@Crazydawg While you are correct, you have to bear in mind that the feds pretty much have to go with a one-size solution for logistical reasons, though the best-case scenario would be if various localities willingly set their minimum wage to a decent living wage without having being told to. I have about as much (or rather, as little) faith in the competence of the federal government as you do, but it boggles my mind how the biggest critics of the feds are the most likely to force them to step in because they don’t want to fix a problem themselves.
As for almost nobody staying at minimum wage more than a year and all, that is Old Economy thinking. It used to work that way back when there weren’t so many unethical employers around… but back then, there was no need for government intervention in the first place, so they actually did stay out of it more than they do now.
@ibstubro ~Moving is free. And I suppose I could live without food or shelter. I mean, it’s not 35F and rainy is unsurvivable.
Seriously though, I have a challenge for you. Suppose that after paying your rent, you have $500/month. That $500 has to pay for everything else; utilities, food, student loans, health insurance, medical bills, transportation (to a job 5–15 miles away; far enough that walking isn’t an option), home repair…. basically you are living on $6,000/yr plus free rent. How long would it take you to save up enough to move out? I’m talking two months rent at your desired location just to get into a place (most places charge deposits), travel expenses, and enough to live on while you settle in and find a job (figure 2 months unless you’re the type to jump out of planes without a parachute). I suppose you could omit the last one if you are gutsy or forced, but unless you already have a job offer at your intended location, there is actually no guarantee that you will have employment at the other end, nor that you’ll be able to find one just for the asking. Not in this day and age anyways, this isn’t 1953. It might take a bit longer than a couple of weeks, eh?
While that could describe where I am in the suburbs of Seattle, it’s actually more descriptive of my years in NH. The only city within 40 miles was only 28,000 people; none of the other surrounding towns were >2,000, There weren’t enough jobs for the locals, and public transportation was virtually nil (one bus that went nowhere near anywhere I ever needed to go once an hour). so having at least one car per household was mandatory if you wanted anything like employment or groceries. I personally lived over a mile from pavement, and my daily commute was often halted by moose, bears, deer, or turkeys in the road. I drove right through a cattle farm (they had grazing fields on both sides of the road, so I’d occasionally stop for cattle crossing too). Yes, I lived in a decadent urban sprawl.
Yet my cost of living here in the suburbs of Seattle is actually lower than it was in that urban metropolis of NH. You go on about, “being asked to subsidize a way of life that we choose to live without.” without realizing that many others live the same lifestyle yet face the same problems you seem to think are restricted solely to urban areas. You really need to get out more and see what the really real world is like.
Also, when a minimum wage requires government assistance to survive on, isn’t it time to consider raising the wage in order to streamline the process by drastically lowering demand for assistance? I mean, I would think that anything that reduced the size and expense of government is something that those who claim to want a smaller government and lower taxes would be all over, as would the “business can do it better than gobmint!” crowd, so I can’t help but see a certain crowd being either stupid or hypocritical.