The entire idea of something called a "living wage" is simply a clever marketing phrase with no logic behind it. It's a trip for the non-thinking to the amusement park where roller coaster rides and distortion mirrors are plentiful. Step right up, shout out some nonsense, demand what can't be had and get a cheap thrill.
Do those who use the term mean that workers earning less than the 'living wage' aren't living? Do these people actually think that such workers don't eat, sleep and have cell phones? Are these workers supposed to be dead? It's time to step away from the distortion mirror. More accurately, low fast food wages should be called "First Step wages," since many use such jobs as an entre into the job market. The turnover in the fast food sector is huge (some estimates indicate 75% over a year), which should indicate the stepping stone nature of these jobs.
You know, I make $48/hr painting bridges, but now that I think about it, I'm not doing anywhere near as well as I ought to be. I have 4 kids in a 3 bedroom house, no money saved but plenty of debt, can't even afford to go on vacation.
ReplyDeleteYou call this living? I don't call this living. I want a "living wage" dammit! I'm gonna need AT LEAST $65, or even $70 an hour. Plus I want all my healthcare costs paid for by others. Also, I want everything over 30 hrs in a week to be OT (x1.5 wages), bur I demand at least 40 hrs a week.
After all, this is just a "living wage," & clearly I have a right to live, right?
It's only right. This is a matter of justice. I am OWED this much.