Gov.org has no business mandating a wage of any sort. They just create two more problems for the one they try to solve.
Huh?
It has been shown that a very small (almost imperceptible) percentage of American families live on minimum wage. The vast majority of minimum wage earners are school age or people entering the job market for the first time. One has to start somewhere. Additionally, the marketplace determines the value of the existing wages with the exception of the artifical floor created by the minimum wage laws.
Also, how does one define "subsistence wage." Is it enough to support oneself, a family, live-in lovers? Should everyone be able to afford a home, a car, a television, a VCR, cable, etc?
I started out at 16 earning minimum wage and slowly worked my way up. It gave me an opportunity to gain job experience and a sense of pride from earning my own paycheck. If I am unhappy with my present situation I can look elsewhere. If additional skills are required to move upward, I can do something to attain them. Of course this requires motivation. If I am guaranteed an unnaturaly high salary there is less incentive to advance myself through hard work and dedication.
A "living wage" is one of the standard mantras of the socialist left. it completely defies the basic laws of economics. If you price someting above equilibrium it results in loss of supply. In this case it is jobs. Additionally, it causes samll business owners to make decisions regarding levels of employment. If they can no longer afford to pay what some bureaucrat dictates, then they will either have fewer employees, or resort to the underground economy to meet their labor needs.
The only thing that government meddling in the laws of of supply and demand does in the long run is cause people to find a way around it. It creates additional costs to doing business in the marketplace but the market will always prevail. A simple example is the CAFE standards that removed the family station wagon from the American landscape. The market responded with the huge growth in ownership of SUVs. Would we be better off with people driving Vista-Cruisers or SUVs?
The governmet's role is not to ensure that everyone earns a specific wage, but that playing field is level. Discrimination is wrong and is also not economically viable. There are also laws that prohibit that practice. The governemts should not be taking the role in determining outcomes, only that the rules are consistent for everyone.
To which problem are you referring? The housing shortage or the high cost of housing?
What defies the basic laws of economics is not paying a person enough to live.
I think you meant to say "defines", correct? Your assertion is false. What you consider "enough to live" is based on totally subjective criteria. The cost of living is determined by supply and demand. If the supply is low and the demand high, then the costs will be high. If the demand is low and the supply is high, then the costs will be low. Inflation factors into this equation as well. Everytime government prints more money the purchasing power of the dollar declines because there is more money competing for the same number of products.
Why should the gov't(the taxpayers) pick up the difference between crap wages and what it costs for food, housing, and medical care?
Why don't we let thieves rob convenience stores to make up the difference between their crap wages and what it costs them to live?
Make employers pay a floor wage that is livable...
What you consider livable may not be what others consider livable. Somebody may decide that you really don't need cable TV, or that you only need one car. Who would you prefer make these decisions, you or your neighbors?