such work makes them miserable? Should one be *forced* to do some type of work to receive their minimum standard of living regardless the amount of mental or physical dissatisfaction they may experience? Must everyone be happy in the work they do to meet the definition of basic dignity?

Where we draw these lines can have a huge impact on the economy, affect peoples incentives to work, etc.

Most people live in market economies. If everyone at the bottom is given a boost in income, the demand for goods and services, as well as improved housing will go up, which in turn will put upward pressure on pricing. We could end up with a situation in which prices reset such that they remain just as unaffordable for those at the bottom as they were before a universal minimum income.

I favor a minimum standard of living, I just think we need to keep all the complexities and ramification to the forefront of our mind as we try and make decision about it.

 

[MikeF]

It's not rocket science. In the U.S. it would probably be somewhere around $18-$22 an hour depending on where one lives.

I think it does require "rocket science". See my post #30.

 

[MikeF]

That's nonsensical. Like saying the purpose of sports is to be sporting. It's a meaningless tautology.

OK, how is this: The purpose of business is not social engineering, as you suggest.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am an advocate for a minimum standard of living, or as you put it, to live with basic dignity. What I find difficult is how to not only define it, but how to implement it. When I asked you what constitutes living in basic dignity, I was more interested in a description of the living conditions you consider to be basically dignified. Does it constitute housing with a bedroom separate from the rest of the living area? Certainly it would include toilet facilities, but must they be in the persons unit, or can they be communal? Should laundry facilities be in the unit, in the building, or simply available in the neighborhood? Some have suggested it includes cable service, cell phone, and an automobile. We must also consider nutritional requirements and clothing. To what standard should one be compensated to meet basic dignity. Is it enough to be able to shop groceries at Walmart or other discount retailers? For clothing, are charity shops and stores that sell good used clothing sufficient to meet basic dignity, or does dignity require something more?

And after all these needs have been met, what about pocket money, discretional spending, entertainment? How much is required to live in dignity?

Now, is society going to guarantee this minimum standard of living regardless of ones ability or willingness to work? How do we determine ability and what types of jobs fit those abilities? What if one is only able to fulfill non-skilled jobs, for whatever reason, yet such work makes them miserable? Should one be *forced* to do some type of work to receive their minimum standard of living regardless the amount of mental or physical dissatisfaction they may experience? Must everyone be happy in the work they do to meet the definition of basic dignity?

Where we draw these lines can have a huge impact on the economy, affect peoples incentives to work, etc.

Most people live in market economies. If everyone at the bottom is given a boost in income, the demand for goods and services, as well as improved housing will go up, which in turn will put upward pressure on pricing. We could end up with a situation in which prices reset such that they remain just as unaffordable for those at the bottom as they were before a universal minimum income.

I favor a minimum standard of living, I just think we need to keep all the complexities and ramification to the forefront of our mind as we try and make decision about it.

I think you're over-complicating this, although I'm not sure why.
However, let's run through a few of the points you've raised.

1) In both posts I've made, I didn't refer to a 'minimum standard of living'. What I referred to was a living wage. This isn't a theoretical concept, but is an published economic indicator. It obviously changes from country to country. In my country, it is currently estimated at around $25/hour in Australia.

2) $21.38/hour is the current minimum wage in Australia.

3) In real terms, it's hard to actually live on a minimum wage. I'd prefer we moved (over time) to a living wage. But...as I stated in both earlier posts...it's fine if we look at the minimum wage as the standard. My point holds regardless.

4) An adult should be paid this minimum wage for their labour. Full stop. That shouldn't change because of a disability. Pretty simple. That seems to me a matter of practical and real protection of their human dignity. This isn't about whether they can afford a 2 bedroom flat, or 1. It's not about whether they can afford a smartphone or not. It's about whether a disabled adult should have the same legal protection from underpayment as a non-disabled person.

5) At no stage did I mention forcing people to work. What I mentioned was ensuring the take home wage for disabled persons meets the minimum requirement already set for non-disabled persons. Because...they are people. Basic dignity. Government subsidies could be used to bridge the gap between the take home wage of the employee and the cost to a business, although there would be levels to that discussion outside this initial point.

If you want to talk more deeply on the economic impact you're suggesting this measure would have, go your hardest and I'm more than happy to respond on those elements.

 

[MikeF]

I think you're over-complicating this, although I'm not sure why.
However, let's run through a few of the points you've raised.

1) In both posts I've made, I didn't refer to a 'minimum standard of living'. What I referred to was a living wage. This isn't a theoretical concept, but is an published economic indicator. It obviously changes from country to country. In my country, it is currently estimated at around $25/hour in Australia.

2) $21.38/hour is the current minimum wage in Australia.

3) In real terms, it's hard to actually live on a minimum wage. I'd prefer we moved (over time) to a living wage. But...as I stated in both earlier posts...it's fine if we look at the minimum wage as the standard. My point holds regardless.

4) An adult should be paid this minimum wage for their labour. Full stop. That shouldn't change because of a disability. Pretty simple. That seems to me a matter of practical and real protection of their human dignity. This isn't about whether they can afford a 2 bedroom flat, or 1. It's not about whether they can afford a smartphone or not. It's about whether a disabled adult should have the same legal protection from underpayment as a non-disabled person.

5) At no stage did I mention forcing people to work. What I mentioned was ensuring the take home wage for disabled persons meets the minimum requirement already set for non-disabled persons. Because...they are people. Basic dignity. Government subsidies could be used to bridge the gap between the take home wage of the employee and the cost to a business, although there would be levels to that discussion outside this initial point.

If you want to talk more deeply on the economic impact you're suggesting this measure would have, go your hardest and I'm more than happy to respond on those elements.

I'm not sure what the exact distinction is between a 'minimum standard of living' and a 'living wage'. How did those who publish the 'living wage' determine what that is, or means? What does 'living' mean to the economists?

I did introduce the concept of a universal basic income, however, I think it can be considered either an alternative or supplemental approach to meeting this criteria of "a living standard that meets basic dignity". It is those material requirements that are going to dictate what income is required to satisfy those requirements. I would think we are putting the cart before the horse if we are not coming to some agreement on what societies expectations are. One poster here sees the minimum as being able to live alone, afford a car (with all its associated expenses), cell phone and internet, food and clothes and probably some level of discretionary spending. Is this your criteria as well? That poster said this should apply to every and any job. You seem to be making an exception for teenagers, as you stress adult workers for your minimum wage.

I also think we are loosing sight of the fact that "disability" or "level of disabledness" is a huge spectrum. Obviously, if someone is considered disabled in some way but performs a job at the same level and expectation as everyone else, then there should be no question that they should be paid exactly the same as everyone else. But what if they cannot perform at the same level? What if they can do *some* things but take significantly longer and/or require more supervision? Do we write them off and just provide social assistance to meet their needs or do we try to accommodate them in some way if possible. If we accommodate, who carries the burden of that accommodation, the employer or society as a whole?

My concern is that we are judging this issue of some disabled people being paid below minimum wage only on criteria of wage, without consideration that their wage may be part of a complete accommodation package or plan that meets or exceeds the requirement of a 'living wage'. That is why we cannot make a snap judgement based on a headline, but must consider all the factors involved in each specific case. Abuse may very well be occurring, we simply cannot determine it solely on hourly wage, in my opinion. The claim of 22 cents/hour does seem extreme under any conditions but I could see where, for the severely mentally disabled, "work" is more social and therapeutic, with heavy supervision, and 22 cents an hour is simply token earnings for a commissary account that provides some personal spending choices in an institutional environment.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not sure what the exact distinction is between a 'minimum standard of living' and a 'living wage'. How did those who publish the 'living wage' determine what that is, or means? What does 'living' mean to the economists?

You're not Australian, so be aware the examples I am giving are Aussie. But the same basic concept and theories apply more universally. A 'living wage', as I have mentioned, is an economic indicator. It's effectively the end result of research into what is required to generate a minimum standard of living. These are commonly published, and then used in submissions by trade unions and other groups to support wage increases. Whereas a minimum wage is a legal definition, with the amount set by the Fair Work Commission, and is often a compromise between what the economy can support, trade union lobby groups and business lobby groups, a living wage is a more direct evaluation of the cost of living, and is commonly re-evaluated annually.
For an example of what goes into this, consider the following;

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017-08/apo-nid103781_1.pdf

Arguing about how the living wage is calculated goes beyond the scope of this thread, and is tangential. Feel free to start another thread on that. My point is much simpler. There are already calculated and published living wages which take into account the various factors you are raising. I don't need to articulate and review these, I can simply refer to the end product of more effective research done by a peak body. And if you disagree with their number (approx $25/hour for Australia) it makes exactly no difference to my argument. By all means, use our minimum wage as the measure (approx $21/hour in Australia). The argument is EXACTLY THE SAME.

I did introduce the concept of a universal basic income, however, I think it can be considered either an alternative or supplemental approach to meeting this criteria of "a living standard that meets basic dignity". It is those material requirements that are going to dictate what income is required to satisfy those requirements. I would think we are putting the cart before the horse if we are not coming to some agreement on what societies expectations are. One poster here sees the minimum as being able to live alone, afford a car (with all its associated expenses), cell phone and internet, food and clothes and probably some level of discretionary spending. Is this your criteria as well? That poster said this should apply to every and any job. You seem to be making an exception for teenagers, as you stress adult workers for your minimum wage.

I'm not doing anything except tying wages for disabled workers to the same index we use for non-disabled workers. That's it. The current index is the minimum wage ($21). I would hope to move to a living wage over time ($25). There are differences in the minimum wage for adults vs youth, hence why I was careful to state that my figures were for Australian adults. You're complicating this needlessly by bringing in all sorts of considerations that would happily sit in their own thread, and have no impact on the basic premise I am suggesting.

I also think we are loosing sight of the fact that "disability" or "level of disabledness" is a huge spectrum. Obviously, if someone is considered disabled in some way but performs a job at the same level and expectation as everyone else, then there should be no question that they should be paid exactly the same as everyone else. But what if they cannot perform at the same level? What if they can do *some* things but take significantly longer and/or require more supervision? Do we write them off and just provide social assistance to meet their needs or do we try to accommodate them in some way if possible. If we accommodate, who carries the burden of that accommodation, the employer or society as a whole?

I am not losing sight of any such thing, but unless we can get some simple understanding on the basic premise I am suggesting, there seems little point in going further. For what it's worth, an independent body should assess cases where a disability impacts on the ability of an individual to perform a given work task, and the minimum wage could be adjusted down, with a threshold in place to prevent it being moved to (for example) 22c an hour.

My concern is that we are judging this issue of some disabled people being paid below minimum wage only on criteria of wage, without consideration that their wage may be part of a complete accommodation package or plan that meets or exceeds the requirement of a 'living wage'. That is why we cannot make a snap judgement based on a headline, but must consider all the factors involved in each specific case. Abuse may very well be occurring, we simply cannot determine it solely on hourly wage, in my opinion. The claim of 22 cents/hour does seem extreme under any conditions but I could see where, for the severely mentally disabled, "work" is more social and therapeutic, with heavy supervision, and 22 cents an hour is simply token earnings for a commissary account that provides some personal spending choices in an institutional environment.

22 cents an hour isn't 'token earnings', it's insulting, and flies in the face of concepts like 'basic dignity'. If you are suggesting this might be an occasion where the 'employees' are actually patients in a care facility, the work is of no commercial value, and they are using real money as tokens for the patients to buy personal items from a facility cafeteria or store, I'd STILL suggest using actual money (at a rate of 22c an hour) is both ridiculous and open to rorting, and that they should instead NOT call the patients employees, NOT pay them in money, and instead provide them tokens or credits. But for a moment let's let that slide, since as far as I am aware you have no reason to think that is actually what's happening. I have no doubt, for what it's worth, that 22c is the most extreme outlier example the journalist could find. But again...that makes NO difference to my basic premise.

So stop complicating it, and make it simple.
Do you agree with the basic premise that all people should be protected by the same minimum wage considerations as a general rule of thumb, regardless of whether they are disabled or not?
Do you agree that exceptions to this basic premise should require a level of oversight and governance to ensure disabled workers are not being exploited, and should not be considered 'normal'?

 

[MikeF]

So stop complicating it, and make it simple.
Do you agree with the basic premise that all people should be protected by the same minimum wage considerations as a general rule of thumb, regardless of whether they are disabled or not?

Yes I do.

I just think deciding what that is is difficult and that expectations for that amount seem high, based on comments. As you say, topic for another thread.

Do you agree that exceptions to this basic premise should require a level of oversight and governance to ensure disabled workers are not being exploited, and should not be considered 'normal'?

Yes I do.

As to this second point, some seemed to argue for no exceptions, and in response, I tried to point out that there may be valid reasons for exceptions.

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure what the exact distinction is between a 'minimum standard of living' and a 'living wage'. How did those who publish the 'living wage' determine what that is, or means? What does 'living' mean to the economists?

I did introduce the concept of a universal basic income, however, I think it can be considered either an alternative or supplemental approach to meeting this criteria of "a living standard that meets basic dignity". It is those material requirements that are going to dictate what income is required to satisfy those requirements. I would think we are putting the cart before the horse if we are not coming to some agreement on what societies expectations are. One poster here sees the minimum as being able to live alone, afford a car (with all its associated expenses), cell phone and internet, food and clothes and probably some level of discretionary spending. Is this your criteria as well? That poster said this should apply to every and any job. You seem to be making an exception for teenagers, as you stress adult workers for your minimum wage.

Not for "every and any job", but to set the hourly wage rate in relation to a 40 hour week. And the reason I included the things I did as necessities is because they ARE necessities, now, in our current culture. To be without a personal vehicle in almost any part of the U.S. is to be trapped in poverty, as our entire nation is now designed around the automobile as it's primary method of transportation. And the same is true of the internet and a smart phone. One can live without them, but one will never escape poverty without them. And of course the same goes for secure living quarters with a toilet, shower, and basic kitchen. As well as access to a laundry. It doesn't matter what the minimum wage is if a person cannot find a job, and get to it on time and in a reasonably clean, dry, hygienic state. And this is going to require modern communication, transportation, and living quarters. And these are going to have to be determined for each single individual because we cannot just blindly assume that people can share these. It's both unrealistic and dangerous.

I also think we are loosing sight of the fact that "disability" or "level of disabledness" is a huge spectrum. Obviously, if someone is considered disabled in some way but performs a job at the same level and expectation as everyone else, then there should be no question that they should be paid exactly the same as everyone else. But what if they cannot perform at the same level? What if they can do *some* things but take significantly longer and/or require more supervision? Do we write them off and just provide social assistance to meet their needs or do we try to accommodate them in some way if possible. If we accommodate, who carries the burden of that accommodation, the employer or society as a whole?

Here is how we can eliminate this whole issue. We are ALL either more able and less able to do "job X". So let those who are able do those jobs, and let those who are not, do whatever jobs they are able to do. And make sure they are all being paid well enough for this that they can not only live, but can advance themselves in terms of their contribution and their compensation. As to those folks who are too disabled to do any of the jobs available, then if we value human life, we will be willing to see that they have what they need to live as best they are able, regardless of their inability to work at a job.

As to the idea that there are people who are able to work but just don't want to, this is mostly a myth. Most of the people being labeled that way are unemployed and unemployable for a whole host of reasons that our absurdly capitalist culture wants very much to ignore. Because we don't want to admit that we are a culture controlled by our own greed, that results in the grotesque exploitation and annihilation of those among us that for whatever reason just aren't any good at playing the big monopoly game. Alcoholics and drug addicts, the poor and therefor poorly educated, people that have been caught up in the penal system, and on and on. And there are millions and millions of them. Because we don't distribute labor according to the needs and abilities of the people, we distribute labor according how it will profit the capital investor. Everything is about profiting the capital investor. And that leaves millions of people people out of the game indefinitely. And so they fall into that subculture of drugs and alcohol and crime and anti-social craziness. And their numbers keep growing and growing as our system becomes more and more and more skewed in favor of the rich capitalist investor class and their profit margins.

 

[PureX]

OK, how is this: The purpose of business is not social engineering, as you suggest.

The purpose of commerce is to improve the well-being of everyone involved in it. Commerce that only improves the well-being of some of those involved in it at the expense of the others is called 'exploitation', not commerce. "Fair trade" means both sides gain what they need/want from the trade. When only one side gets all the advantage, it's called "unfair trade".