MW impact: benefit to a small screaming minority -- overall net harm to the nation/society = 330 million citizens..
The problem is that the claim high minimum wages destroys employment has become an ideology that has been quite stubborn in face of economic experts who have claimed repeatedly that this is not true.
No, the "economic experts" differ about it, but the repeated claims of MW proponents is that the actual results of MW increase have not been measurably harmful. They usually leave open the possibility that there is net harm, but say it's too small to be of any consequence, or it's not possible to determine who is adversely affected, and so it's OK to allow this little bit of harm in return for the verifiable wage increases to some workers, so that at least we know these particular workers have been made better off. While whatever harm is done cannot be identified.
Once a bad idea becomes part of a political ideology it gets hard to correct such errors.
The only error is to exaggerate the extent of the damage that MW increase will cause. Usually the damage is too small to be measured, but there is net damage overall. Data can easily be thrown around by both sides of the debate, but neither side can prove there is net benefit or harm. Each side can give some data -- to prove some jobs losses did or did not happen, whichever they are arguing.
In these claims respectively both sides are right, not contradicting each other, but just giving separate data.
The thing to notice now though is that minimum wages have been raised on the state and local level and have falsified these conservative claims.
Only the exaggerated claims of impending doom. The claim that there is a net negative overall impact is not falsified by any results.
This is no longer theoretical, we have strong empirical evidence that this right winged ideological-economic theory is false.
But only theories which make the exaggerated predictions. There is no empirical evidence to undermine the general principle that higher MW per se leads to net job loss. All the empirical evidence shows is that this loss is too small to be determined because it is offset by other factors. So the total job loss is very minor, compared to other factors -- compared to job increases due to other factors.
The states and cities that raised minimum wages became working experiments that have delegated conservative job killing claims caused by higher minimum wages to the economic equivalent of flat Earthism.
Again, you're just obsessing on the exaggerated predictions when the MW increase was moderate so that the negative impact of it was too small to measure.
But the example of Samoa in 2007-09 proves that the job-killing claim is correct. I.e., when the MW increase is great enough, or sudden enough, or impacts on much of the economy, its effect can be measured and produces net damage rather than benefit.
As time goes on, this will become more and more clear to all but conservative ideologues.
What's becoming more clear is that the damage done can be minimized by keeping the MW increase moderate and restricted. Which is why these increases are now always phased in gradually. Even now the 15% increases have not yet taken effect in most places where it has been enacted.
When those states that have not raised their minimum wages contemplate doing so, and the usual ideologues start trying to kill such actions by resorting to these economic theories, the proponents can now demonstrate with strong evidence that these right wingers are wrong. proven wrong by direct evidence, not some theory of liberal economists.
Again you're just obsessing on the exaggerated predictions.
The traditional free-market theory is upheld in some cases where there is evidence -- the case of Samoa being the extreme example -- but the experience has been that MW can be increased with little or no
measurable damage. This is what the liberal economists have demonstrated with their data. They have not demonstrated that there is no net harm caused by the MW, but only that there are no dire consequences and
no measurable NET damage.
In those conservative states that fail to get with the program, this may be a problem as workers flee these backward states to neighboring states that are more enlightened and therefore offer better living standards.
Nothing like that will ever happen. There are too many other factors dictating where people choose to relocate.
And this is a cart-before-the-horse dilemma, because the states with a higher living standard automatically also enact higher MW levels. So it's impossible to determine which caused which.
This rather than merely offering big tax advantages and perks to businesses who move to their states will eventually be necessary.
Corporate welfare is just one more interference in the market which does overall net damage. Interfering in order to pander to any class -- rich or poor, proletarian or capitalist -- ends up making everyone worse off than they would be if the state just left the market alone -- individual players -- to make the decisions.
