Okay, so we haven't been here before then. Yeah, it was possible to support a family on a single wage. While poverty declined until around the 1970s, poverty has remained relatively flat since then. So what's changed? Well, we have seen an unprecedented rise in single-parenting, which is a significant predictor of intergenerational poverty. We saw migration ramping up, creating competition for low paid jobs. We've seen technological advances that eliminated some jobs while making others more intellectually demanding. On the example of the clerk, much of what they would have done is either gone or has changed substantially. The 'knowledge economy' has limited opportunities for less intelligent people. It's not clear that ramping-up the federal minimum wage to $15, based on an arbitrary definition of a 'living wage', is the answer. At best, I'd say increase it match inflation. If we take 1960s and 1970s rates, that'd bring it up to around $11 per hour, and even that could be tough in states where labour may not be worth that price.

Rather than a blunt and emotionally satisfying response, wouldn't it be better to ask a few questions? Who is on minimum wage, and why? Are these predominantly young people who would anyway be expected to have low wages on entry to the workforce? Where these people don't have the ability to progress, why is this? Are corporations paying the true cost of labour, and by that I mean the actual cost in relation to value - not some some figure arrived at to punish them for being profitable. The Bureau of Labour has some analysis on characteristics of minimum wage workers. In short, around 1.9% of adult workers were paid at or below the federal minimum wage. People below the age of 25 are overrepresented as are people who have never been married. Ethnicity didn't seem to be a strong factor. Work tended to be in service industries. This is far more complex than upping the federal minimum wage. I'd suggest that we should focus efforts on finding ways for people to progress out of low-paid word and accept that younger people will naturally earn less because they have less economic value. We also have to accept that some people are simply incapable of doing jobs that would pay a 'living wage' (e.g. low intelligence, mental health issues), so do we resolve that through welfare or do we have force businesses to overpay them for what they bring? Do we require businesses to overpay people who, through terrible life choices (e.g. getting pregnant early and out of wedlock, criminality, substance abuse), have ruined themselves? If we push this on to businesses, which type do you think will be better able to absorb this impact? Big corporations or small businesses?

We can work to curb single-parenting as a way of avoiding being trapped in low-paid work. Most of all, people need to understand that a career of entry-level work is not going to support a family. Certainly if corporations are externalising the cost of of labour to the taxpayer then that is where I see minimum wage having some utility.