>>If the minimum wage isn't supposed to be a livable wage - then what exactly is it's purpose? I believe that ANY full time job should at least allow you to pay rent and eat food.
>>
>>Purpose? one word - incentive.
>
>My take on minimum wage is this: If a full time employee still has to consume government assistance to meet their living needs then their employer is profiting off of taxpayers. McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc. with their droves of minimum wage employees are essentially being subsidized by taxpayers. Let the cost of their product assume the role of providing the living wage to their employees rather than increasing the burden on taxpayers.

That's an interesting take I've never heard previously.

I'd like to expand on it a bit. Wal-Mart ($8 billion) pays the 6th highest taxes in the US and McDonalds ($2.6 billion) comes in at 24th.
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45kghl/6-walmart/
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45kghl/24-mcdonalds/

According to this article Walmart costs taxpayers $6.2billion in public assistance and McDonalds costs $1.2billion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/

Between these two companies the government takes in $3.2billion more than they spend on assistance.

Perhaps we should cut out the middle man?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/the-2013-index-of-dependence-on-government