It's nice to see publicity-- particularly by a political candidate-- for the community effects of overly low minimu,m wages combined with social welfare supports.
In the absence of the social welfare supports, the low wages paid by fast foos outlets, among others, would not be sustainable. The lack of sustainability would be very, very ugly. I hope that we, as a society, don't actually want to see people starving, dwindling, decaying that way.
The social welfare supports were not intended to plump the profits of corporations. They were intended to provide sustenance for those who are temporarily or more permanently unable to earn income, and who are without accumulated wealth. I think that-- I hope that-- we still want to provide that sustenance.
I don't think it was at all frequently predicted that the powerful would find ways to use social welfare supports as leverage for their own profits. It's not that surprising that something of the sort happened.
But that can be corrected for. By raising the minimum wage.
The outcry about minimum wage at present should not be that it decreases employment: it should be that it is far too low to sustain life.
The outcry about social welfare at present should not be that it discourages work and job search: it should be that it subsidizes already-profitable corporations.
Of course, it is always less friction-laden to blame the relatively powerless.