[hellojesus]

> Because you’re not changing the service you’re providing and a “worse” worker doesn’t decrease the throughput of the store in any measurable fashion.

I dont think either assertion is true.

Maybe a business finds ways to cut costs to offset the wage increases leading to a worse product for the consumer.

If I have a worker that is able to produce 150% of the tacos per hour compared to another worker, there is definitely a difference in throughput and therefore a difference in value.

> This increase will get passed onto the consumer... reducing the profit margin

I agree. There are three outcomes:

1. Pass the costs to the consumer

2. Reduce profit margins

3. Go out of business (this happens when 1 and 2 fail)

The policy now has forcably changed the market equilibrium for labor by reducing supply in jobs comparable to fast food. The government has now mandated the consumer must pay more than the market equilibrium price. It has mandated that entrepreneurs reduce their income.

[aaomidi]

The government has mandated that a business should be paying its working a living wage.

All the other things are secondary consequences that may, or may not, happen.

If a company can not keep up with the rising cost of labor, they’re more than welcome to secede ground to their competitors who can.

[claytongulick]

A high school kid needs to make a "living wage"?

This is the absurd argument I see made all over the place in favor of high minimum wages.

If $20 per hour is ok, why not $30? Or $50? Or $100? It would make everyone rich, right?

What's the problem?

Command economies don't work.

Laws like this are short sighted and the only effect is to devalue our currency even more.

[aaomidi]

> Command economies don't work.

Command economies were literally one of the golden ages of the American middle class. So no they do actually work.

Anyone who is working deserves a living wage. Otherwise we’re now helping companies hire people and not pay them enough for the work they do. These people don’t go away, they end up costing all tax payers more $.

Also, next time you go to a fast food place look and see how many of them are high schoolers. Maybe that’ll stop the strawman arguments.

[hellojesus]

> Also, next time you go to a fast food place look and see how many of them are high schoolers. Maybe that’ll stop the strawman arguments.

Have you considered that by increasing minimum wage so dramatically, high schoolers now need to compete with adults for the same positions, and they are now crowded out because they have less flexibility with their hours and schedules?

High schoolers may be willing to accept a lower wage for the same work, which would give them an advantage in hiring, but now they are barred from seeking it.

[aaomidi]

> High schoolers may be willing to accept a lower wage for the same work, which would give them an advantage in hiring, but now they are barred from seeking it.

The point of a government is to protect people from being exploited.

[hellojesus]

It is not exploitation if it's voluntary. The business cannot enslave the teenager. They can simply offer a wage and hope someone bites. If nobody bites, they either need to increase the offer or go without the labor.