A living wage is simply the amount of money someone needs to earn to cover basic living costs – like rent, food, and transportation – without needing extra help. Right now, the federal minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an hour, and it's been that way since 2009. That's over 15 years without a single raise. Meanwhile, the cost of everything – housing, groceries, gas – has gone way up.
That $7.25 today buys you 27% less than it did when it was last raised in 2009. When adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage is now at a 66-year low, worth 42% less than its peak in 1968. Back then, minimum wage workers earned the equivalent of $14 an hour in today's dollars. So while politicians pat themselves on the back for "protecting" the economy, they've actually been systematically impoverishing workers for decades.
Imagine trying to live on $7.25 an hour today. For most people, it's impossible without some kind of support. So, when folks argue against raising wages to a living level, they're actually fighting for a system where taxpayers and families end up subsidizing low-wage workers just so they can survive.
You've probably heard people say, "Oh, minimum wage jobs are just for teenagers or people who want some extra pocket money." But here's the thing: even if that were true – and it's not – those workers still need money to live.
Let's look at the actual data. In 2023, workers under 25 made up only 44% of minimum wage earners. That means 56% – the majority – are adults 25 and older trying to make ends meet. Among teenagers specifically, only 3% earn minimum wage or less, compared to just under 1% of workers 25 and older. The "teenage job" narrative is mostly fiction.
Teenagers might not be living on their own and paying all their own bills, but someone is paying for their basic needs. Obviously, usually, it's their parents or guardians. Since their cost of living doesn't magically disappear just because someone's young or working part-time, those low wages get "subsidized" by families stepping in to pay for food, rent, or other basics. So, in this particular case, parents and guardians are subsidizing these jobs, allowing for companies to pay low wages that would be impossible to live off of alone.
But let's be real: a lot of people working these jobs aren't teenagers. They're adults – often with families of their own – trying to make ends meet. When their paycheck falls short, they turn to government programs like SNAP or Medicaid. That means taxpayers – you and me – are picking up the tab to help them survive. So, by keeping wages low, we're not just leaning on families; we're leaning on public assistance too – which means we are all paying to help subsidize companies that refuse to pay a living wage.
Full-Time Work Should Mean a Living Wage
Here's a simple idea: if someone works 40 hours a week, they should earn enough to not worry about how they're going to pay their bills each month. No matter what job they're doing. It doesn't matter if they're flipping burgers, stocking shelves, or sitting at a desk – full-time work should equal a living wage.
Some folks argue, "Well, those jobs aren't hard enough to deserve more money." But why do we decide a job's worth based only on how tough it is physically? Think about CEOs. Their salaries aren't tied to how much they sweat – they're paid based on how much money they help the company make.
Shouldn't other jobs work the same way? If a worker's role helps a company bring in revenue – whether it's selling fries or building widgets – they deserve a fair slice of that pie.
Corporate Greed and Taxpayer Money
When people fight against a living wage, they're really defending a system that lets big corporations off the hook. Take Walmart, one of the most profitable companies out there. They make billions every year, yet according to a 2020 Government Accountability Office study commissioned by Bernie Sanders, Walmart was among the top four employers of SNAP and Medicaid beneficiaries in every single state examined.
The numbers are staggering. Walmart employs an estimated 14,500 workers across nine states who rely on food stamps. In Arkansas alone – Walmart's home state – 1,318 Walmart employees were receiving SNAP benefits, representing 3.1% of the state's total recipients. That's not an accident – it's a business model. By paying low wages, Walmart shifts the burden onto taxpayers. We're basically subsidizing their payroll with our tax dollars.
And it's not just Walmart. The GAO study found that 70% of the 21 million Americans receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits work full time. McDonald's was among the top five employers of workers on federal benefits in at least nine states. Other corporate giants like Amazon, Kroger, Dollar General, and Dollar Tree also appeared throughout these lists.
A 2013 study found that taxpayers are subsidizing large corporations to the tune of $153 billion per year in the form of public assistance programs for their low-wage employees. Think about that: we're spending $153 billion annually to help workers survive because profitable companies won't pay them enough to live.
So, while these corporations rake in profits and enjoy tax perks, taxpayers are left covering the gap between what they pay and what their workers need to live. It's almost like our tax money is going straight into their pockets.
When folks start pushing for higher wages, you'll notice the news loves to zoom in on business owners complaining they can't afford it without shutting down. But here's the point they always miss: if a business can't pay its employees a fair wage, it doesn't have a sustainable model – it's essentially a venture propped up by the exploitation of its workforce, much like how some industries depend on government subsidies to limp along.
All this attention on the owners' gripes covers up the fact that these places are only hanging on because they're paying people too little. By not bringing this up, the media keeps us stuck talking about saving profits instead of fixing the real problem: businesses that can't hold up on their own.
Consider this: if a company's business model depends on paying workers so little that taxpayers have to step in with food stamps and healthcare, is that really a viable business? Or is it just corporate welfare with extra steps?
Here's what it boils down to: opposing a living wage means supporting a system in which workers can't survive on their own, and the rest of us – through taxes or family help – have to step in. This system props up corporate greed while shortchanging the people who keep these companies running.
The federal minimum wage hasn't budged since 2009, and that's left millions stuck in jobs that don't pay enough to live on. The real value has eroded so much that minimum wage workers today earn 42% less than their counterparts did at the wage's peak in 1968. If we want to stop subsidizing low-wage jobs with public money or family support, we need to make sure full-time work pays a living wage.
It's not about handouts – it's about fairness. Workers shouldn't need a safety net just because companies won't pay them what they're worth. When we subsidize poverty wages through public assistance, we're not helping workers – we're enabling corporate welfare. And frankly, if your business model requires taxpayers to keep your employees alive, maybe you don't have a business worth saving.