[0xB31B1B]

> As for who the losers are, the data is quite clear: Mostly corporate profits.

Amongst the problems I have with the policy are around reducing profits being presented as something purely beneficial or at no cost, and claiming that we have seen enough to "call it good" within 6 months of implementation. Corporate profits drive investment and investment grows the pie. You won't see these impacts over 6 months but you will see them over 1-5 years. Restaurant closures in response to these policies can take 6 months to few years because the medium/large size franchisees will run a franchise operating at 0 profit for a year or two until the franchise requires capital investment (replace the parking lot, buy a new grill etc) or their financing situation changes against them such that they can't maintain working capital. "20 dollar big mac" is and was unrealistic fanfare, the most likely scenario is languishing for a while.

[BriggyDwiggs42]

What we’ve done is change who makes the decision for how to spend a certain amount of money from wealthy investors to fast food workers, right? The thing is, we know that fast food workers are generally not doing too well financially. A surprisingly large portion even need to draw on government assistance like food stamps to get by. Like most poor Americans, we can also expect them to be in a degree of debt. If you give these people a bit more money, you reduce strain on taxpayer-funded assistance, you pay off debts, and you get the added bonus of increasing the quality of life for some people. What I need you to do is explain to me what you expect to gain by having wealthy people invest the money used to achieve these ends. Call me a cynic, but I don’t personally expect the same good to come of it.