By virtue of the fact that it's not possible to make enough to provide food and shelter on that amount (an untested hypothesis on my own part, admittedly). If someone is not trying to make a living then there well may be labor that is worth that little, but I'm not sure how you would make a meaningful distinction to avoid exploitation without a ton of other, more onerous regulations.

I think you're confusing the ideas of what work is worth and how much money people ought to get. As most people use the word "worth," it means the amount of wealth something embodies (one good measure of which is the market price).

The distinction becomes particularly clear when you consider societies of one-- e.g. a castaway. If he wasn't industrious enough, a castaway could clearly work in a way that wouldn't guarantee sufficient food and shelter. Ergo it is possible for work to generate less wealth (= be worth less) than would guarantee food and shelter.

I think what you mean to say is that if people can't generate enough wealth to cover certain minimum requirements, the rest of us should make up the difference. And I don't think anyone would argue with that general principle.

Oh, it's possible to provide food and shelter on that amount (depending on what area you're living in, and dependent on you only needing to support yourself), but it's very hard to do so in such a way that one moves themselves forward in life, and it's practically impossible to do so in a way that isn't ridiculously depressing.

Sources: I lived on < $10,000/yr for quite a while.

It should be noted that I am not advocating reducing (or increasing) minimum wage. I think that the issue that people try to address via minimum wage is a clusterfuck of an issue that won't really be solved without a pretty large paradigm shift in how people acquire, or are provided with, their food and shelter.

sure you can, here's how $5/day on food $10/day rent $5/day utilities + entertainment $2.50/day transportation

$22.50/day or $8,218.13 per year in expenses. At $5/hr, you are making $10k a year for a full time job w/ 2 weeks vacation.

$300/mo for rent and $2.50/day for transportation? Sign me up.

FYI a single ride on the bus/light rail in the Bay Area (VTA) costs $3.75.

That's your issue. You want to live in the bay area. Many cities have monthly passes for under $60.

Austin bus system is $2 for a day pass (unlimited riding for 24 hours), $8 for a for a 7 day pass and $28 for a 31 day pass. $300/month is a bit low for rent, but for $500 you can have a nice 1 bedroom, $350-$400 you can get a reasonable studio in a decent part of town.

By what process do you come to the conclusion that not everyone deserves a chance at food and shelter?

Actually, you're both wrong.

According to new numbers from the Labor Department, in 2008 only 1.1% of Americans who work 40 hours a week or more even earned the minimum wage. In other words, 98.9% of 40-hour-a-week workers earn more than the minimum. The data also show that teenagers are five times more likely to earn the minimum wage than adults.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020344010457440...

So the people who are most affected by changes to the minimum wage are teenagers who aren't paying for food and shelter, but looking for disposable income.

Ergo, cutting the minimum wage won't be a boon for new jobs nor will it be cutting anyone's standard of living.

> So the people who are most affected by changes to the minimum wage are teenagers who aren't paying for food and shelter, but looking for disposable income.

> Ergo, cutting the minimum wage won't be a boon for new jobs nor will it be cutting anyone's standard of living.

Not so fast.

Many of those teenagers are learning to work, which makes their future labor more valuable. If they don't get such skills, they'll never be worth employing.

Also, some of those teens are contributing to their household's income.