So, I think we can agree that we don't have to just choose one method for improving the lives of low-income people. At the same time, it is true that some ways are more effective at producing results than others. Should we try to raise wages? Yes! Should we try to drive down costs? Yes!
That being said, if I had to choose, I think I would prefer to increase my income instead of decreasing the cost of items I had to purchase. (Of course, both would be best!) Lower cost items only benefit me, if I need to purchase them. With an increased income comes an increased set of options for how to deploy that income.
i don't see how that makes much of a difference. if costs are lower my income goes a lot further too, i save money on essentials and i have more freedom to spend the remaining money as i see fit. increased income is really just lower prices plus inflation. what matters is the ratio of cost of living to income.
Not necessarily. The historical trend (talking really big picture) is that dropping costs have been associated with much higher wages for everyone.
That'd hold small picture too. Observe that income is a flow while costs are a static measure. In theory, if my costs halve then we wouldn't expect wages to halve. They'd halve per-widget and there would be more demand for widgets, leading to a slight quality of life increase.
That being said, if I had to choose, I think I would prefer to increase my income instead of decreasing the cost of items I had to purchase. (Of course, both would be best!) Lower cost items only benefit me, if I need to purchase them. With an increased income comes an increased set of options for how to deploy that income.