The thing is not all jobs need pay a living wage. Not everyone works to live. Some people work for extra income and their spouse works for a living. Others work to save for splurge purposes while being supported by parents. Others work for socialization after retirement. Forcing companies to pay living wages for every job means they are more reticent to create jobs which could help take families out of poverty or keep seniors from falling into hard times, etc.

Governments need to pursue policies to ensure there are a surplus of jobs paying living wages for the number of workers that need to live off work. This is not the same as pursuing policies to ensure every job pays a minimum wage.

Even Bernie came against this reality: his workers demanded $15/hr, you know in line with his stated policy platform. So, he did concede the raise but cut back on their hours.

Now, I’m somewhere in the middle. I think shipping jobs overseas has had a catastrophic impact on wages and jobs (unions can’t protect against this in any meaningful way). Also unions will milk a company dry regardless of consequences. But they occasionally protect against some abuse. On the other hand they stifle innovation in very counterproductive ways.

> I think shipping jobs overseas has had a catastrophic impact on wages and jobs

On the flip side this is also what has contributed so much to global progress in terms of increased wages globally, increased standard of living, life expectancy, literacy levels, and every other measurable positive progress indicator. I'm conflicted as well.