In the symposium today, we had
quite a long discussion on the topic of minimum wage, workers contracts, and whether
or not people were forced into working for lower income. One of the many people
portraying Marx suggested that the workers were being forced into accepting
jobs with a lower level of income, because they didn’t have another choice. The
Nozicks claimed that the worker did not have anyone holding a gun to their
head forcing them into accepting that job. Dr. J further claimed, on behalf of
the Nozicks, that the person could simply choose not to work. I, however, have
to agree that people could be coerced, in a sense, into taking a job that they
believe is below what their work is worth. Someone that is highly qualified for
a well paying job, but cannot find a job in their field of interest, would
accept something below what they think they are entitled to make if that was
what they need to do to survive or provide for their family.
We briefly mentioned minimum wage,
and I think someone stated that it would be impossible to live off the amount
of money that you would earn at a minimum wage salary. If we roughly estimate
that someone works forty hours a week, that would be two thousand and eighty
hours a year – which would be about $15,080 yearly before taxes. If we use 15%
tax to estimate on the low end this person would take home about $1,068 a
month. Obviously some living factors are going to greatly depend on where you
are living. Let us estimate that you are living where your rent is somewhere
between $400-$500 a month. You can also buy groceries for about $200, and your
utilities will be about $40-$50. Using the higher end of these numbers, you
will spend about $750 a month solely on your expenses. That will leave you with
about $300 a month to do with as you please – some of which will go toward cell
phone bills and gas. So, it is possible to live off of a minimum wage job,
albeit, very frugally. There really would not be room to have anything go
wrong. If you had to go to the emergency room or needed a car part fixed or had
any sort of emergency, you might not have the money that you need to pay those
expenses.
This was a very interesting part of the symposium, and I think that it is obviously possible to live on minimum wage, but that is assuming that everything goes perfectly. As you said the person would have $300 a month leftover to spend on what they want, ideally the money would be put into savings but a lot would have to go to cell phone bills and gas as you point out. Since we have been talking about Marx, would you consider minimum wage to be what he would consider a mere subsistence level? If so what does that say about or society, does this mean that Marx is right and a revolution will happen soon?
ReplyDeleteThe argument about being coerced to take a low paying job was a very interesting one I thought. The Nozicks of the group argued that you can complain all you want about how awful your job is and about how little it pays you, but you still willingly and freely entered in an agreement with the employer that you would do X amount of work for Y amount of money. But what a lot of the Marxs brought up was that even though someone was not holding a gun to your head, your other option does lead to death, so in a sense not having any money from deciding not to work is like having a gun to your head. So many people do take jobs that they do not want because they have to provide for themselves and their families. These minimum wage jobs leave little wiggle room for anything but basic necessities. I think this leads to a dangerous cycle. Although there have been people that have pulled themselves out of poverty and come out on top, it is hard when someone is unable to buy themselves nice work clothes and invest in a good education for themselves to miraculously pull themselves out of their situation. It is a very hard task and does not happen often or easily. And this inability to buy nice clothes or invest in education is also suffered by their children, who end up in the same position as their parents because the cycle is hard to break. So though Nozick has a solid argument for his philosophy, is it really what is best for everyone? Or just best for those select few that do get to enjoy making a lot of money and having nice things?
ReplyDeleteThis argument is one that could have a plethora of different situations and stipulations behind it so for the most part I will be speaking in a very general since. I realize that there are so many situations where it is very difficult for people to change there socioeconomic state, but I also think that if there is a will there is a way. Sure, it is very difficult to work to get a high paying job, but there is almost always a way for us to work around what you have been given to reach a goal.
ReplyDeleteI do agree however that people believe that there is no other way alot of the times then just going for what they know they can do and that is still very respectable. But, I also say there is always a way out whether it is going back to school taking out a loan or just merely working harder. If you have enough zeal towards reaching your goal I think you can do it.
Also, it is very alarming to see how much money it would take to reach the bare minimum of life. I think that is absurd because that is a large sum of money needed for things. Furthermore that doesn't seem like a large enough sum of money for someone that works 365 days.