Thanks for the question, Joshua. It's true that redistribution through taxes is an important part of reducing poverty and inequality and should be part of any poverty elimination strategy, as well as part of any advanced democracy that considers itself to be healthy, just and compassionate.

But living wages still play a role in reducing poverty, and there are additional concerns that come into play. When people engage in a hard day's work, why shouldn't that provide them with enough to support themselves and their family? Isn't it exploitative if employers are allowed to take advantage of people's labour to make a profit, but don't pay enough to allow them to survive and thrive themselves?

In the mindset of our current social infrastructure programs (including welfare and EI), we put a strong emphasis on work. We insist that people who are able to work must work, that there is inherent dignity in work, and an important contribution is made to society through work. How can we at the same time then not care if work does not pay enough to keep people out of poverty? Either it is fundamentally important (and in many instances people argue morally important) that people support themselves when they can through work or it is not. We cannot at the same time insist that people support themselves through work and insist that it is okay that employers pay less than a living wage.