Classically, not all jobs are considered "living wage" jobs. That whole notion is something some people made up very recently.

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... and if it does, the owner has a strong incentive to automate it away.

> 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"?