The older I get the more I realize how fraught the idea of a "living wage" is.

Through mid life, your financial health is not as determined by wages, but by your family/connections. Do you have access to a grandmother who can babysit? A decent second-hand car? A good roommate situation? Just look at the expense table - any one of these things could be worth up to 20% of your income!

And you see that literally right here - are any of us actually comfortable with the idea that the value of your labor should be determined by your marriage status and number of children?

It's kind of telling that countries with "successful" minimum wages either don't have one and just institutionalize collective bargaining, or they do some fancy calculations that start with prevailing median wages and welfare eligibility. The idea of trying to get this number from the bottom up by building expenses just doesn't seem very robust.

Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?” Should we index on a single person living alone? A teenager living with their parents? A single mom of three kids? A single mom with a single disabled kid?

Private industry should concentrate on paying people their market wages. Government should tax industries and individuals and provide a safety net.

Let me tell you from first hand experience what happens when unions get involved with manufacturing industries where they can pick up and go elsewhere - they do. Growing up, the city I lived in had 5 factories - all but one left because of fights with unions.

Where I use to live in the burbs of Atlanta, according to the website, the living wage is $45 an hour. Should we have a minimum wage there of $45 an hour?

It needs to be because the US has leaned further into individualism relative to other countries. If society's golden metric of success means being able to acquire all of these luxuries or services purely through monetary means as transactional individuals, don't be too surprised when the expenses rack up.