The Living Wage goal

My starting point in social policy is that everyone should live above the threshold of poverty (understood in material terms) irrespective of any other factor.
This is not a natural right (for in the state of nature people simply die of hunger if they are unable to feed themselves) but an acquired right in the same way as freedom of expression and freedom of association, which should be absolute (a political imperative) but are not in any way innate or universal but are enacted as a result of political action and struggle.
I also understand that we are living in a capitalist economy which is based on labour being given value as a commodity and that this is the only economy which has so far worked in securing affluence for a significant part of the population (often at the cost of natural resources).
But it is also a fact that people earn their living from selling their labour with the expectation of leading a decent existence.
In this sense the state can intervene to set a minimum value for labour to ensure that incomes do not fall below a certain level which has to be determined by society from time to time. In so doing the state also avoids a race to the bottom.
The concept of a “living wage” supposedly goes beyond this as its ultimate goal is to ensure that people not only avoid the risk of falling in to poverty but also lead a decent life. Obviously this depends a lot on the actual monetary value of the proposed living wage.
If what a “living wage” means is a sheer adjustment of the minimum wage to reflect current realities- over and above COLA but not that much more, it would be socially regressive if introduces as a voluntary option for capitalists.
In this case the end result would be that of having workers depending on employers’ benevolence simply to have a guarantee of a minimum wage based on a realistic calculation.
So if the starting point is the current minimum wage does not ensure an existence over and above the risk of poverty, than this problem can only be addressed by raising the minimum wage.
On the other hand if the living wage is understood as an instrument to ensure a decent and fuller life for all and recognition for employers who offer this, it can have positive social consequences especially if applied in government tenders.
Obviously some may ask why not simply raise the minimum wage to the level of a “living wage”? I much fear that the answer would be that capitalism will simply contract and stop creating new jobs. Obviously one may argue that we need to start attracting the kind of capitalism which offers living wages.
This is surely a long term solution as is the entry of working mothers in the labour market-something which would on its own increase the income (and insularity and patriarchal autarky) in households. I suspect that a wise government would make this its number one priority.
Ultimately despite seeing merits in a living wage proposal if this is NOT understood as a voluntary minimum wage increase, I have my reservations on shifting what are essentially social and political goals from government to the private sector.
What should be debated is whether one should reach a social and political goal (a decent existence for all) by offering incentives to living wage employers i.e. fiscal mechanisms in a market economy instead of instruments of social redistribution which transfer wealth.
Capitalists (in whatever form) are more efficient in creating work and wealth, while democratically elected governments are better trusted in guaranteeing social and political rights.
Therefore I would rather have the state allocating that extra portion of income to secure a decent existence for everyone than to have the state meddle with incomes policy, apart from establishing a realistic minimum wage.
One way of achieving this is through a national basic income for every citizen subsidized through taxes on consumption, resource use, financial transactions and higher incomes which would replace the entire welfare system. By setting the national basic income at a level which avoids poverty, people would still have an incentive to work and create wealth and to save for their pensions to keep living the same standard of living at old age. On the other hand they would afford to reduce their working time or even withdraw for some time either for training or family responsibilities.
The major question for this is whether there can be enough tax revenue (without harming the economy) to fund such a system.
The second question is whether this would make the green shift from taxes on income to taxes on resources more a long term fiscal than an environmental measure.
The third question relates to whether such a system would make it more difficult for immigrants to be accepted as citizens, thus leaving a potential reserve of poverty.
Therefore for the time being (without losing sight of the long term political goal of ensuring a good life for all) I would recommend the following options:
1. Revise the minimum wage every five years on the basis of studies establishing the minimum income required to secure basic needs in a modern society.
2. Consider a national basic income for people rendered unemployed but actively seeking employment through training.
3. Concentrate on investing on child care centers and encouraging female employment and on education to improve the investment potential of the country.
4. Introduce the concept of a living wage- understood as a decent and comfortable existance-in the award of public contracts.
5. Take meausures to ensure that the labour market is accessible to women, migrants and young people even at the cost of doing away with anachronisms.