Who deserves a "living wage"? A better question would be, who doesn't deserve a living wage? There are many opinions out regarding this subject. Is it possible that only the "skilled" professionals are deserving of decent pay? The definition of "unskilled" should be looked at before a conclusion about who is deserving of a living wage is made. This is how the Webster-Merriam Collegiate Dictionary defines unskilled:
             "1: not skilled in a branch of work: lacking technical training
             2: not requiring skill
             3: marked by lack of skill "
             Based on these definitions, are any companies truly employing the "unskilled"? Would a hotel continue to employ a housekeeper who was "marked by a lack of skill", i.e. he or she is unable to properly make beds or vacuum? Would McDonald's continue to employ a worker to take orders and run the cash register who was "not skilled in a branch of work: lacking technical training", i.e. the employee was unable to understand customer orders correctly or to give proper change at the end of the transaction? I believe that one can safely assume that no company would continue to employ anyone who, by definition, was truly "unskilled". Should we not therefore make the conclusion that no companies employ an "unskilled" workforce? Each and every job, regardless of its level of prestige, contains elements of "skill"; to say otherwise is to indicate businesses are filled with bumbling idiots who are unable to complete simple tasks. Now that it has been concluded that there is no true "unskilled" workforce, the question of who deserves a living wage remains. The answer is obvious; every worker deserves a living wage. Why should any person be expected to work for less money than they can support themselves (and/or their fa...