Originally Posted by GermanStar
Market driven capitalism would require that they receive enough money to live, else they will die, and there will be no one to do the job, right? That doesn't mean they have some entitlement to enough wage to feed and house a family of four (or even two).
When you are talking about that bottom 5% that is just above educable/trainable for whatever reason, or has â€ścrashedâ€ť for some reason [medical, drugs, prison, depression, DGAF] most communities make provisions for the that group via group homes, halfway houses or community living.
However, due to community standards, lifestyles and other reasons, there are MANY single mothers out there trying to make it by themselves. While that mother may not have an â€śentitlementâ€ť to a higher living wage, the children that she supports and is raising do not deserve a shunning by a tightwad society that just wants to keep buying $9 jeans at Walmart because a Living Wage is inconvenient. The long term ramifications of that shunning approach is far more expensive to society.
American society, by evolution and its Christian background, has, until very recently chosen to address the needs of those who cannot take care of themselves. We as a society are, in fact, judged by how well we take care of those who have the least. That has been a canon condition of American society and of societies throughout history.
It seems so strange to me that anyone who is on a Mercedes forum would give a second thought to providing a Living Wage to those on the lower rungs of the ladder. Those of us who have climbed the ladder and succeeded have done so with the help of many people, and that help came in many different ways. None of us succeeded by ourselves. How then one can look at a Living Wage and question the validity of putting a roof over oneâ€™s head or food on the family table is beyond me. The zeal of finding $9.00 jeans and a $349 LCD TV canâ€™t be that much that all fairness to everyone else goes away. That just canâ€™t be.