| >anecdotes
>guy who sacks over half of his staff The real question is what the competitors will do. Every change in economic policy, and in market situation, causes some participants to benefit, and others to be hindered [1]. When a business fires some of the staff, it may either end up improving efficiency (good for the business and the customers), or may open up a part of the market for competitors (good for the competitors and the customers). Watch the trend: if the competitors step up, build out, service more customers, perhaps even hire more staff, then the increase of minimum wage was good for the economy as whole. It would indicate the change closed up an existing inefficiency - people's effort, money, resources was being used suboptimally. However if you notice the trend of the competitors not expanding out, or perhaps even undergoing the same contraction, then you read it as a signal of the economy being hindered by the change. It would indicate the change increased inefficiency - people's effort, money, resources starts being wasted. I'm gonna preemptively note that the later scenario[2] would be consistent with the theory of several competing schools of economy. -- [1] Obviously it's not a zero-sum game, but there is always a degree of give-and-take. [2] It gets even more complex when businesses skirt the legally mandated minimum wage. Some work lines are partially exempt, like waiters. Some businesses hire undocumented workers, exploiting their aversion towards going to authorities. |
a chicken shop in a town of vegans should be allowed to close