>>>>>> If you work 40hours a week you should be able to afford these things. Today you can not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Depends what your skill is.
>>>>>Some jobs weren't ever meant to be a "career".
>>>>
>>>>So your belief is that just because you have a full time job doesn't mean it should pay enough to live off of? Or am I mistaken here?
>>>
>>>Right.
>>>It depends on your skill set.
>>>.
>>
>>Well then we have a fundamental disagreement. It's not possible for everyone to have a job with a high level skill set or even go to college. Personally I don't think it's right to toss these people under the bus, they should be able to survive on their full-time job's income. Companies (and society) have a responsibility to ensure that their workers earn enough to live on. If a firm can’t pay its workers enough to live on, then it isn’t a viable business, because it is dependent on wage subsidies.
>.
>
>They're responsible for your well being?
>They're responsible for your welfare?
>Really? That would be nice.

They should responsible to pay a wage that is enough to live off of, especially if they're raking in millions or billions in profits. When they do not - that is when you, a taxpayer, end up picking up the tab. Lets use McDonalds as an example here. They make $1.5 billion in profits in one quarter - meanwhile the taxpayers are shelling out $1.2 billion each year to help pay public assistance to the McDonald’s workforce! See the problem here?
If McDonald's doubled the wages of its restaurant employees (not management, which is presumably very well-compensated), it might add, say, another $3 billion of annual expenses. This would knock its operating profit down to a still healthy $5.5 billion.

Look - the low wages paid by businesses, including some of the largest and most profitable companies in the U.S. – like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart – are costing taxpayers nearly $153 billion a year. Surely you do not think this is ok.
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages/