In rather the same way that victims of crime aren't taking care of themselves and are responsible for their own lives, yes, I suppose so...
Well, social Darwinism is legitimately an evil philosophy, so if you want to characterize being against a living wage as such I don't feel particularly compelled to stop you.
Personally, I'm a fan of more widespread ownership of the means of production, with proportionally increased income across most of the board (CEOs lose out in this one, I'm afraid). But that is not a particularly fashionable viewpoint in the United States currently. Admittedly understandable, since virtually all of the attempts to implement it have led to totalitarian horror.
In any event, I think you will find that the arguments you're making here represent arguments against the minimum wage as well. If only the minimum wage has a floor of $7.25, and the rest of wages are determined by the supposedly free market, then there's already unfairness. Shouldn't all wages go up by $7.25?
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*