Quoted from Gornkleschnitzer:There are a couple of ways I can interpret this question, so I'll address it in a couple of ways too.
A part-time job probably (??) shouldn't need to pay as much in a week as a full-time job, since the person is spending less time working for the company. I suppose you could make the point that a part-time worker could be trying to balance school in their off hours or having health issues preventing them from being able to work full time, but I think that's an issue of unemployment coverage rather than an employer's responsibility.
That said, not working full time isn't an excuse for the employee to be paid less than (the idealized) minimum wage per hour that they do work. If the employee only works 20 hours a week, their paycheck ought to be roughly half that of another employee who does the same job 40 hours per week. Aside from situations like I mentioned above, if this person needs to support themselves independently, they could take up the other 20 hours per week on a second job, since they literally do have time.
The issue is people advocate that anyone should get a living wage… at all jobs. It sets this expectation that as long as you work… you should be ok.
But the problem is not all roles need someone that much…so not all jobs can sustain someone. If you are a gig sound guy when live music is only in demand 3 nights a week… you can’t demand they be given more hours for a role that isn’t needed.
so you get into your ‘equivalent hourly rate’ theory. Which means people still have to take multiple jobs to get to the ‘fully satisfied’ level.
But this doesn’t satisfy the crowd that want to dictate that all work should be able to sustain someone.
And when you take the pure emotion avenue that says people should be able to sustain as long as they work you have to face that everyone’s life expenses are not the same. Dependents vary. Housing situation varies. It’s impossible to truly keep all employees above a minimum quality with a same minimum pay. So do you expect people to get paid based on their life situation?
The guy who starts out as a retail clerk as a single guy living with roommates… but stays in the same job for 5yrs. During those 5yrs did his life situation change? What if he has a live in gf now and wants his own apartment. Is he underpaid because he can’t afford an apartment alone but yet is still doing the same work as before? What about the guy with no kids verse someone with 3? So we have to conclude one wage can not fit the minimum needs of all.
Unless we pay people based on their life situation we must accept there will be jobs that pay more than others… and why wouldn’t everyone just take those higher paying jobs? Those jobs will need to deliver more value to the business to offset or justify their costs. Those jobs will then have higher requirements and/or qualifications.
Thus we will always have some jobs that have lower pay and some with higher pay… and your life situation may exceed what the lower job with a “living wage” may support. So you will always have ‘wntry level’ jobs and those jobs can’t sustain all possible life situations.
And what does anyone expect housing costs to do if you say all workers should be able to afford housing within a radius? Everytime someone adds jobs you screw the housing market by pure rule. This last 24months is the first introduction for many to true inflation… aiming for sustainable living with only addressing wages will do far far more to inflation pressures.
The way we do this everywhere else is expect workers to seek employment that fits their life situation. When you need more, people seek more opportunity (more hours, better job, savings, etc). The ideal of ‘any work = sustainable life’ is not reality.
Add in our society’s selfishness and it the notion ‘well workers will do the right thing and take that extra job’ is fantasy. The vast majority will do the least possible they can get away with. They’ll still demand more. The best feedback loop is necessity. And that works both ways… in both attracting employees and employees pushing to advance.
So the ideal of a true living wage and having any job lead to a sustainable lifestyle is fantasy. Having better wages and policies to prevent worker exploitation? YES. Preaching anyone should be able to get by with a minimum lifestyle at everyjob? Emotional argument that isn’t practical