Then why do we require paying minimum wage to people working in one of the most popular cities in the world?

Capitalists can answer this easily: exploiting workers by paying them less than a living wage raises the rate of profit.

But how can you answer it?

Yes, nothing increases profits like dead workers. Mwahahaha. adjusts monocle.

Anyway, the answer you're looking for is that when workers can't afford to live in a commutable distance to a given job, the supply-pool of workers for that jobs goes down. When the supply goes down, the price goes up (or other measures to increase the supply kick in).

People living on the edge end up costing more to society, it's an externality not taken enough into account in the labor market.

Intriguing. Source, please?

They literally did not care if their workers died. So workers were employed in deplorable conditions for less-than-livable wages, in order to maintain high profits, simply because the Capitalists could get away with it. I don't know what makes you think the Capitalists of today are significantly different from those of yesterday in this regard. The key difference that separates them, as I see it, is that today Capitalists may (notice the "may"--it isn't guaranteed) be prosecuted or, worse (to them) fined, if they violate labor laws.

And do you have actual evidence to support your second assertion? Especially in the case of the Bay Area in general, or San Francisco in specific?

As a matter of fact, yes. The easiest, simplest, cheapest way to increase profits is to cut wages while encouraging uncontrolled reproduction and forcing self-sufficient populations into the labor market. That gives you an abundance of labor power so large that you can pay them sub-living wages and not run out of workers when they drop dead.

It especially helps if you can finely calibrate things so that they drop dead slowly, particularly after having children. A worker who drops dead of a heart attack or snaps their neck somewhere in the range 40-55 is optimal: they've reproduced sufficiently to replace themselves in your labor force, but they didn't get old enough to be owed a pension.

The way to keep them alive that long while paying a sub-living wage is a simple little thing called Food Stamps. The government makes up (most of) the difference between the wages you pay and the actual cost of staying alive. You thus reap profits that are effectively subsidized by taxpayers while still being able to claim that you're an independent company operating in the free market.

And you know what the best part is? After a few years or decades of this, you can turn around to the government and complain about how much public debt they've got and how high their taxes are! You can then set province against province or nation against nation to compete to subsidize you the most, all the while maintaining your self-image as a heroic free-market ubermensch.

Externalities are so useful, aren't they?

Interesting. How do you think such a system of Universal Housing should work? One alternative is to build high density public housing which, IMHO, has been shown to be an utter disaster from which many poor communities are still suffering.

Another alternative is to incentivize the poor to leave high cost areas and spread out to where they could be housed more affordably/safely/sanely. I'm not sure that's as terrible an idea, but it certainly has downsides, including potentially sacrificing whatever culture and community already exists in poorer areas.

I am not a socialist; my currently preferred form of welfare is simply to give people cash (and more cash, rather than less, if they obtain a job). But I'm definitely curious to hear the other side.

That incentive exists in the form of cost-of-living savings.