This is true only when the alternative is a living wage job. A job that needs a top-up of benefits from the government is economically better for the government than that person relying entirely on government benefits. Most companies that pay low wages would potentially not exist if they had to pay $15+ an hour today. At a minimum the price structure of goods would radically alter and the incentives to cut workforce would dramatically increase. The poor aren’t necessarily better off with higher salary if that salary is paid for by higher prices on everything they buy.

> A job that needs a top-up of benefits from the government is economically better for the government than that person relying entirely on government benefits.

Unless the government could instead be paying that person to do something useful for all of society, instead of something that benefits only me. This election has shown that millions of people want meaningful work.

Like teaching and caring for children, filling potholes, building bridges, laying down light transit rail, digging trenches to bring fiber to slow-connection areas...

Every single time we talk about infrastructure, we are constrained by how broke the government is. Meanwhile, real unemployment is at 9%, and public funds are paying underemployed people to be greeters at Wal-Mart, and mowing lawns at the Google campus.

I also assure you that my subsidized servants will not be bringing down the price of bread at the grocery, for anyone - poor or otherwise.

Great point. The amount of infrastructure that needs upgraded in the USA is massive. Subsidizing shitty retail jobs is such a waste.

I don't completely believe that. Further, if these companies are not offering jobs with living wages, and expecting the safety net to pick up the slack, why are we not taxing the hell out of them? At least to the point where they pay back what they've drained.