Subsistence Wages (was Re:Actulalising anarchism)


<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:438c0a69.71089995@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:08:40 -0000, "Andy F." <never.mind@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>><royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:438b3fcb.19212268@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 27 Nov 2005 18:53:00 -0800, alex.j.k@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>
>>>>Quirk wrote:
>>>>> alex.j.k@xxxxxxxxx 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
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.



.