How Rich are You on a Global Scale?

[binary solo]

DonFerrari said:

zehh25 said:

DonFerrari said:

Yes... being poor in USA is better than being middle class in brazil, and being very poor in Brazil (let's face that who earn minimum wage in brazil even if poor on brazilian reality and very poor on US standards) is still better than most people in Zambia or Zimbabwe.

I wouldn't say its is better being poor in US than being middle class in Brazil, but maybe being a lower middle class here is indeed worse than being poor there. I think with our minimum wage it would be impossible to live in US to be honest, although it seems acceptable in any South American country (excluding Brazil, ironically, and maybe Chile). But I believe that increasing it too much would result in more unemployment and inflation in a short period, maybe in 15-20 years it will be in a better situation.

Minimum wage is a useless concept, but I won't enter in that. There are a lot of people in USA that would be considered poor in USA standard that would have basic sanitary, eletricity, a house and two cars while the middle class here can't (the one defined by the government by having per capita income of 200,00 to 500,00 dollars a month... over that it's upper class). As I said, people think they are poorer than they are.

Why not? This thread is meant to stimulate discussion about wealth, economic systems and such. The concept of minimum wage (for or against) is part of economic thinking and has an impact on wealth distribution and living standards. A lot of developed countries are moving beyond minimum wage and are now thinking in terms of "living wage", which is a calculation of how much a person needs to meet the basic necessities of life in their locality. Where I live a calculation of a living wage comes in at $17.50/hr for a 40 hr week. Current minimum wage is $14.75. So it's clear that even for a single person with no dependants the minimum wage is insufficient to have a reasonable standard of living here. It is always the case that minimum wage lags behind cost of living increases, so people on minimum wage are always falling furhter and further towards or below the poverty line. A living wage is always being recalculated to ensure it remains a minimum viable level of income. 

Peronsally my radical theory that requires no need to force employers to pay a minimum or living wage is for the govt to not try to force people into work and to pay people who choose not to work the minimum necessary to live to a minimum standard. That way, people can confidently opt out of crappy soul-destroying low paid work without having to worry about how they will feed themselves / their family. This means employers have to compete against being paid for not working, which means they will pay higher than the minimum needed for basic living, and thus a minimum wage does not need to be legislated.

The vast majoiry of people want to be productive, and so the vast majoriy of people will prefer to do paid work that is above the non-working minimum. And morden economies require at least 4-4.5% of people to be out of work anyway, so even if 4% of people are total lazy arses the end result isn't actually that big of a burden on govt expenditure. Plus there are other benefits to govt expenditure in healthcare and crime, because people will generally be happier with life.