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 14 years without a single raise! Meanwhile, the cost of everything – housing, groceries, gas – has gone way up. 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.

The Myth of “Teenager Jobs”

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. 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 (food stamps) 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 tons of their employees rely on government assistance like SNAP just to get by. 

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. Look at Amazon – another mega-profitable company. They’ve gotten heat for paying little to no federal taxes some years, thanks to tax breaks and loopholes. Meanwhile, their workers have historically depended on public programs to scrape by (though Amazon has raised wages in recent years after pressure). 

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.

The Bottom Line

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. 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.