Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Take this table for example, where your linked article got its information: http://www.cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/update-low-wag

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Take this table for example, where your linked article got its information: http://www.cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/update-low-wage-worker-1979-2013 http://www.cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/update-low-wage-worker-1... Notice anything interesting about the age bands? 16 - 19 (4 years) 20 - 24 (4 years) 25 - 34 (10 years (!)) 35 - 64 (30 years (!!!)) 65+ (? years) The 35 - 64 band is especially egregious because it includes both people at the peak of their careers and retirees (who often take throwaway jobs to stay busy or supplement early SS @ 62). Ok, so everyone's got an agenda, no real news there. The money shot is here: > “All of us used to think minimum wage meant a wage you could live on,” de Blasio said Wat? Who used to think that? Roosevelt didn't think that when he introduced the FLSA, actually the major win there was the abolition of child labor in America. At some point the thought around minimum wage went from "the minimum amount you have to pay so you're not basically whipping child slaves all day" to "the wage we need to buy iPhones and 2 cars". The actual question is, what level of lifestyle should minimum wage/basic income/whatever support? Is that level adjusted for local prices, or do you have to live in a "designated poor person area" to survive (ie, is the amount the same in SF as it is an Akron)? What about if someone blows all their BI on liquor or gambling and becomes homeless, do we give them more? Who is responsible? I don't have the answers, and ultimately the discussion is pointless because no group of people will ever agree on this.