| Mr Khan said: No, minimum wage is meant to alleviate poverty, which is defined as sole provider for a family of 4. That may change as dual income becomes increasingly the norm, but it is still designed that *all* of us can raise a family if we so choose. That path should not be limited to those of us fortunate enough to be on or ahead of the curve. |
I don't believe that to be the case. I'm pretty sure a minimum wage is meant to prevent employers from exploiting workers, as in, paying too little for their services. And for them to be at or above the poverty line. I can find no alternative definition about one person raising a family of 4 only working minimum wage. It only applies to the workers, themselves, having a "living wage", not a whole family having a "living wage".
But let's just say that it is meant to be a wage where one income can raise a family of 4. You're gonna need a lot more than $15/hr for that, if you're the only one bringing in money. Whether it be one adult and 3 kids or one breadwinner, another adult (spouse or SO) and 2 kids, $15/hr isn't gonna cut it for those additional expenses (more food, more clothes, home utilities going up due to more people using water, electricity, etc., putting kids in school, and more) on top of paying mortgage/rent. If that's what people were asking for to raise the minimum wage, they'd be asking for $25/hr+ (not an arbitrary number. That's the average annual income of a household of 5 (2 adults, 3 kids) and being above the poverty line for what a family that size entails. Maybe reduce it to $22/hr if you get rid of one kid (2 adults, 2 kids), or get rid of one adult (1 adult, 3 kids) for that family of 4 you spoke of)). It's clear that that's not the case if they're only asking for $15/hr. Like I said, the workers just want that "extra stuff", not just to "live". And they're not entitled to that
