And if you'll think about it, you're paying anyway. If you're not paying higher prices at, say, Wal-Mart, in order to pay for that living wage, then you're paying higher taxes to provide for the public assistance their employees need to feed, clothe, and house their own families. You pay either way.
Where's the proof? Right here, from not-exactly-friendly-to-Obama Forbes' magazine:
Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.
Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee on Education and the Workforce.
“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report, available in full here.
“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.” ...
...Other large retail chains have been the focus of similar reports in recent months. In October, two studies released to coincide showed that American fast food industry outsourced a combined $7 billion in annual labor costs to taxpayers. McDonald's MCD -0.45% alone accounted for $1.2 billion of that outlay.
Yum Brands came in at a distant number two, with its Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC subsidiaries costing $648 million in benefits programs for workers each year. (boldface mine)
Like I said, you pay anyway - through higher prices, or higher taxes. But you pay anyway. Which, then, is the better way?