My impression from the first post that started this dialogue between me and you was that you were saying it's mostly young people and second earners, which reads as not essential income, so no biggie. That's where all of this is coming from. I disagree. Second earners making minimum wage are likely married to other low wage earners, many of them are single parents, etc.
I do not know where the author of the article got his information. Perhaps he was incorrect.
However, in the article he specifically stated that:
employees working at or near the minimum wage
are not the heads of poor households
They are typically either young (up to about 25) or are second-earners, in which case their households do not rely exclusively
on them for income."
This seems plausible to me.
The article does not, however, directly say, nor (IMO) does it imply, that the low income earners wages are not essential income. In fact, with the young (up to 25)
it clearly would have to be essential income. In addition, particularly in today's economy, I think the clear assumptions that that the income from the second-earners
is also essential income.
I already said this when I wrote: Instead, it would suggest... (that they are) ...an important part of the family unit and therefore very important to the country as a whole.
My point was that their income and jobs are important and are not based on poor life decisions, and that they are not "children" or "morons".