Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bababooyee
My point if, if the cost of food goes up, then wages (for folks like you and I, too) also go up (and stay up).
Just as you see in any cost of living scenario; for example, compare the price of similar condos in NYC vs Cleveland, and also compare the salaries for the same job in NYC and Cleveland - you might make a helluva lot more money in NYC, but I will also be paying a helluva lot more in rent, so your lifestyle would be pretty much the same (even if the actual number relating to your salary is less impressive to your pals). IOW cost of living in NYC > Cleveland, so NYC wages > Cleveland wages.
|
Very much not true, B; take a look at any study on how much of one's salary goes towards housing and you'll see that it's much, much higher in NYC (and maybe SF) than anywhere else in the country- so much so that even though financial planners say you shouldn't spend more than 25 percent of your income on housing, they say the percentage has to be higher in NYC- I think they say 30 percent.
And my brother, a statistician, was made four different job offers in four different places, doing the same thing for each place (all four were universities) and yet the starting salaries were within a few thousand dollars of each other- so he elected to live in Nashville because the salary would go much farther than in NYC. The higher cost of living was not being offset by his salary.
Not to mention teachers and cops in the suburbs make A LOT more money than they do in the city. And private teachers get paid less than public school teachers (who are being paid less than their suburban counterparts).
But even assuming an increase in wages would happen, B, my argument was that the increase in wages would not be enough to offset the increase in food prices because the prices are currently so artificially low. By eliminating the illegal worker factor, the cost would increase beyond what an increase in wages would accommodate. So you're still looking at a higher food bill.