I am curious to know where we disagree.
1) It is dishonest to conflate healthcare with insurance.
This is true.
2) No. If you work 40 hours a week at a job that doesn't pay enough to get those four basics at local market prices, one is under a simple compulsion to do one or both of two things:
a) move
b) earn privilege to a higher-paying position.
Yes, I do think working 40+ hours a week, should entitle a person to be paid enough to live without having to worry about if the electricity may get cut off one month worry if his/her family will have enough to eat that week. I think people who work hard, work long hours, deserve a fair means of living comfortably.
But here is the kicker. Comfortable is subjective. So I suppose we should create a baseline from which we can agree. I say comfortable for the average person is being able to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner every day without worrying about their next meal, and it means not worrying about having a mobile phone, at least basic cable and internet, electricity, hot water, heat/ac, and a form of transportation, all with the ability to save a few dollars at the end of each pay period.
Now, does this mean I think a Wal-Mart employee in Greenwich, CT should earn $150,000+ a year? No, not at all. This goes back to your point, people deserve a fair wage, but if you live in an area where the average wage is executive salary, a Wal-Mart employee really has no business being there.
I reject the idea that working 40 hours automatically entitles one to a comfortable lifestyle. Especially in a labor-saturated marketplace, there isn't enough to go around. It's musical chairs, and the plums should go to those who show the combination of ability and ambition to secure them. A welfare-centric culture subverts this by sweeping the real goad of personal financial failure under the rug. My opinion.
I agree that right now there "isn't enough to go around". But I argue, there could be. There is no reason why we can't employee the country. We have the means, the raw materials and a global presence that far exceeds any other country with the exception of China.
I think your argument that this is all to blame on a welfare-centric culture is disingenuous and faulty in premise. I do not equate welfare with personal financial success or failure. I equate it to providing a means of living when no other opportunities are provided. Yes, I get that there are those who take advantage of the system, but that is true with any system. Financial success is an idea that happens while and after one has become "comfortable".
brb.. have a meeting.