[hayst4ck]

I don't accept this at face value. I'm open to this line of reasoning, but can you prove it or provide evidence that there's something to it?

I also think there is a counter point that now fast food laborers have more money to spend on fast food or other businesses that provide goods or services that help grow the economy.

The more I think about it, the more it sounds like you are defending trickle down economics, which is literally a turd of a theory... It's other name is Horse and Sparrow economics. If the horse eats enough oats, then sparrows can survive of its droppings.

[llmguy]

I think if you're looking for proof you're setting too high a standard. But Seattle's experiment hasn't gone well AFAIK. Higher wages = less hours to go around = less money, less economic output, less investment, and so on.

https://evans.uw.edu/faculty-research/the-minimum-wage-study... https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20180578

"Relative to outlying regions of the state identified by the synthetic control method, aggregate employment at wages less than twice the original minimum—measured by total hours worked—declined."

On the other hand, taxing restaraunts with unhealthy food and forcing that money to go to low income workers maybe isn't so bad. I think NYC taxes soda directly for instance. Imagine if they forced that money to go to workers.