That sounds nice. Though some might think, wouldn't you take the opportunity to earn the extra money with a young family to support?
Except there may not be any extra money. Both of these men will be receiving WFF and possibly an accommodation supplement. At the higher pay rate, if they work longer hours they may lose their other subsidies. In fact, they may be working for nothing. That doesn't make any sense.
What these two men may be is a prime example of is how high effective marginal tax rates reduce work effort.
But it also shows that their original wage (combined with state subsidies) was a livable = living income.
Some of the support for the living wage was based on the assumption that government wouldn't have to subsidise workers to the extent they do now. In fact Bill English said:
The analysis shows that the “living wage” would least help low-income families whose welfare support would abate as their income rose. In those cases, the main beneficiary of the living wage would effectively be the Government because it would receive more in tax and pay out less through abated transfers.Who picked that these struggling low wage families would simply reduce their hours?
On the upside, at least they are parking wardens.