The recent Talia Jane story just made me realize we have a possible inconsistently in policy. To get you up to speed, Jane took a low-wage job in the San Francisco Bay Area, hoping to work her way up to her passion of being a social media manager for a major company. But because of rental prices, she paid 85% of per post-tax pay just for rent (!), complained about her employer paying so little, and then was fired.
But as for the inconsistency:
Illegal: paying someone below $X/hour.
Legal: paying someone ($X + $Y)/hour (Y positive) to work in a place where their discretionary income would place them in extreme poverty (e.g. 85% of post-tax on rent).
And yes, that's just an (arguably trivial) corollary of "minimum wage (and tax brackets for that matter) is not automatically cost-of-living-adjusted". But if the goal is to stop people from being taken advantage of with low job offers that hold them in poverty, that seems like a pretty big loophole.
And it's not just that -- let's say someone moves farther out to be able to afford to live there. Then they're traveling an extra N hours just to make each shift which should rightly count against their effective hourly wage.
So, food for thought: what are we really trying to optimize for here? What would the law have to look like to not just avoid these loopholes, but "carve reality at the joints" such that it's fundamentally impossible to scalably circumvent such a law?
If you keep raising the minimum wage for a locality, and people keep commuting greater distances to get that income, what have you accomplished?