27 years is a pretty long time. In that time the wealth gap has widened and the minimum wage fears of businesses closing or poor people not getting a job seems to be false.

It's particularly gross that so many states have a minimum wage of a little over $7 in 2024. That's ~$14k before taxes at 40 hours a week.

> That's ~$14k before taxes at 40 hours a week

I think that’s a liveable wage in some parts of farm country. Not great. But better than being undercut by illegal labour. (At least, that’s the argument one would have to disprove. I’m generally in favour of a $25/hour minimum wage.)

> 27 years is a pretty long time.

Even longer than you think, since 1987 was 37 years ago.

For many of us small business owners, that 1987 opinion is on the money. The direct and immediate consequence of raising the minimum wage by a bunch is that I'd have to lay a couple of people off, which would be heartbreaking (for them of course, but also for me).

Unskilled labor simply isn't worth very much most of the time, but it's nice to help people get their foot in the door. One of my absolute favorite outcomes for an employee is to have them grow in capacity so that I "have" to pay them way much more than some artificial wage floor because they've developed into a solid contributor.

If you’d been giving reasonable cost of living adjustments over the years and paying a living wage to your employees in the first place instead of just paying the minimum, then a raise wouldn’t be such a shock.

What sort of small business do you run?

What on earth are you talking about? We give cost of living increases to every employee every single year.

It’s an issue I’ve chosen to have no opinion on. I’ve seen studies showing it reduced employment and I’ve seen studies showing it pressured all wages upwards without reducing employment.

In the end: IDK but it doesn’t seem like the best issue to focus on to help people.

But doesn't it help the state overall, because more people will become ineligible for tax breaks and other diverse subsidies and programs the state offer's for the low-income households. Has any study taken a look at that?

I had the same thought:

35hr x $7 = 245, x4 weeks = $980

35hr x $15 = 525, x4 weeks = $2100

At my poorest (and with 3 dependents) EBT only ever paid out $~650 a month. The gross delta here is $1120. So the state should come out ahead.

But all I've heard of is hours being cut in line with wage increases. So few workers are pulling that $2100 and are presumably still on benefits.

Surely there is some level at which it will reduce unemployment. So really it’s just an argument as to what the right level is.