is this lady serious?

[Big Abraham]

The living wage in NY for one adult and one child is $30/hour

[Big Abraham]

The living wage in NY for one adult and one child is $30/hour

I'm as natalist as the next poster, but the idea that we should price every childless person out of the NYC labor market is insane.

I am by no means a natalist, and think it'd do quite a bit of good for humanity to have far less children. Regardless, the minimum wage in NY (and I used to live there) cannot sustain even the rudiments of a family. Make of that what you will

[Big Abraham]

The living wage in NY for one adult and one child is $30/hour

I'm as natalist as the next poster, but the idea that we should price every childless person out of the NYC labor market is insane.

I am by no means a natalist, and think it'd do quite a bit of good for humanity to have far less children. Regardless, the minimum wage in NY (and I used to live there) cannot sustain even the rudiments of a family. Make of that what you will

My point was that setting minimums to support families actually warps the labor market in the same way that setting minimums to the "living wage" will/would price out unskilled teenagers and retirees from having part-time jobs.

We should consider the whole market when setting minimums, rather than just the most needy – whom we can obviously emphasize through other means (e.g. welfare spending and tax credits).

The vast majority of workers aren't unskilled teenagers. The labour force is made up primarily of full-time adult workers who have families to support.

[Big Abraham]

The living wage in NY for one adult and one child is $30/hour

I'm as natalist as the next poster, but the idea that we should price every childless person out of the NYC labor market is insane.

I am by no means a natalist, and think it'd do quite a bit of good for humanity to have far less children. Regardless, the minimum wage in NY (and I used to live there) cannot sustain even the rudiments of a family. Make of that what you will

My point was that setting minimums to support families actually warps the labor market in the same way that setting minimums to the "living wage" will/would price out unskilled teenagers and retirees from having part-time jobs.

We should consider the whole market when setting minimums, rather than just the most needy – whom we can obviously emphasize through other means (e.g. welfare spending and tax credits).

The vast majority of workers aren't unskilled teenagers. The labour force is made up primarily of full-time adult workers who have families to support.

You're just making the same argument for a different case. We shouldn't be tailoring the  minimum wage to the average worker, but to the lowest possible worker. That's what a minimum is.

Also, we're talking about a specific type of employed labor, not the "vast majority of workers" who would be indirectly affected by a min-wage increase. According to BLS, workers hold 25 constitute half of current min-wage jobs (versus one-fifth of the overall labor market), and 65% of those min-wage jobs are part-time. So these are disproportionately young people in vulnerable positions.

The minimum wage is the lowest possible wage that is necessary to survive. This will obviously depend on a number of conditions (location, etc.), but the "lowest worker possible" would be someone living in poverty conditions who does not earn enough to feed themselves or pay rent. Also, keep in mind that BLS only accounts for the federal minimum wage which is $7.25, not local or state ordinances which often set the minimum wage much higher. Obviously young workers tend to be in minimum wage positions and are the most vulnerable in a labour market