>Why is it the responsibility of private industry to support a “living wage?”

Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community.

Which is fine, by the way, but they cannot then turn around and oppose the cost of taxation needed for gov programs which support people who aren't receiving that living wage. Nor, and worse still, oppose a living wage and then force work people to work such long hours that they cannot sustain a community that can provide the extra support needed to maintain a decent life.

> Because if they don't, they are externalising the true costs of labour to the government, or the community.

Does this mean anything or is it a circular definition?

If we decide we'd like people to have at least the standard of living of a single person earning $40/hour, does that make $40/hour the "true cost of labor"? Could we just as easily raise our standards and say $50/hour is the true cost?

The living wage is higher than what you would often have with no government intervention or safety net, so it's not a natural cost of labor in that sense.

The "true cost of labor" is set by the market. The cost to society of a person who can't find work because viable work opportunities have been destroyed by overregulation is unambiguously higher than that of the same person being gainfully employed, even for a "non-living" wage - because in the latter case it's easy for government to make up the difference in a way that's fair to everyone, whereas paying their full living costs is just that much harder.

So in Forsyth County GA where I use to live you think the minimum wage should be $30/hour? That’s what they said the livable wage is for a single person. If I have a child and I’m single should I automatically get a raise if $45 an hour?