It's real easy to look at individuals working in low wage jobs and pity them. The jobs don't pay too well, and too often you see people who are obviously parents, with financial responsibilities and other expenses, holding down these jobs.

There's a tendency to want to "cure" the situation by somehow offering a form of wage equity--by paying more to these workers so they won't have to struggle simply to provide the basics of life. But as noble as the intent of such proposals may be, they are also quite misguided.

You see, as Draginol has pointed out on another thread, usually your earnings are tied directly to the revenue you produce. A burger flipper may fill a necessary niche in society, but they really don't produce enough of value to, say, make their wage equal to that of a computer programmer. Sure, they can get better paying jobs in the service sector, but in the end there is only so much value you can assign to these jobs.

Then there's the idea of upward mobility. Why do we work to go through college? Because of the prospect of jobs that pay better and offer us more of what we value, be it money or time. If you take away the added value that a degree brings, then you essentially remove the incentive for that degree. As a result, more people will be inclined to remain in service jobs rather than seeking jobs that provide greater value.

The truth is, people CAN make it on low paying jobs. The fact that many do is testament to that truth. Sure, it may be difficult, but that difficulty, however unpleasant, should serve as an incentive for personal achievement. Redistributing the wealth lowers the GDP by failing to provide an incentive for achievement, and the lower GDP makes higher taxes necessary to pay the cost of government. Basically, it wipes out the economy.