[throwawaylinux]

If you're subscribing to orthodox economics then in that case raising minimum wage would result in job losses.

What I think would actually happen is (perhaps some job losses, but) more jobs being pushed underground and laws skirted.

I'm not against minimum wages or increasing it as such, but if the lowest paid workers are in such dire conditions, the fundamental problem seems to be that they have insufficient bargaining power. A huge issue has to be illegal immigrant population that largely competes for low wage positions -- I've heard it's estimated about 15 million but could be as high as double that. Absolutely staggering numbers in either case and being concentrated in the supply of low skill labor it hits the most disadvantaged Americans including minorities hardest unfortunately. I know it's verboten to speak about now, but even champions of labor and the disadvantaged such as Sanders talked about the problem before Trump sent everyone off the rails (and/or the corporatists completed their capture of the left-wing side of politics).

[eru]

> If you're subscribing to orthodox economics then in that case raising minimum wage would result in job losses.

No, that's just one outcome. I already described another outcome higher up the comment tree: reduction in non-wage benefits.

In practice, you would probably see some combination of outcomes.

> A huge issue has to be illegal immigrant population that largely competes for low wage positions -- I've heard it's estimated about 15 million but could be as high as double that.

The demand curve for labour seems to be nearly horizontal, ie in the longer run more or less labour supplied (almost) doesn't change its price.

> [...] but even champions of labor and the disadvantaged such as Sanders talked about the problem [...]

Are you suggesting that those people who are desperate enough to become nearly right-less illegal immigrants do not count as labour or as disadvantaged?

(I can very well believe that Sanders doesn't care about them, of course.)

[throwawaylinux]

> No, that's just one outcome. I already described another outcome higher up the comment tree: reduction in non-wage benefits.

I was not replying to you. I asked the posted who claimed that benefits had already hit a floor. I was responding to his supposition.

> Are you suggesting that those people who are desperate enough to become nearly right-less illegal immigrants do not count as labour or as disadvantaged?

No I'm not suggesting that. Seems pretty accusatory and not really in good faith, unless you can explain how on earth I might have been reasonably misinterpreted as suggesting it.

You can advocate for and advance your own interests or the interests of your voters and constituents first without being subject to these stupid witch hunts. Everybody does it, even you. I don't go around accusing you of not caring about poor people or refugees because you have failed to sell all your belongings and donate your wealth to the less fortunate as well as your income except that which you need to barely keep yourself alive.

We are talking about wages in the USA, and massive downward pressure on low skilled labor comes from illegal immigrant workers. If you can't cope with this or debate it rationally then that's your problem not mine.

[eru]

> We are talking about wages in the USA, and massive downward pressure on low skilled labor comes from illegal immigrant workers.

Only, that's not true.