>>The difference, though, is that Bernie has said that a living wage for people at the bottom is a basic right, not something to be bestowed when some fat cat wants to shed a few scraps because Uncle Sam is providing them.

One way or another, of course even the poorest need some sort of living- or else they're that most dangerous person with nothing to lose.

Currently the US taxpayer subsidizes lower-income people in numerous ways so that corporates don't need to pay a living wage. Whether it be Medicaid or other assistance, the effect is the same. Have no fear, the same is seen in many other places as well, with cynics asserting that this is to increase dependence on the state and voting support for left wing parties that promise more.

There's near universal agreement that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 ineeds to be remedied. Usually the risk of increased minimums is that small business (the traditional driver of employment growth) says they can't afford it while other business turns to automation. This is seen in fast food where traditional low income jobs increasingly are replaced by self-order kiosks and automated production lines. Employment increasingly will depend on corporate decisions to repatriate production IMHO. Current predictions are that reducing corporate tax to just over the European average, now creates "proximity" advantages for goods produced at home rather than in some cheaper foreign jurisdiction. The effect on the balance of trade with Europe is predicted to be into the $10Bs annually. But even repatriating production has a small long term effect as automation continues to grow. No point having a $16 minimum wage for a role that no longer exists. There was a time when Luddites destroyed weaving machinery that they said was being used to bypass traditional employment practices; I suppose those times will come again.