> It's solely to point out that adventured's comment is a bunch of meaningless numbers.

The point of that comment was to point out that minimum wage is irrelevant because basically nobody makes that anyway; even the entry-level jobs pay more than the federal minimum wage.

In that context, arguing that the higher-than-minimum wages people are actually getting still aren't sufficient implies an argument that the minimum wage should be higher than that. And people could read it that way even if it's not what you intended.

So what I'm pointing out is that that's the wrong solution and doing that rather than addressing the real issue (high costs) is the thing that destroys the middle class.

I don't disagree that there has been a huge issue with stagnant wages, but not everybody who works minimum wage needs to make a living wage. Some are teenagers, people just looking for part time work, etc. Pushing up minimum wage too high can risk destroying jobs that are uneconomical at that level that could have been better than nothing for many people.

That being said, there's been an enormous push by various business groups to do everything they can to keep wages low.

It's a complicated issue and one can't propose solutions without acknowledging that there's a LOT of nuance...

That's what VC money is for. When it comes to paying below a living wage, we typically expect the government to provide support to make up the difference (so they're not literally homeless). Businesses that rely on government to pay their employees should not exist.

> A teenager in his/her first job at McDonald's doesn't need a "living wage." As a result of forcing the issue, now the job doesn't exist at all in many instances

The majority of minimum wage workers are adults, not teenagers. This is also true for McDonald's employees. The idea that these jobs are staffed by children working summer jobs is simply not reality.

Anyone working for someone else, doing literally anything for 40 hours a week, should be entitled to enough compensation to support themselves at a minimum. Any employer offering less than that is either a failed business that should die off and make room for one that's better managed or a corporation that is just using public taxpayer money to subsidize their private labor expenses.

A teenager is presumably also going to school full time and works their job part time, not ~2000 hours per year.

If we build a society where someone working a full time job is not able to afford to reasonably survive, we are setting ourselves up for a society of crime, poverty, and disease.

> A teenager in his/her first job at McDonald's doesn't need a "living wage."

Turns out our supply of underage workers is neither infinite, nor even sufficient to staff all fast food jobs in the nation

>A teenager in his/her first job at McDonald's doesn't need a "living wage."

Wow, a completely bad-faith argument.

Can you try again, but this time, try "steelman" instead of "strawman"?