How is the Living Wage calculated? 

.
In this province I have heard of 'the poverty line', and 'minimum wages', but not of 'living wage'. I believe that the poverty line for a family of four is considerably below $62,000. Probably less than half that. And social assistance provides far less than the poverty line.
.
This is not to say that it can be easy raising a family on $62,000 a year in today's world - and housing is probably much more expensive in some parts of Canada than others (although it seems to me that to have a decent house in Fredericton is expensive - thank God we bought our house many years ago). I think other expenses would be about the same or perhaps higher and I recently heard that our universities are the most expensive in Canada.

Duplicate - my computer seems to have a mind of its own today.

Both of my children, neither thus far successful in economic terms, live far below the poverty line. It bites. Big time. I help a bit, as I can, but I'm not living high on the hog, myself, and they don't like to ask. Illness seems to be the big challenge. They can just cope, just meet their expenses, and then someone gets sick and has to take a little time off work, and they fall behind. Once they're behind, it's payday loans and the hock shop. Those don't help, and in fact, they get farther behind. It's a vicious cycle, and very hard to get off.

Been there, Bette- and we're not as young as your kids, probably. Thr past 2 years were rough financially.. We're doing better now, but the cost of living here is terribly high. We're probably just on the poverty line now. If either of us gets sick for a week, we'd be behind. If both of us gets sick for a week it would be a struggle to catch up. Neither of us has paid sick days. We accrue vacation pay and would likely collect that if we get sick- not for vacation. Sigh. I used to have a union job but those are hard to get- and fewer. However, my employer is otherwise fair, moreso than many, I think. I will be eligible for extended benefits soon enough.

minimum wage is NOT living wage in any part of Canada (and I would suggest it never will be and possibly should not be).  Here is a quote from one of the dovuments the Grande Prairie group put out:

More documentation is available here:
http://www.cityofgp.com/index.aspx?page=1731

I didn't look it up for the time, but I suspect that chemguy and I have lived below the poverty line when we actually had an income and that short time period was extrapolated to a year.  We've had periods with no income.  We've had times we've been above.

I've experienced being sick for the long term.  Despite paying into EI right before I couldn't collect.  I thought about taking sick leave - I wouldn't have been allowed to work without forfeiting future earnings and wouldn't have received any money.  Instead, I reduced my hours, my pay at the time was cut by more than half, but my tuition actually INCREASE by being part time, it was weird.

We've also made more than a living wage.

I've never actually felt poverty, when I had large amounts of lump sum payouts from scholarships I saved.  I saved when I lived with my parents and worked.  There were times when I was spending some of those savings, but I think it's expected to have periods when it's appropriate to do so.  It did stress me out a bit though, going through my savings not knowing when I would be building it up again.

I do realize I was privedged to live at home, work, and not have to help with food or rent.  It did allow me to save.  I know that not everyone has that opportunity.  I also know people who did have that opportunity and they managed to end up in debt at that time instead.

Being able to make enough money is an issue for some.  Simply being responsible with the money they do make is an issue for others.

It does seem to me that a "Living Wage" is elusive. The cost of living always rises before it can be realized.
Did you know that a person would need to work 80 hrs a week on minimum wage to make an actual living?

I agree ninjafaery, part of why I find the calls to make a minimum wage a living wage to be misguided.  Also what counts as a living wage in Grande Prairie would be different than in Toronto, or Come-by-Chance.  For example, I am guessing that the number in Atikokan (where I was for 9 years) would be much lower than it is here.

In looking closer I see that they assumed 52 weeks at 35hrs/wk in their calculations (where I used 40hrs for 50 weeks).  That brings the number down to $56 000.  Knowing this area and housing issues (we have an almost 0% vacancy rate) I have trouble thinking a family could live on that.

I agree with Gord, minimum wage isn't and shouldn't be a living wage.

Living wage is a term meant to describe something beyond minimum wage. "Minimum wage" is intended to be for entry level jobs and those starting out. Unfortunately, many people are trapped in minimum wage jobs, and they cannot make ends meet over time. The upward trajectory is becoming a thing of the past for many, especially as post-secondary education becomes less accessible to those who lack the means to get access to it.

We boomers, as a group, bear responsibility for this. Many of us have voted for and supported governments that have cut taxes, and developed monetary policy that is designed to support survival of the fittest thinking. It is our fault and I'm sorry to say that many of the oldest ones among us who are learning that the benefits they were relying on have been shredded are in shock and anger. We are reaping what we're sewing but unfortunately, taking many with us.

Living wage is about living...not losing ground every day, worrying about food on the table, our children's day to day lives, and the future, our own, our children's and the planet's. 

We are becoming poorer because a few are becoming much, much rich. We are now back to a gap between rich and poor that hasn't been this big since the 1920s.

The theory is that as the very rich accumulate money, they will invest it, creating jobs. But that's nonsense. Why on earth should they invest money to produce goods we can't buy?  Better to stuff it into offshore banks, or invest it in cheap labour courtest of free trade, or take advantage of unemployment here to smash unions, lower wages, and demand lower taxes for the rich. And,as the rich run up huge profits through inflated prices for, say, ice-breakers in the Arctic and tax breaks for themselves, raise taxes on the poor and cut their services to balance the budget.

Things happen for a reason. It is not just a shame that so many can barely survive. It's a deliberate policy to satisfy the unsatisfiable greed of the very rich.

The US has just cut $40 biillion dollars out of its food stamps system. That's so it can maintain its thoroughly corrupt spending on the defence industries. It has also reduced taxes on the super rich to their lowest level in living memory. And it has put the poor forever in debt to pay off the gift of over a trillion dollars to irresponsible banks.

These are questions the church needs to address, however it may annoy some people.

Around here, the living wage is considered to be $18.73/hour (wage + benefits). Victoria is an expensive city to live in.

Edit. Sorry I'm wrong. It's 19/ hr in Vancouver. Slightly more than Victoria. We each earn less than that and I am just below full time hours, but we have no kids so we can manage okay right now.

It's a seriously stupid policy because what drives capitalism is people spending money and anything that interferes with that is...well...not optimal.

Are these people who are doing that really that stupid?  Aren't they shooting themselves in their feet?

Gord, you are earning more than I am, housing included. You are indeed fortunate. Blame and shame for people on the margins is as old as time and just as wrong. It shows a total lack of understanding of the root causes of poverty.

Perhaps this has something to do with the living wage:

Duplicate

The irony is that while we are earning more (we are a single income family) here than in my settlement charge (which only paid minimum and where the housing equivalency for the manse was far far lower than housing costs here) we are likely closer to spending everything each month.  Welcome to the Alberta Advantage???

I think the ignorance  and blame and shame thing is stronger in Alberta (in general) and in this area in particular becaue of the belief that we are a "boom province", that there are always places looking for staff (whether those jos are something folk can live on is another question).  ALong with it is the oft-repeated comment that folks with addiction issues (the most visible of which are the homeless or near-homeless) should just decide not to use and then they can get ahead.

If only it were that simple!

OFF_TOPIC NOTE:

TO StephenBooth (or whatever other name you choose to be using these days)

just because you can not participate in this forum, and you found a blogpost on a related topic on my blog is not an invitation to bring this discussion (including quotes from this thread) into that space.  All further comments and lengthy scripture quotes by you will be marked as SPAM and deleted.

Thank you for understnading (or not as you so choose)

A though occurs as we try to define a "living wage"====

What is "living"?

Is it basic survival?

Is it allowing your children and yourselves to participate in sports or social programs? (the living wage document I referred to above for GP would not allow this)

Is it keeping up with the "Joneses"?

What is living?  What is the minimum for a satisfying life?

I've been wondering the same thing Gord.  What are our expectations?  I remember when having our own home, with separate bedrooms for the boys and girls, and enough food on the table was all I dared hope for.   There are many people in our city who still only dream of having a place of their own and not sharing a bathroom and kitchen with five or six strangers, and who wish that they didn't have to line up at our church for food vouchers.  In the meantime I hear others talk about cruises or trips to Europe or concerts.  My grandchildren's electronics are not a luxury but a necessity - the schools expect the kids to have them. 

I've been wondering the same thing Gord.  What are our expectations?  I remember when having our own home, with separate bedrooms for the boys and girls, and enough food on the table was all I dared hope for.   There are many people in our city who still only dream of having a place of their own and not sharing a bathroom and kitchen with five or six strangers, and who wish that they didn't have to line up at our church for food vouchers.  In the meantime I hear others talk about cruises or trips to Europe or concerts.  My grandchildren's electronics are not a luxury but a necessity - the schools expect the kids to have them. 

There seem to be many assumptions about what is necessary and what families can afford.  I recall having no 'spare' money for extras that hadn't been budgetted for.  We had an modest house, a car for times when one was essential, food (providing I was very frugal and used my time and knowledge to prepare healthy economical meals and lunches for school days), clothing (almost none that was new).  Our kids couldn't play ice hockey, take swimming lessons, belong to a dance or gymnastics club or anything that required registration or participation fees.  They played outside, went for hikes and bike hikes, used the library and learned cooking and household maintenance skills.

Our income was low for the number of people it had to support but with planning and caution the essentials were afforded.  Glasses we managed but broken glasses were a disaster!

What provided the most stress was the unplanned 'special' meals at the schools (Please send two dollars for pizza on Thursday) , learning that the children were to take skates to school next week for Phys Ed at the rink (none of them had skates or even enjoyed skating),   When the children started to participate in school sports things became quite difficult.  School sports meant travel to other communities for tournaments etc - all the coaches asked for money for meals at a fast food place.  This I found problematic for several reasons.  The food offered isn't healthy and nutritious, it doesn't provide good value for the money spent and it reinforces the idea that eating healthy packed lunches is somehow 'not good enough'.

They were toughish times financially but good nevertheless.

How far do you have to walk to collect water? 

I flip flop when it comes to issues of poor decision.  I've seen people who flunked out of university because they partied all the time.  Was it an addiction or other mental health issue, or were they just irresponsible?  If they can't get a good paying job because of it what types of 'extras' do they deserve?

What about people who are living near the poverty line because they decided to take out the max amount of student loans, while going on expensive trips, buying expensive food and drinks when going out, etc.

I know someone who complains about not being able to afford a bus ride to visit family at Christmas and tries to get a ride.  We went out for her birthday and the restaurant she picked (with many students present) was way more than any restaurant we would have picked for just the two of us, let alone that group.  She goes to the restaurant about once/week.  I have no problem with that choice, but it gets frustrating when you hear about how money is tight from someone like that.

What about people who choose to have children when they are already living paycheque to paycheque?  Someone could be doing fine financially, and then something happens once they have kids already, but that situation is a little different.

If health isn't an issue, is it unreasonable to expect both parents to work if they are barely scrapping by when only one is working?  Does it change whether the kids are young or school aged?

Both parents working? Outside the home? If both can get jobs. If it is really necessary.

Parenting is itself work, and more productive in the long term than a second income.

My wife and i  chose to live poor (on an income that was about half the notional "poverty level of the day") to ensure that our daughter had a parent at home, parented full time, until she was six. My wife was training for ministry. It was actually a very full and happy time. A friend and I ran a weekly vege co-op for the seminary (with our daughter on my shoulders) — he had a car and we used a borrowed trailer —and we ate reasonably well on leftovers from the vege co-op. (I got good at making banana cakes and muffins because we often had extra bananas thanks to the way they were auctioned.)

I was the "homemaker" and used my old journalist contact books to take our little girl on "adventures"… backstage at the local professional theatre, to police stations and fire halls, tto a local marae (Maori tribal centre), to parks and sports clubs, to the beach, kite-flying… a local orchestra in rehearsal. We spent time with the keepers at the zoo, at free galleries and (on rainy days) in the museum… things like that, all free, all involving walking and bumming rides with friends.

It amazed me how willing most people were to hang out with a little girl and her dad for a while during working hours, or at lesat let us watch. We had a ball together. And, after that, once she was settled into school, I tried to work scherdules that maximised the time we had together to get into a lot of direct experience of the world around us instead of television and "entertainment". She still appreciates that and, at 30, is doing pretty much the same sort of thing, though in a different way (she's a nurse, juggling part-time shifts and holiday entitlements to maximise parenting while retaining a profession standing).

My personal feeling is that full-on parenting is more in line with the way we have evolved to be human and that it resources a child for life rather better than the alternatives. 

If you need to work to eat, I can understand that priority. If it's about maintaining a level of consumption, I would question the priorities. Raising a kid with the message that your greed's more important than his or her place in the family is socially irresponsible: others will bear the cost down the line, including your child and your child's eventual partner/spouse.

I doesn't sound like you were complaining about not being able to make ends meet.

We weren't complaining.

It was a choice.

Poverty, though,  is NOT usually a choice so a lot of people are poor without that intention or capacity to adapt, and that can be very tough.

We were having fun. That's always been a priority.

That's not to say our ends were actually meeting back then… they kind of swung by each other from time to time. And we sometimes went hungry… not our daughter though. It depends, I guess, on priorities. If yours is money, don't have kids: they cost.

Check out:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/street-person-donates-2k-to-youth-ce...

"A Yellowknifer who spent most of 40 years on the streets is giving back to the community in a big way. Charles Delorme, known by many as "Charlie," recently donated money from his residential school settlement to a local youth centre.

Garry Hubert, executive director of the SideDoor Youth Centre, says Charlie walked into the centre for the first time, said he wanted to give the centre something and handed him a folded piece of paper. That piece of paper turned out to be a certified cheque for $2,000 made out to the SideDoor.

"I thought it was a mistake," says Hubert. "I thought it might be $20. I thought it might have been $200. When I saw all the zeros, you know —- $2000 — my eyes watered."

The SideDoor Youth Centre holds programs for at-risk youth and provides overnight shelter for teens. Delorme recently got his compensation for a residential school claim. He says he used to work with kids many years ago, and he just wanted to do something worthwhile.​

It was our choice to find ways to manage on one income.  We didn't see much point in choosing to have children and then paying someone else to take care of them.

When we did the math involved at the time we actually had more availalbe funds if one parent stayed home.  In our case the second parent was only able to earn  minimum wage or a little bit more.  By the time we factored in child care costs, clothing costs, extra food cost (because there wloud be no one able to shop during sales or to cook more time demanding meals) and transportation costs it didn't look good for us.  The little bit of extra money earned would mean paying more income tax too.  It just wasn't worth it.