If there isn't a viable midle class that all citizens can aspire to become part of, the end result is a loss of freedom. That leads to more government, not less.
“I agree. Workers with full-time jobs should make a living wage. It’s a travesty that companies such as Amazon and WalMart have founders and upper-echelon employees who make fortunes while their employees collect food stamps and other benefits at taxpayer expense.”
And fast-food joints ought to pay 15 an hour too?
They aren’t slaves. They can quit. They also aren’t morons when they filled out an application to work there. The pay wasn’t sprung on them 4 months after starting.
The thing is that if they all quit, Amazon has enough cash to make the whole thing automated.
“I agree. Workers with full-time jobs should make a living wage.”
The problem with that statement, is defining “Living Wage”
Where, exactly, should we draw the line? If you raise prices to cover increased labor costs, won't prices go up? And if prices go up, won't products be less affordable? And if products are less affordable, aren't people going to have less disposable income? And if they have less disposable income, won't there come a point that they can't live on what they have left? And if the come to a point where they can't live on what they have left, will employers have to raise their salaries? And if you raise prices to cover increased labor costs...
“Workers with full-time jobs should make a living wage.”
We can’t all live in on the French Rivera or in Beverly Hills or Westchester County. Or San Francisco or Seattle. Or in DC or metropolitan Boston.
Land has a scarcity value. It also has a commuting time value.
In the DC area it is easy to spend about 45 minutes commuting each way.
Imagine a well-educated person who makes $100,000/year in DC.
That 45 minutes is worth $37.50 one-way or $75 each work day.
To reduce the time wasted in commuting, that well-educated person might be willing to pay a $75/day housing cost premium. And he/she might be married to a like-minded person. Together they might be willing to pay $150/day not to commute long distance.
Close-in properties become very expensive.
That $150/day in close-in value is more than even a person earning $15/hour or $120/day can pay.
Single people eventually will get priced out of top metropolitan areas.
Even two people earning $15/hour will struggle.
As long as two(married couple) or three people (immigrant family) are willing to share a place to live, single people will get forced out of top areas, unless they have inherited wealth such as a paid-up house.
A place to live in a major league, name brand area is like a large diamond, only attainable by a small percentage of the population.
Trying to boost wages will only make it even more attractive to families with numerous working age people to come to the USA, legally, or illegally.
The future of top cities of the USA is a small elite and large numbers of large immigrant families.
A family of five working age Mexicans each making $12/hour can pay a large percentage of 5*$24,000/year ($120,000/year) in housing costs.
For this numerous working member family, to pay $3,400/month rent in San Francisco to earn $120,000/year is an incredibly good deal, well worth trying to illegally enter the USA.
That $12/hour is not only a living wage for the adults of that Mexican family, it is a great wage.
They do.
If you are working full time you are not eligible for government benefits unless you have children.
Most of these "cry in your coffee" stories are people who either do not work full time or they have children.
Why should they get a raise because they reproduced?
Some people cannot produce enough value form their labor to make a living wage and forcing a company to pay them that only takes away from their owners, shareholders, and the employees who are worth more but are paid less to provide for those who need a “living wage”
It’s socialism to push that and I’ll pass