You can't be for both a living wage, and equal pay for equal work
By Taskr36
@Taskr36 (13963)
United States
May 4, 2017 3:21pm CST
Imagine two people work for the same employer. They have the same job, same responsibilities, and equal credentials and experience.
Employee A is single, rents a cheap apartment, and owns one car.
Employee B has a stay-at-home wife, three kids, a large house, and 2 cars.
The "living wage" standard would require that employee B earn more than employee A, but the "equal work for equal pay" standard would mean they get paid equally.
As such, you can support one, the other, or neither. You can't support both.
1 person likes this
2 responses
@boiboing (13153)
• Northampton, England
4 May 17
Maybe it's different in your country but in the UK the 'living wage' is defined as "a wage that is high enough to maintain a normal standard of living." So it's not an amount that's adjusted according to personal circumstances. If one person's lifestyle is more expensive than the normal and another's is less expensive, that doesn't mean their wage should be adjusted.
Why should the man with the stay at home wife get paid more? He chose to have a large house and two cars and three kids.
So when a 'living wage' is defined that way, there's no conflict between equal pay and living wage.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
10 May 17
So forget the stay at home wife. Let's make it a single mom with 3 kids. Is her living wage equal to that of a single man? Surely she can't live off the same salary as a single man, who only needs enough money for himself. She needs money for food, clothing, childcare, etc. for herself AND 3 kids.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
10 May 17
There's also the matter of what's "normal." In the US, it's normal to have cable television, computer, high speed internet, a smart phone with a data plan, and many other luxuries. Another mylotter actually flipped out and blocked me because I called these things luxuries. We're literally so rich in this country that many people can't tell the difference between a luxury and a necessity.
@boiboing (13153)
• Northampton, England
10 May 17
@Taskr36 you can't expect an employer to pay somebody more because they are married or have children. The pay is for the work done. If you had to pay a mother more than a single person, then nobody with kids would get jobs - the employers wouldn't be willing to pay more for the same work.
The point is that 'living wage' is a calculated target and that has to be based on an average set of circumstances. Next you'll be saying we should pay a doctor the same as a street cleaner because they both have two kids. The Chinese tried that in the early days of communism and it just didn't work.
@Plethos (13560)
• United States
4 May 17
bingo! your on point.
ive tried using a similar example with people but they dont see it. this equality stuff doesnt work because we all have different individual lifestyles. so what they are in essence really asking for is lifestyle pay not equal pay.
1 person likes this
