Your second argument is just, not a real argument. It ignores why the minimum wage could be raised. Subsidies work when other places of the economy can provide said subsidy. When the rest of the economy starts to suffer the subsidy can no longer be provided and the economy collapses - the USSR is a great example. The economy couldn't sustain itself, it collapsed. Now you want to raise the minimum wage, whenever the fed is pumping billions into the economy. The value of the dollar would plummet and inflation would go out of control.
> Right now, the taxpayers are subsidizing jobs anyway: 70% (!!!) of SNAP/food stamps or Medicaid recipients work full time, with McDonald's and Walmart being in top spots (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...). These companies could also pay their workers a living wage and provide them with medical insurance and still be profitable!
The reason this works is because cheap foreign labor/goods can subsidize walmart paying potential higher wages. If, globally, this minimum wage was mandated, walmart would not be able to afford it, no.
It is indeed. But still, someone working on a farm full time should be able to live off of that income. If the farm cannot pay a living wage, its products are too cheap. If the farm can't get more for their product because foreign competition undercuts them - well, that is precisely for what tariffs were invented, to protect domestic industries from wage dumping.
You're asking a farmer to be subsidized by everyone else, but you're not saying why we should. Because economically, it's great that the farmer can have a living - not so great for the poor family that can't afford his overpriced produce.
Everyone cares for everyone else, until it's their pocketbook. That's why it's easy to say "raise the minimum wage!", it's just the new "pass the back." No skin off the rich SV developers back, as he types on his $1100 iPhone made with slave labor in china, in his slave labor clothes, etc.
The argument about "would I do this job" is the wrong argument. The argument is, CAN I do this job. And yes I can, and yes, most people can. Most people can not be developers. So why bother with the worthless platitude.
Also to - it is a strawman to suggest I don't want a world without servers. I just suggested that over-subsidizing them is bad for society, as a whole.
> Most people can not be developers
I don't agree with you there. I'm not 100% sure the numbers, but there's really nothing special about being good at programming. These arrogant attitudes give our profession a terrible reputation, then I have to go back to the real world, and deal with people that assume I'm like you before I even say a word.
Having done a stint in barkeeping myself, it's not an easy job at all and there are many people who aren't cut for it. You have to be resilient enough to deal with all kinds of customers (the "Karen" meme is based in way too much reality) and their issues no matter how you are feeling yourself, it's a job that's quite taxing on your body and honestly it's exhausting.
> Raising the minimum wage will just subsidize jobs that have less actual value and it will be a net loss to society.
That reminds me of "A brief history of corporate whining" (https://i.imgur.com/NBSaqzi.png). When Germany introduced the minimum wage for the first time years ago, we had the same argument, and as expected it turned out to be nothing but whining.
Right now, the taxpayers are subsidizing jobs anyway: 70% (!!!) of SNAP/food stamps or Medicaid recipients work full time, with McDonald's and Walmart being in top spots (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-...). These companies could also pay their workers a living wage and provide them with medical insurance and still be profitable!