I disagree. Not everyone needs a livable wage (e.g. teenagers) and by removing entry level positions we eliminate the lowest rung of the ladder. This is not a good outcome.
...but imagine the economic benefits of giving teenagers a living wage. People who have loads of extra money to spend on unnecessary items (because presumably they're not paying for the bare necessities like food and housing).
<Gasp! Some might even save some of that extra money for use in the future!>
But they already get a living wage, since for almost all working teenagers, their biggest expenses are usually taken care of by their parents (rent & health insurance).
Unless they want to save money for college. Remember when you could work an entry level job and make enough money to pay for a substantial portion of college?
That's the point. Absent any competition (which there won't be, because everyone is subject to the same minimum wage), the cost is fully passed on to the customers (ie. "everyone else"). Therefore your conclusion is incorrect.
In the short term or long term? I skimmed the study and it looks like they only looked at two years? In the short term I can see it happening due to psychological effects like price stickiness, but I'm skeptical that in the long term the trend would hold. As evidence to the contrary:
>Ashenfelter says the evidence from increased food prices suggests that basically all of the "increase of labor costs gets passed right on to the customers."
<Gasp! Some might even save some of that extra money for use in the future!>