[AnthonyMouse]

> The real question is not if demand for labor will decrease (it will), the question is how much less low-wage labor will be purchased with a certain increase in the minimum wage, and whether policymakers consider this tradeoff good.

That is actually the false dichotomy that leads people to consider minimum wage as a good idea. Just because something might be better than nothing doesn't mean it's better than known alternatives.

Model minimum wage as a tax on employers for the difference between the minimum wage and what they would have paid without it, which is used to fund wage subsidies in the same amount to those employees.

Looked at in that way, minimum wage is obviously ridiculous. There is no reason to ever use that tax structure for anything. Even if you wanted to have the same subsidies for the same employees, it makes more sense to spread out the tax burden across everyone so that you don't have a de facto >=100% tax to hire someone who would have made half the minimum wage or less.

The only issue then is that without the disincentive to hire created by the minimum wage "tax", anyone could offer to do easy work for $.01/hour just to get the subsidy, so you might as well make the subsidy a fixed unconditional amount regardless of wages or hours.

At which point you have a UBI.