Greeters are an inefficient use of resources. In essence, it is taxable charity.
Not just the greeters, although they are the most striking example. I have had conversations with other employees and they seemed like nice enough people, but they just didn't have the mental capacity to do anything past the simplest of tasks.
Real question: What is the alternative to a living wage?
For all the disregard it seems to be held in, I consider the current minimum wage to be just about right.
Demanding that any one individual be provided "a living wage" is subjectivity trying to be objectivity. Circumstances vary wildly. What might be presumed a living wage in NV probably would not be a living wage in NY.
Equally elusive is the definition of "living".
Does this wage need to be adequate to pay for food, transportation and shelter?
Does this wage need to cover a furnished room, 1 bedroom apartment? A villa on the Mediterranean?
Does this wage need to provide for a bus pass, a bicycle, a car?
Does this wage need to provide 3 meals a day at home, at MacDonalds, at a restaurant?
Is this person single. married, have children? Do they live with family and if so, what circumstances are the family in? An18 year old can live in a 6 story walk-up, a 70 year old, not so much.
Are we dealing with city or rural?
Does the person need "nice clothes" for their job or can they make do with raggedy clothes?
Does a "living wage" include movie theater tickets? Tobacco? Beer? Condoms?
So, really, every "living wage" would have to be factored by zip code, age, area, family and a lot of etceteras.and this means that unless you put this "living wage" at a very high mark, say about $25 an hour, you'd have a million versions of the "living wage" or you'd price the "living wage" beyond reasonable economics.
I'm presuming we are discussing the Federal Minimum Wage. This is currently $7.25 per hour. Many cities and maybe some states, have higher minimum wages. When IU was last in San Francisco, it was around $9.50. The particular case we're discussing from the OP is Washington DCs minimum wage. Not their "living wage", just their minimum wage.
To summarize, we can have a minimum wage but that minimum wage can not be a "living wage". Some can live for less than the minimum wage and some can not. It is not plausible to establish a "living wage".
I hope I have answered your question.
Let me reminisce. In 1960 I worked 40 hours a week clerking at Street & Smith (later bought by Conde Nast), publishers of Analog, Mademoiselle and other well known magazines. I was paid $1.00 per hour and I lived in Greenwich village. I rented a furnished room for $8 a week, the bathroom was shared with the other 5 rooms but I had a sink and a 2 burner stove. My subway fare was 30¢ a day. My meal budget was 15¢ which got me baked beans and coffee. Basically, I took home $36.00 and I lived on $16 and put $20 in the bank. So, certainly, the minimum wage was enough for me although I quickly improved my income without upgrading my lifestyle. So, theoretically, my "living wage" was only 40¢ an hour.