[coldpie]

You really don't see how saying one's job is "for students, retirees, and other temporary workers" and that their work doesn't deserve a living wage could be insulting to someone who does not fall into one of those categories but has chosen to work that job?

[Cederfjard]

I mean, if a "living wage" means that you're not able to provide a net value for your employer, or at least that other options like investing in automation is substantially more profitable for them, it just doesn't work out. Why would you "deserve" for someone to pay you more than what your labor is worth? They just won't hire you then.

I agree that everyone _does_ deserve to live a dignified life and afford all their basic needs, no matter where they work. I'm not sure that the solution is to force employers to pay more than what they get out of you. I don't think I've ever heard of a solution that's entirely convinced me (it seems to me to be a very hard problem), but I'm leaning towards an UBI.

[snarf21]

Honestly, no. There are opportunities at all the fast food chains (convenience stores, etc.) to move up into manager or assistant manager. These jobs usually pay $40K+ and benefits. This is a living wage in most areas. But they invested in themselves and are no longer unskilled. All I am saying is that dumping fries into a basket doesn't create enough economic value for it to pay a living wage. Not all jobs are designed to have a career path. We have much better tools to help those in poverty than minimum wage hikes. I think anyone under some X * federal poverty should pay no state or federal taxes. Trivial to implement and their take home would match a hike to $15/hour mw.