Michael Shedlock on living wages:

Living Wages

The above viewpoint will undoubtedly bring up endless chater about a "living wage". The problems with "living wages" are many.

Somehow a "living wage" has morphed into a new SUV every 4 years, a 4 bedroom 2,200 square foot home (or better), flat panel TVs in 3 rooms, cell phones for every member of the household, etc. etc.

The first problem with "living wages" is unrealistic lifestyle expectations and attempts to live far beyond ones means. A second and bigger problem, as I have pointed out many times, is that concern ought to be how far the dollar goes (not how many dollars one makes).

If government would stop wasting trillions of dollars in needless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we could cut out stimulus spending, stop propping up banks at the expense of taxpayers, stop giving handouts to home builders (and everyone else), and in general just get the hell out of the way, wages would fall (but prices would fall even more), and the purchasing power of the dollar would rise.

If the US slashed corporate income taxes and had a genuine free trade policy (regardless of what any other country does), small business hiring in the US would soar.

Instead, sheep scream for the wolves in Congress to protect them while union leaders prey on their own flock. Never before in history have so many sheep begged to be watched by wolves. Yet, this should not be surprising given we live in a world where sheep are taught to be sensitive to the needs of wolves.

How about earning enough money to support one's family, secure decent housing, and to enable that at least one parent is able to stay home to raise and possibly even teach the children? Can one do that on $20,000 a year anywhere in the U.S.? Probably not in California. And what of the rights of native Californians to live in the area where they were born and raised, and where family currently resides? If the nature of the job is such that it does not require much skill or thinking, then maybe the problem is with the system for not providing not enough opportunities for people to use the skills that they can and do have, rather than with the people.