2) The second problem is people think "living wage" means an SUV every 4 years, a huge home, eating out, eating poorly, guaranteed this, and guaranteed that.
So.. go back to horse and buggies, millet, victory gardens, and chickens and goats for eggs and milk, and going to the local relief center for our daily allotment of Plumpy'nut??
Why not equate "living wage" to the lowest common denominator for the average human being on this planet?
Lots of people "get by" on a living wage of less than a $1/day.
Of course, they live in squalor..
Obviously, I say this with tongue planted firmly in cheek..
But it raises an obvious question of what a "living wage" actually should be? Should it be defined as what's needed for basic subsistence (cheapest food and shelter available)?
One obvious problem we seem to be facing is that the cost of labor is cheaper in less developed countries and that puts our labor force at a disadvantage. That "sucking sound" Perot referred to is being driven by this cheap labor and it's putting Americans out of work. That's just a reality, and not a political statement.
THUS, how do we mitigate this problem? Do we just accept that manufacturing jobs are destined to leave this country and focus on high-tech and global service and support skills? Or do we focus on training and intellectually equipping our young people to compete in these future industries? If we don't, it seems we'll be destined to provide for them via the welfare system.
Thus, I guess the question is whether our living wage is destined to be set by Bejing, Brazil, and New Delhi?
What say you Mish?
Hawk |
