I've heard the living wage argument, but in my area most minimum wage earners are not the primary source of household income, so the rationale doesn't hold up.
Right, but even for people who make somewhat more money than that, if they feel they are getting squeezed economically then I would think they would be much more open to proposals that would obviously benefit the average joe. They don't necessarily have to benefit from it at that time, but they could both think that one day they may need it, and at a time where the narrative is increasingly focusing on income inequality / the wealthy bamboozling the country for personal gain, any reasonable-sounding ideas that obviously benefit workers will get more attention and more consideration.
OTOH I know there are localities where there are a significant number of households that depend on the minimum wage for the household income, then as I noted those localities can make their own case for a higher local minimum wage. I also know the fact that the federal minimum hasn't kept up with inflation has disproportionally impacted the rural poor, particularly in the South. I like the idea of tiered minimums, but some groups don't seem to be interested in that outcome.
And that was what I was getting at in part of my post - Proposals that sound good but have a decent chance of actually harming local economies are more likely to get support when sizable numbers of citizens
feel they are under financial distress. Both parties need to start cooperating to bring wages up or else we may find a lot more possibly-harmful ideas gaining momentum.
I suppose this is one downside to having an initiative process.
