> "I'd happily send some taxpayer money" We already do that. Remember how some people were criticizing Wal-Mart because some of its workers were also receivin

> "I'd happily send some taxpayer money" We already do that. Remember how some people were criticizing Wal-Mart because some of its workers were also receiving government benefits? When you set the "minimum" to be 100% of a living wage, then people have to make the jump from pure-government-funded to pure-self-funded without any intermediate stepping stones. They have to show up and be ready to produce at a level that completely supports themselves on day one. Whereas a minimum that's set at 50% (or 25% or 75%) of living wage means someone can show up and be semi-productive and earn some of their own way, and then either step up to 100%, or stay at the level they're at as long as they need to based on their own abilities.