> A "living wage" doesn't mean "middle class". A living wage means that a person is able to afford someplace relatively clean to live, feed themselves, afford heat in winter, etc.

That's not middle class in traditional class terms (petit bourgeois) based on the manner of interaction with the capitalist economy, but it's pretty much requires being “middle class” by the modern American broad income categories standards, where middle class is the middle income category.

Are you seriously arguing that whatever fraction of Americans are below "middle income category" should should be ok with not being able to house, feed, cloth, heat themselves - and somehow this would work out ok for the country as a whole?

That seems extreme.

> Are you seriously arguing that whatever fraction of Americans are below "middle income category" should should be ok with not being able to house, feed, cloth, heat themselves

No, I'm saying that people who are below the middle income category (as that adjusts locally) often cannot reliably, securely "afford someplace relatively clean to live, feed themselves, afford heat in winter, etc.". I'm not saying that they should accept that, just that if you are advocating for a living wage, you are, in fact, advocating to move the floor up to something that fits what is commonly styled "middle class" income currently.

Ok, I misread you. I'm not confident your assertion is true, but I don't know enough about the "living wage" analysis to be sure.

I guess one factor here is "middle income range", if well defined, will move if the floor is moved. In things like this, distribution is also very important.