Quote:I would propose that paying actual living wages will nip both problems of income and expense in the bud. Income because only people that make living wages really pay taxes. And expense because if people are making living wages, then they have no need for social safety nets like food stamps and the like.
People still need some safety nets, because emergencies happen, and people get fired/laid off/etc. But yes, there'd be much less need for them.
But the real key is simple: Who decides what constitutes a "living wage"? What expenses do we assume it should cover, at what level of quality? And how will the system adapt to the differences in cost of living between regions?
I've seen a lot of push for a universal minimum wage, which sounds good on the surface but is the absolute worst thing possible to do to address this very real need.
A living wage for a single person working in, say, the service industry, in New York City, is comparable to a family of four with a single earner at a mid-range professional position in Rochester -- in the same state! Trying to pay McDonalds' workers in Rochester at the same scale as a "living wage" in NYC would result in a rapid dearth of fast-food across the city.
A proper "living wage" is a good thing to have. It is not an EASY thing to guarantee, or to legislate.