There is an easy way to determine this, and that's exactly what has been mentioned in the quote I keep including. A living wage should allow an individual to afford a minimum of things such as education and entertainment. This of course also refers to workers on the bottom quartile who generally are the most at risk of poverty. When we say that an individual needs something we mean needs a minimum while also avoiding poverty. Consumerism, which is subjective, isn't included. Whether you need an extra week of holiday doesn't matter when what you need is defined as that which allows you to avoid poverty.

who gets to determine what is "acceptable" ?

If it creates more jobs it by definition cannot simultaneously create a race for the bottom. Labor is a commodity like any other. The greater the demand for it the higher the price for it will be. The statement however only shows that it doesn't solve the problem it claims to solve and in fact cannot.

It is the typical leftist form over substance solution to poverty that rather than alleviating poverty spreads it.

Irrespective of its economic effects, it's coercive. It obstructs voluntary association. I am therefore opposed to it.

Selling.

bump.

Crime is a byproduct of freedom. There was less freedom for them 50 years ago than there is now.

What source are you using for that claim?

Not in wars. Black people were not fighting other black people in WW2, or Korea, or Vietnam, or Iraq.

I am saying it is a socio-economic cause, not a racial cause.

If you are saying black people are violent, I would point out that most wars in human history have not been waged by black people. Especially in the last few centuries. Black people, as a race, tend to be on the receiving end of violence.

Statistically, poor people are most likely to be violent. Statistically, black people are a lot more likely to be poor than white people.

Hows about them statistics?

McDonald's is rolling out self-service kiosks in restaurants across the US that allow customers to order and pay for their food without ever having to interact with a human.

"At least half of the operators in my region are on the verge of collapse," one franchisee wrote in response to a recent survey by former Janney Capital Markets analyst Mark Kalinowski. "With minimum wage for fast food workers potentially increasing to incredibly high levels, we are facing a crisis situation."

Another franchisee wrote, "We are in uncharted waters. The minimum wage issue is a major threat to the survival of the operator community." The franchisee said McDonald's should be "putting every resource available" into finding labor savings, through technologies such as kiosks and automatic fry dispensers.

The price increases needed to offset any added labor costs "would cause a complete collapse in guest counts," the franchisee added. "I see no other options but the company paying to keep operators alive until they figure out how to reduce labor required by 30%."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mcdonalds-shoots-down-fears-planning-202513285.html

My take - From a profit standpoint, it makes sense. I do feel bad for potential cashiers, but technology is going to do it's thing. While I'm all about higher pay for retail and fast food employees, I don't want to prevent companies from taking advantage of cost saving technology.