Not hardly. “State” as in one of the 50 States. In this case, this hearkens back to the idea of the “poor farm” that existed before Frank Roosevelt, but is a considerably better deal for all concerned.
Back then, the States and counties would take over a bankrupt farm, and build a barracks on it. Then they would put a bunch of poor people to work growing their own food, and some extra they could sell to buy other supplies. It was close to a self-supporting enterprise, costing a lot less than any other form of welfare.
Today, that idea would be expanded beyond agriculture. Thus while the town works for “minimum wage”, for private companies, minimum wage is worth a lot more, because the expenses are very low. Most of the money is saved on the “back end” instead of the “front end”. There is little or no county or State control involved, except kicking in amenities like a public library or services like garbage removal and fire protection.
It saves a heck of a lot of money, because otherwise all those people would be straining city services, and creating lots of expenses in the cities. So this shoots for a win-win situation.
Hmmm. Your plan may have merit. You should attend some small-town city council meetings and you can tell them your plan about getting the state to relocate a bunch of low income, inner-city people into their town.