[jrajav]

If you're going to make claims that don't align with academic consensus and empirical evidence (that higher minimum wage is net bad for the lowest earners, or for the economy as a whole, or that it reduces employment), you'll need to back up your claims with substantial evidence of your own. As is, you're just spinning a hypothetical based on total assumptions, which don't really pass the sniff test.

[worried4future]

> academic consensus and empirical evidence

I reject the "academic consensus" of people who are not a part of the real world.

[guywithahat]

The academic consensus is, in fact, that minimum wage hikes hurt the lowest paid workers by forcing them out of the labor market and raising prices. I'm not sure what the other guy was talking about

[guywithahat]

I was admittedly confused and had to read your comment a few times.

It has been empirically proven that a higher minimum wage does hurt the lowest paid workers the most by forcing them out of the labor market and raising prices. Now as the other posted not so eloquently pointed out research, especially sociology (infamously in 2006 ~18% of social scientists considered themselves marxists), is a very left-leaning field and there is a lot of disingenuous research. The two most common bad studies I've seen say a very modest minimum wage hike doesn't cause layoffs, which is usually because everything is within the margin of error, or we see studies that say given enough time they see a benefit but this doesn't usually include inflation, forcing those workers to relocate, or a variety of other real world effects. But the fact raising the minimum wage hurts the lowest paid workers is just a fact