Your argument is that because a business is not yet distributing all it's revenue as costs, thereby driving its profits to $0, we should regulate that outcome?
What about the risk that the entrepreneur took in terms of their capital to open the franchise? Are they not due compensation?
Minimum wage requirements do several things:
- Make those who cannot deliver $x/hr in revenue permanently unemployed
- Drive up costs for consumers
Sure, those who keep their jobs are better off, but that doesn't offset the negatives imo.
Maybe the restaurants will eat the losses by not passing on costs to remain competitive, but we're already in a massive inflation cycle, so it wouldn't be hard for them to raise rates while blaming the law. But how many businesses needed to be driven to insolvency for your policy to determine minimum wage is at last sufficiently high?
No. My argument is that the cost of the workers where I live is at least worth $20 an hour. If you're not willing to pay them that then I don't really care about your business. It's not worth giving you a business license to operate for you're not willing to agree that the labor here is worth this much. The local government expects a certain amount of tax revenue from wages and since you're not willing to pay that cost of doing business you can go elsewhere. Someone else will be happy to take over the location. We don't need you.
> My argument is that the cost of the workers where I live is at least worth $20 an hour.
How far are you willing to quantify "where I live" geographically? Is it just CA? Should OR, AZ, NV all have the same policy? What about Mexico?
Why $20? Why not $22? Why not $1876436?
> The local government expects a certain amount of tax revenue from wages and since you're not willing to pay that cost of doing business you can go elsewhere.
The government could just as well increase sales tax? Why choose a policy that increases unemployment and drives out tax-paying inhabitants?
What about the risk that the entrepreneur took in terms of their capital to open the franchise? Are they not due compensation?
Minimum wage requirements do several things:
- Make those who cannot deliver $x/hr in revenue permanently unemployed
- Drive up costs for consumers
Sure, those who keep their jobs are better off, but that doesn't offset the negatives imo.
Maybe the restaurants will eat the losses by not passing on costs to remain competitive, but we're already in a massive inflation cycle, so it wouldn't be hard for them to raise rates while blaming the law. But how many businesses needed to be driven to insolvency for your policy to determine minimum wage is at last sufficiently high?