> How about people figure out how much money they need to afford the lifestyle they want and then get a job that pays that much?

What if your lifestyle consists of:

1. pay off student loans in 10 years

2. be able to take transit to work (can't afford a car)

3. save at least 5% of take home pay to get a used car

4. eat ramen and salad

5. maybe see a movie once a month, or go to a bar twice a month

6. internet & cell phone

7. try not to starve or get evicted

8. avoid more than 2 roommates

9. have Obamacare catastrophe-ony health insurance (bare minimum)

And the only job you can get doesn't even pay for that?

That's pretty much the lifestyle of every 30 something I know who is struggling. That's also why this and student loan debt is being called a crisis, because it is. It's not like people honestly want a lifestyle that involves a McClaren and weekly trips to Bali.

> And the only job you can get doesn't even pay for that?

Then the solution is to make yourself capable of getting other jobs.

I guess they should take on more college debt to get a programming degree, right? Or in your world, the minimum wage is just for kids, is that it? Or it is just their fault that you got lucky where something you like is high paying, and something they like and are good at pays shit?

You don’t need a degree to learn programming. There are many, many other jobs besides programming that pay more than minimum wage with varying levels of requirements. People hanging drywall and digging ditches make more than minimum wage.

You think everybody with a job paying more than minimum wage is doing something they love?

Welding, auto repair (though the barrier to entry is tools), HVAC, electrician, plumbing, etc.

College as a "necessary tool" to get work is seriously broken. I've considered hanging up my "programming" hat and becoming a fabricator (welder, machinist, etc). Not because of the money, but because I know 1) I could make a decent wage and 2) I would enjoy the work more.

The US Department of Defense already has a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) calculated for most of the United States, large parts of Germany, and large parts of Korea.

The work is already done.

Even further, the US State Department has a COLA for any city it has an embassy or consulate in the world. But it's for a diplomatic lifestyle, not for minimum wage workers in the US.

That takes into account the specific set of apartments within a 1 hour drive of each individual work location in the US and automatically updates as apartment rents fluctuate?

If this was a real law, lawmakers would definitely need to flesh out the requirement beyond what an HN commenter presumably spitballed in a couple minutes or less, yes. As written, the requirement also doesn't account for factors like public transit.

But I do think the idea has merit.

That was my initial reaction, but the more I think about it—is it really so unreasonable? Right now, we force employees to deal with the burden of ever-changing real-estate markets. Why not make employers do that?

And if it's too much of a hassle for the employer, just pay your employees substantially above the minimum.

Most people are more than capable of dealing with the burden of managing their personal finances and budgeting. The more responsibility you want to shove off on institutions to take care of for you, the greater you increase your dependence on them and the more susceptible you make yourself to their control.

I suppose people are poor because they are irresponsible and it's important they remain that way for freedom is an interesting take.

> I suppose people are poor because they are irresponsible

Some of them, certainly

> it's important they remain that way for freedom

How exactly does deciding on your own desired housing budget force anyone to remain poor?

Not sure if you're being facetious but "we" don't force anybody to deal with anything.

All markets change because people buying something and people selling something have changing ideas of what it is worth when they trade. Business owners are subject to fluctuating prices for everything they buy and sell as well, labor, energy, materials, product... and real-estate of course.

The complaint I assume is about transactions affecting someone who is not party to it. I'm not sure how valid that is -- a region based minimum wage effectively already exists due to different costs of living so presumably it could be made to follow some region based formula like the one proposed that is updated every few years...

I don't know enough to know whether it would be workable or not, but your force employees argument is not a justification for it.

> Every location has to have a custom minimum wage

I think the federal structure of the USA lends itself nicely to that problem.

There would be an issue in extremely heterogeneous states like Washington or California, where the big cities on the coast are known for being expensive while the interior is often cheaper, less desirable and subject to snobbery, as in the case of Bakersfield which I have never heard anything good about.

States and even cities already do set their own minimum wages. I don’t see how further complicating the issue by requiring each individual building to consider the apartments available within a 1hour drive radius to figure out what their minimum wage needs to be.

For a lot of people, the lifestyle they want is "a place to live" and getting a job that pays that much is impossible.