> Clearly creating two children while in need of two low paid jobs seems like the opposite of a risk averse strategy.
Conversely, not making sure that every family feels comfortable creating >= 2.0 children surely isn't a good strategy for the society as a whole either.
This means calculating a decent minimum wage is simple: it's what a single parent needs to support two kids (including healthcare, holidays, ...) with some margin, while working just one single full time job.
What's cynical is a system where having a job doesn't provide a living wage. That just needs to be fixed. There is no point trying to scare with the fact that this would take people from a job that doesn't pay enough, to welfare that pays even less.
Higher minimum wages could mean higher unemployment of course, but it isn't a right to employ people without paying them a living wage. Raised minium wages would need to be coupled with increased spending on social benefits/welfare.
Increased unemployment coverage, but possibly decreases in other welfare. Quite a few people on food stamps have jobs--they're just low-paying jobs (or too few hours).
Exactly. And better social security can often show up As a net positive for the economy as a whole. Especially when starting from the very low level we are talking about here. If people aren't fearing for their economic future (the U.S. default mode) they can do what society prefers them to do (have kids, start businesses) rather than saving up for that day you get an illness or get fired.
Conversely, not making sure that every family feels comfortable creating >= 2.0 children surely isn't a good strategy for the society as a whole either.
This means calculating a decent minimum wage is simple: it's what a single parent needs to support two kids (including healthcare, holidays, ...) with some margin, while working just one single full time job.