Yup. So having minimum wages to ensure people can make a living wage is exactly the same as having to have price fixing for food to ensure people can eat. It's a knee jerk response to a fundamental problem (that workers make too little in relation to price levels).

The problem with the US discourse on the subject is that it's a debate for/against higher minimum wages rather than a debate of "what regulations need to change so that the minimum wage without regulation is a livable wage".

Would you rather have price controls or a subsidy? People that support themselves on jobs that pay less than minimum wage generally need support from the state to live. So a minimum wage is basically a refusal by the state to subsidize business.

Well, you could also look at it as a minimum wage being the government (trying to) force one group of people to subsidize poor people, namely, business owners. I'd much rather the government helps poor people directly, both so that it's on everyone and not only business owners, but also because it doesn't tamper with the market price, which causes all sorts of problems.

That's the point, it certainly does tamper with the market price. If somebody is receiving EITC & food stamps, they may be willing to accept a job paying $2 an hour because that $2 an hour will allow them to buy a little bit of meat to go with their rice & beans.

Without EITC & food stamps and other assistance $2/hour wouldn't cover food & rent even working 2 jobs, so they'd be forced to turn those jobs and look elsewhere, most likely to crime.

EITC & food stamps to the employed are a subsidy for the employer and distort the true market price for labour. Perhaps less than a minimum wage does.

> People that support themselves on jobs that pay less than minimum wage generally need support from the state to live.

Unemployment does exist and it is not lethal.

Exactly. It's not lethal because of state & community support. But state support for the employed is just a subsidy for the employer. It's better to have them be fully unemployed on state support so they can look for better jobs, improve their education or start a micro-business.

> But state support for the employed is just a subsidy for the employer.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. You are not supposed to receive state support while being employed.

That's exactly what the EITC is. The main benefit is that it's a direct subsidy by the government instead of burdening businesses with paying people above what a free market demands.

From a political standpoint. It's also a lot easier for people to support. You have to work to receive it and it's been popular in both Republican and Democratic administrations. I can't speak for the current one. I don't think Trump has any core set of beliefs.

Over 60% of government benefits go to the employed. Walmart has built a whole business model around this, giving workers information on collecting government benefits, which is essentially a huge government subsidy for Walmart and similar businesses.

You can just as well look at it as an instance of collective bargaining, where workers collectively set the minimum wage they're willing to accept.