[Fudd]

Looting is what happens when you pay a worker too little to live on...

This is not looting. This is one of two things. (1) The employer is paying less-than-market rates, and will soon find that his best employees are leaving for greener pastures. (2) The work done by the employees is not highly valued by the market, and the employer cannot afford to pay higher-than-market wages.

... and expect the taxpayer to pick up the difference.

Why should the government force taxpayers or businesses to subsidize poor people? If there were no minimum wage and no welfare, people would work hard enough to eat and live. Some people would choose to work harder for the rewards of a larger paycheck; some people would work just hard enough to feed themselves. Why does government need to stick its nose in the equation?

[hybrid]

(1) The employer is paying less-than-market rates, and will soon find that his best employees are leaving for greener pastures

Unfortunately, the 'greener pastures' do not exist; it is very difficult to move to another city, and wages tend to be similar no matter where you move. It is simply not possible to just uproot if your employer tells you he can't pay you more than X. I have been out of college for more than three years now, and find wages have been tending to drop, not get higher.

(2) The work done by the employees is not highly valued by the market, and the employer cannot afford to pay higher-than-market wages.

I have many skills that are in high demand, most importantly a brain. I've found that not only am I underpaid-(I do not make a living wage for the coast, even though I am making twice the minimum now... rent is more than 50% of my cost-of-living and I live in a crappy neighborhood with a roomate.) -though-highly-valued (they gave me MVP of sales support... a plaque. No bonus for Xmas.. oh, and I've been sick and have only 4hrs a month, ran out ages ago).

Why should the government force taxpayers or businesses to subsidize poor people?If there were no minimum wage and no welfare, people would work hard enough to eat and live. Some people would choose to work harder for the rewards of a larger paycheck; some people would work just hard enough to feed themselves. Why does government need to stick its nose in the equation?

If there were no minimum wage and no welfare, you would have a whole lot of starving people, unfortunately. I'm not sure that is the trade-off people want.

Nobody wants to support the poor until they themselves are poor, unfortunately. :( And I've met very very few 'lazy' poor people. Most of them work their butts off and can't ever get ahead. Our courier works three jobs, sleeps a couple hours a night, just to support his ex-wife and their two kids. I know, that's just one guy, right...

Quite frankly, the government sticks its nose in because nobody else will. How many people on here would actually hire a poor person to do... anything? Or would you go out and hire the GQ-looking guy with the schnazzy care and the professionally-edited resume?

Just pointing out the other side sucks, too.

[Chuckster]

Why does government need to stick its nose in the equation?

Because most people are too stupid to come in out of the rain, let alone develop the skills necessary to earn a living or to defend themselves from evil, greedy capitalist employers who, naturally, will exploit the workers and force them into abject poverty in order to line their own pockets.

Of course the Government must set wages, prices too....Its for the children.