I find in the Pacific NW (where we indeed do have a higher state minimum) I have not met an entry level employee who actually does receive this wage. I am a very talkative old codger, and I have found that even teenagers at McDonald’s (which I must admit is my favourite food) do not receive even this higher minimum wage. Their starting wage tends to be higher still. The managers there have informed me that it would be difficult to find suitable employees at the state minimum.

Perhaps there is or was some purpose for such a regulation, but if there is, I cannot fathom what it is. Admittedly this is not my area of expertise; however perhaps there are migrant workers that receive this wage? I have generally been under the impression that such workers most often work “off the books” so to speak.

I might suspect that it is best when–as seems to be the case now–the minimum wage is set below what virtually all employers must offer as a starting wage.

via Increase the Minimum Wage! Wait, why’s my Happy Meal thirty-four bucks? | The Liberal Critique.

Furthermore, even at this low minimum wage it would not be so difficult for one to have a good life for a time until something better comes along or one works up to a more favourable position in life.

I know this for a fact because Mrs. Emeron and I choose to live with room-mates.  We have a rather large house and it is full to the brim.  Even if we were much more financially well off, we would choose to have a full house–though admittedly this is not for everyone.  My point here is that with what we are paid for rent (which includes all utilities and many many extras, and which is a competitive rate–on the low side, but still “in the ball park,” as it were–minimum wage is more than enough to have many many “extras” in life…  even if one has no further ambition.  This is true even if one does not apply for state aid (even if one qualifies, which many would choose not to do.)

The fact that such people may be state subsidised even though it is not truly necessary is more of an indictment of socialism than anything else.  Just as, for example, is the case of the “seatbelt/helmet law” issue.  The assertion “It is my life,” is perfectly true even when society claims ones life for its own, and therefore makes the argument that such compulsion is “for your own good, and/or that of society.”  I realise I have changed the subject here in midstream, but even so, it is the same type of issue.  By all means, wear the thing.  Drive as safely as if you were not wearing it, as well.  However such compulsion by the state is “soul-sucking,” and I believe even its advocates know this, even when they feel it is a necessary evil.

But evil it is:  Pure evil for ones life–ones soul, if you will permit the indiscretion–to be claimed by others for good or ill.  I believe the deep seated knowledge of this is the cause of the great malaise that has long settled over this and many other lands.   Such a claim even robs generous people of the act of charity such as they might wish to impart.  And I see hard-working and/or extremely brilliant people dropping out of their chosen fields frequently and choosing to work menial jobs instead.

I may choose that life myself any day now.  I keep thinking I would be more happy if I kept my expertise  for those I choose, for myself, and/or for those I love.  To be truthful, it does feel like the more honest course to me.  I believe those of us who feel this way might be more happy sharing or trading our expertise among ourselves…

Oh…   but I do go on, do I not?