"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Keep in mind that the minimum wage was NEVER
intended to be a "living" wage.


I thought the minimum wage was exactly that - the minimum a single
worker
needs to maintain even the most basic standard of living. If it isn't
that,
what is it supposed to be?


Only if you expect to live in a group setting (i.e. at home or with
relatives or with roommates), have just barely enough clothes for work, eat
basic foods (meat is NOT a daily item), and spend minimum on transportation
(i.e. take the bus or have a junker car). It has never, ever risen to the
level of allowing a person to support a family of four in their own home and
own a moderately good car. It wasn't that high when implemented and has
never gotten close to it.

The minimum wage is just high enough to keep a single person with no
dependents from starving and freezing if they are willing to settle for bare
bones survival. It's never been higher than that.


The problem today, as more and more people become locked into lower
wages,
is that the minimum wage doesn't address the extra needs of the worker's
family or future. Taxpayers pay a price for that down the road (welfare,
food stamps, medical costs, student aid, and so on). If companies paid
better wages, much of that would be sharply reduced.


You are not supposed to stay in a minimum wage job. You get work
experience, demonstrate your ability to be dependable, get recommendations
(i.e "he/she is a hard worker") and move on.

The solution is not to mandate a higher wage but to actively seek out these
people and get them ready to move on to the better jobs by making training,
etc accessible.

When I was young (too long ago), I worked minimum wage jobs but I certainly
knew that was not something I should consider doing lifelong.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE