[Gibbon1]

I think minimum wages do three things.

1. Flattens the wage curve. More money goes to the bottom end and less to the top. Given economists penchant to complain the distribution doesn't matter it's interesting that that freaks them out.

2. Low paying jobs are very likely in industries where employers have more bargaining power than workers. Minimum wages correct for that.

3. Increasing labor costs motivates employers to invest in increasing productivity which leads to better long term economic growth.

[mjevans]

I disagree with the first point.

Owner/operators tend to be compensated with profit. However the (low/mid) middle class aren't often even compensated with stock options. This leads to rising minimum wages raising the price floor of an area without a corresponding rise in the compensation that the middle classes receive.

As a result of that cost of living increase, the poor remain effectively just as poor while the middle class become more poor (relatively speaking).

A more socially progressive stance is to influence the market supply, thus tipping the scales towards minimal profits, particularly in "need to have" categories such as housing, healthcare, and other basic social infrastructure (transportation, power, communications (of all types), water/sewer).

For some of those there is a natural monopoly within a given area; it makes more sense to focus on highly regulated quality (particularly for the last mile, where parallel infrastructure can be massively wasteful).

For others a hybrid approach can help: a regulated marketplace where there is ample competition among similarly sized players and/or a public option of last/default resort to control prices/quality.

Finally there are healthy markets for //optional extras// (such as fast food) where competition is robust and effective.