Optimum Minimum Wages can be calculated

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, I did not advocate the minimum rate should be increased to $17.50 per hour or any finite numbers of dollars per hour; I advocated the minimum be adjusted until it achieves 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power.

I did not advocate a specific date for achieving the minimum's goal-rate; I advocated the minimum be annually increased by an additional 15% until the FMW rate attains 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power. ...

You didn't advocate boosting the minimum wage 15% a year until it hits $17.50, adjusted for inflation?​

No, I did not. Respectfully, Supposn​

You didn't advocate boosting the minimum wage 15% a year until it hits $17.50, adjusted for inflation?
No, I did not. Respectfully, Supposn
You did, right here.......
Each Thanksgiving day until the FMW rate attains 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power, the rate should be increased by an additional 15%.

ToddsterPatriot, I understand. You're taking the historical peak purchasing power of the $1.60 per hour, February 1968 federal minimum wage rate and adjusting it to March 2018 by using the “CPI Inflation calculator”,

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm .

[i.e. (Feb 1968) $1.60 = (Mar 2018 $11.68 .
150% of $11.68 = $17.52 now.]

You're not pretending to be an oracle divining upon the anniversary date of minimum rate adjustment, the the federal minimum wage rate will adjusted to be precisely $17.50 U.S. Dollars.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Skull Pilot]

All these MW calculations assume that one 40 hour a week job is all that should be necessary to cover one's expenses.

That assumption is the problem

 

[Supposn]

I was inadvertently in error. The sentence should begin with the word “Annual”; “Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP ...”.
... "With annual added, your error remains. ... your error was claiming "Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP"

ToddsterPatriot, that's your misconception. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP is a fact rather than an opinion. It's “baked” into the formula that statistically determines what is a nation's gross domestic product.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

...What then- prohibit employers from replacing these jobs with automation? ...

JWoodie, Automation reduces per unit costs and/or improves quality and/or consistency of those products’ quality. It has not and will not be to USA’s net economic detriment.
Automation tools, assembly lines, and methods require labor to design, create, maintain, and repair them even if they may not require many people to operate them.
Automated production, no less than the production of any other services or goods products, requires production supporting labor and enterprises.

Automation has always been, and I expect it will continue to be to our nation's best interest. To the extent that labor's cost is less, automation introduction is delayed. This is typical of our world's poorest economies.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, I did not advocate the minimum rate should be increased to $17.50 per hour or any finite numbers of dollars per hour; I advocated the minimum be adjusted until it achieves 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power.

I did not advocate a specific date for achieving the minimum's goal-rate; I advocated the minimum be annually increased by an additional 15% until the FMW rate attains 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power. ...

You didn't advocate boosting the minimum wage 15% a year until it hits $17.50, adjusted for inflation?​

No, I did not. Respectfully, Supposn​

You didn't advocate boosting the minimum wage 15% a year until it hits $17.50, adjusted for inflation?
No, I did not. Respectfully, Supposn
You did, right here.......
Each Thanksgiving day until the FMW rate attains 150% of its February 1, 1968 purchasing power, the rate should be increased by an additional 15%.

ToddsterPatriot, I understand. You're taking the historical peak purchasing power of the $1.60 per hour, February 1968 federal minimum wage rate and adjusting it to March 2018 by using the “CPI Inflation calculator”,

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm .

[i.e. (Feb 1968) $1.60 = (Mar 2018 $11.68 .
150% of $11.68 = $17.52 now.]

You're not pretending to be an oracle divining upon the anniversary date of minimum rate adjustment, the the federal minimum wage rate will adjusted to be precisely $17.50 U.S. Dollars.

Respectfully, Supposn

ToddsterPatriot, I understand.

Finally!

You're taking the historical peak purchasing power of the $1.60 per hour, February 1968 federal minimum wage rate and adjusting it to March 2018 by using the “CPI Inflation calculator”,

Yes.

You're not pretending to be an oracle

Correct, I just assumed you had also done the math.

So, where is all this new money going to come from to pay low skilled workers $17.50/hour?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was inadvertently in error. The sentence should begin with the word “Annual”; “Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP ...”.
... "With annual added, your error remains. ... your error was claiming "Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP"

ToddsterPatriot, that's your misconception. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP is a fact rather than an opinion. It's “baked” into the formula that statistically determines what is a nation's gross domestic product.

Respectfully, Supposn

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP is a fact

You're wrong.

Unless you can show that an immediate embargo of oil exports to the US will increase US GDP
and increase US jobs, I'll continue to point out your error.

 

[Supposn]

... We should instead be providing incentives to seek work, but without disincentives to the employers who are proving these jobs.

Jwoodie, I advocate the Medicare not be funded by the FICA payroll tax, but rather by some more general source of tax revenue. I would not be opposed to it being funded by a general sales tax.

I also advocate that 1/2 of Social Security retirement benefits be funded by a general sales tax, rather than our current funding by the FICA payroll tax.

These changes would not reduce the purchasing powers of USA's wages, or salaries, or Social Security retirement benefits, and they would increase our federal net tax revenues.

These changes would reduce taxes upon enterprises' payrolls, and enable USA products to be more price competitive both within our own domestic and foreign marketplaces.

FICA payroll tax is the most regressive of all federal taxes. These changes would increase incentives to create jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, that's your misconception. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP is a fact rather than an opinion. It's “baked” into the formula that statistically determines what is a nation's gross domestic product. ...

I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved version of a trade policy as described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate's” article. Regarding other concepts, you should address your questions regarding other concepts, to those concepts' advocates. ...

ToddsterPatriot, that's your misconception. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP is a fact rather than an opinion. It's “baked” into the formula that statistically determines what is a nation's gross domestic product. ...

Unless you can show that an immediate embargo of oil exports to the US will increase US GDP and increase US jobs, I'll continue to point out your error.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP is a fact.
I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved version of a trade policy as described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate's” article. Regarding other concepts, you should address your questions regarding other concepts, to those concepts' advocates.
Ask the proposer of "immediate embargo of oil exports to the USA".
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, that's your misconception. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP is a fact rather than an opinion. It's “baked” into the formula that statistically determines what is a nation's gross domestic product. ...

I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved version of a trade policy as described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate's” article. Regarding other concepts, you should address your questions regarding other concepts, to those concepts' advocates. ...

ToddsterPatriot, that's your misconception. Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP is a fact rather than an opinion. It's “baked” into the formula that statistically determines what is a nation's gross domestic product. ...

Unless you can show that an immediate embargo of oil exports to the US will increase US GDP and increase US jobs, I'll continue to point out your error.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP is a fact.
I'm among the proponents for USA adopting the improved version of a trade policy as described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificate's” article. Regarding other concepts, you should address your questions regarding other concepts, to those concepts' advocates.
Ask the proposer of "immediate embargo of oil exports to the USA".
Respectfully, Supposn

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP is a fact.

Wrong!

Ask the proposer of "immediate embargo of oil exports to the USA".

Nobody proposed that, even though, according to your rigid adherence to a GDP calculation,
it WOULD INCREASE OUR GDP MORE THAN OTHERWISE.

I don't propose it because, even though it would "reduce our trade deficit", it would greatly
harm our economy, shrink our GDP, cause massive job losses and huge hikes in energy prices.

I understand that those will be the impacts because I'm able to look beyond the first stage.

GDP = C + G + I + NX

Yes, the immediate effect would make NX larger (less negative).
The follow on effects would reduce the other inputs into GDP much, much more than the increase in NX.

So it would be stupid.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, I don't advocate the acts you described; now you state that you don't advocate the acts you described; the trade policies that we advocate don't promote or induce or encourage their adopting nations' to to act as you described? Then we're discussing foolish acts such as lighting cigars with monetary currency? Why do you expect me to participate in your foolishness? I have no need to discuss your petroleum embargo concept.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, I don't advocate the acts you described; now you state that you don't advocate the acts you described; the trade policies that we advocate don't promote or induce or encourage their adopting nations' to to act as you described? Then we're discussing foolish acts such as lighting cigars with monetary currency? Why do you expect me to participate in your foolishness? I have no need to discuss your petroleum embargo concept.

Respectfully, Supposn

I don't advocate the acts you described

No, but you do claim reducing the trade deficit will axiomatically increase our GDP.

You're wrong, as I've shown, with my oil import example.

Then we're discussing foolish acts such as lighting cigars with monetary currency?

I guess you could describe your IC wishes that way.

Why do you expect me to participate in your foolishness?

I expect you to run away. Again.

 

[Supposn]

ToddsterPatriot, I don't advocate the acts you described; now you state that you don't advocate the acts you described; the trade policies that we advocate don't promote or induce or encourage their adopting nations' to act as you described? Then we're discussing foolish acts such as lighting cigars with monetary currency? Why do you expect me to participate in your foolishness? I have no need to discuss your petroleum embargo concept.

Respectfully, Supposn

I don't advocate the acts you described
No, but you do claim reducing the trade deficit will axiomatically increase our GDP.
You're wrong, as I've shown, with my oil import example.

Then we're discussing foolish acts such as lighting cigars with monetary currency?
I guess you could describe your IC wishes that way.

Why do you expect me to participate in your foolishness?
I expect you to run away. Again.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm among the proponents of the “improved” trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. It would significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods, increasing our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus to their numbers of jobs.

If I inadvertently ever stated that reducing trade deficits by any means would be net beneficial to a nation's GDP and numbers of jobs, I overstated my case. Someone can propose some foolishness that could or likely would be contrary to their stated goals. the insincere proposals you devised or found are straw-men you deliberately set up to demonstrate their failures.

I'm fully confident the “improved” Import Certificate policy described within Wikipedia's article would, (if adopted by the USA), reduce USA's annual trade deficits in a manner to more than otherwise accomplish all that I stated.

Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ToddsterPatriot, I don't advocate the acts you described; now you state that you don't advocate the acts you described; the trade policies that we advocate don't promote or induce or encourage their adopting nations' to act as you described? Then we're discussing foolish acts such as lighting cigars with monetary currency? Why do you expect me to participate in your foolishness? I have no need to discuss your petroleum embargo concept.

Respectfully, Supposn

I don't advocate the acts you described
No, but you do claim reducing the trade deficit will axiomatically increase our GDP.
You're wrong, as I've shown, with my oil import example.

Then we're discussing foolish acts such as lighting cigars with monetary currency?
I guess you could describe your IC wishes that way.

Why do you expect me to participate in your foolishness?
I expect you to run away. Again.

ToddsterPatriot, I'm among the proponents of the “improved” trade policy described within Wikipedia's “Import Certificates” article. It would significantly reduce, if not entirely eliminate USA's chronic annual trade deficits of goods, increasing our GDP and numbers of jobs more than otherwise.

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus to their numbers of jobs.

If I inadvertently ever stated that reducing trade deficits by any means would be net beneficial to a nation's GDP and numbers of jobs, I overstated my case. Someone can propose some foolishness that could or likely would be contrary to their stated goals. the insincere proposals you devised or found are straw-men you deliberately set up to demonstrate their failures.

I'm fully confident the “improved” Import Certificate policy described within Wikipedia's article would, (if adopted by the USA), reduce USA's annual trade deficits in a manner to more than otherwise accomplish all that I stated.

Supposn

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus to their numbers of jobs.

Wrong.

If I inadvertently ever stated that reducing trade deficits by any means would be net beneficial to a nation's GDP and numbers of jobs, I overstated my case.

Was that so difficult?

Someone can propose some foolishness that could or likely would be contrary to their stated goals. the insincere proposals you devised or found are straw-men you deliberately set up to demonstrate their failures.

Yes, the proposals I set up to demonstrate the weakness in the IC plan were successful.

I'm fully confident the “improved” Import Certificate policy described within Wikipedia's article would, (if adopted by the USA), reduce USA's annual trade deficits in a manner to more than otherwise accomplish all that I stated.

How much do you think that policy would raise the price of imports? Ballpark?
How much do you think that policy would reduce the amount of imports? Ballpark?

 

[Supposn]

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus to their numbers of jobs.
Wrong.

If I inadvertently ever stated that reducing trade deficits by any means would be net beneficial to a nation's GDP and numbers of jobs, I overstated my case.

Was that so difficult?
Someone can propose some foolishness that could or likely would be contrary to their stated goals. the insincere proposals you devised or found are straw-men you deliberately set up to demonstrate their failures.

Yes, the proposals I set up to demonstrate the weakness in the IC plan were successful.

I'm fully confident the “improved” Import Certificate policy described within Wikipedia's article would, (if adopted by the USA), reduce USA's annual trade deficits in a manner to more than otherwise accomplish all that I stated.
How much do you think that policy would raise the price of imports? Ballpark?
How much do you think that policy would reduce the amount of imports? Ballpark?

ToddsterPatriot, As I posted, “IF I inadvertently ever stated that reducing trade deficits by any means would be net beneficial to a nation's GDP and numbers of jobs, I overstated my case.

The proposals you set up to demonstrated the weakness of the proposals you set up.
Your proposals would not attempt to increase their nation's GDP in the same manner as would an Import Certificate policy.

Your position is analogous to comparing setting fire to a house as being similar to heating the house. While both methods do increase the interior temperature of the house, the consequences of the methods certainly differ.

Import Certificate trade policy's a substantially market-driven policy, but approximately 10% increased imported goods prices to USA purchasers doesn't seem an unreasonable guesstimate.

I'll refrain from speculating what increase of USA's domestic production within the new economic environment will be for USA customers that determine purchasing USA products are then more to their advantage, or for additional export products due to USA goods then being more competitively priced in global markets.

Because so much of this policy is market driven, we can be certain from the day of its enactment, the changing market mixes of imported and domestic goods productions and sales will be less than certain over the years.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Annual trade deficits are always net detrimental to their nation's GDP and thus to their numbers of jobs.
Wrong.

If I inadvertently ever stated that reducing trade deficits by any means would be net beneficial to a nation's GDP and numbers of jobs, I overstated my case.

Was that so difficult?
Someone can propose some foolishness that could or likely would be contrary to their stated goals. the insincere proposals you devised or found are straw-men you deliberately set up to demonstrate their failures.

Yes, the proposals I set up to demonstrate the weakness in the IC plan were successful.

I'm fully confident the “improved” Import Certificate policy described within Wikipedia's article would, (if adopted by the USA), reduce USA's annual trade deficits in a manner to more than otherwise accomplish all that I stated.
How much do you think that policy would raise the price of imports? Ballpark?
How much do you think that policy would reduce the amount of imports? Ballpark?

ToddsterPatriot, As I posted, “IF I inadvertently ever stated that reducing trade deficits by any means would be net beneficial to a nation's GDP and numbers of jobs, I overstated my case.

The proposals you set up to demonstrated the weakness of the proposals you set up.
Your proposals would not attempt to increase their nation's GDP in the same manner as would an Import Certificate policy.

Your position is analogous to comparing setting fire to a house as being similar to heating the house. While both methods do increase the interior temperature of the house, the consequences of the methods certainly differ.

Import Certificate trade policy's a substantially market-driven policy, but approximately 10% increased imported goods prices to USA purchasers doesn't seem an unreasonable guesstimate.

I'll refrain from speculating what increase of USA's domestic production within the new economic environment will be for USA customers that determine purchasing USA products are then more to their advantage, or for additional export products due to USA goods then being more competitively priced in global markets.

Because so much of this policy is market driven, we can be certain from the day of its enactment, the changing market mixes of imported and domestic goods productions and sales will be less than certain over the years.

Respectfully, Supposn

Your proposals would not attempt to increase their nation's GDP in the same manner as would an Import Certificate policy.

Both my proposals would reduce trade deficits and axiomatically, according to you, increase GDP and jobs.
You realize they wouldn't. Your axiom must be faulty.

Import Certificate trade policy's a substantially market-driven policy, but approximately 10% increased imported goods prices to USA purchasers doesn't seem an unreasonable guesstimate.

Only 10%? Seems too small to close the gap you're worried about.
At least initially, it seems like we'd be importing a lot less. How much less, ballpark?

 

[Econ4Every1]

Because generally when you raise wages prices go up correspondingly.

Actually, that's not true. There may be an increase, but it does not correspond.

The best evidence I can point to is to first point out that wages are a cost like anything else. When costs rise, the effect on prices is rarely 1:1. Remember when gas prices were $1.20 back in the early 2000's? Remember just a few years later when they were $3-$4 a gallon? Keep in mind that gas prices affect everything because of part of paying for shipping by land, sea or air factors in the cost of gas, yet the increases in gas prices didn't cause corresponding price increases. Add to that, when you spend more on gas there are relatively few people that profit from it which means that the number of consumers with more money to buy your products does not increase significantly. However, when you pay a $15 minimum wage, the number of people, in the US, that have more money to buy products increases significantly as 42% of all workers in the US make less than $15. So while increased wages do increase expenses, they also help to offset in many businesses by increasing demand (something higher prices on oil does not).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because generally when you raise wages prices go up correspondingly.

Actually, that's not true. There may be an increase, but it does not correspond.

The best evidence I can point to is to first point out that wages are a cost like anything else. When costs rise, the effect on prices is rarely 1:1. Remember when gas prices were $1.20 back in the early 2000's? Remember just a few years later when they were $3-$4 a gallon? Keep in mind that gas prices affect everything because of part of paying for shipping by land, sea or air factors in the cost of gas, yet the increases in gas prices didn't cause corresponding price increases. Add to that, when you spend more on gas there are relatively few people that profit from it which means that the number of consumers with more money to buy your products does not increase significantly. However, when you pay a $15 minimum wage, the number of people, in the US, that have more money to buy products increases significantly as 42% of all workers in the US make less than $15. So while increased wages do increase expenses, they also help to offset in many businesses by increasing demand (something higher prices on oil does not).

Keep in mind that gas prices affect everything because of part of paying for shipping by land, sea or air factors in the cost of gas, yet the increases in gas prices didn't cause corresponding price increases.

Higher gas prices, as you say, did cause higher prices in many goods and services.
Now think about how much larger an input wages are, compared to gasoline.

So while increased wages do increase expenses, they also help to offset in many businesses by increasing demand

If your widget shop has to pay an extra $10,000 in wages, how much do you need to increase sales, to make the same profit you had before the MW increase?

 

[Econ4Every1]

Higher gas prices, as you say, did cause higher prices in many goods and services.

Data says otherwise...

Now think about how much larger an input wages are, compared to gasoline.

Everything that's used in a business is affected by the price of gas, and unlike employees of a business, gas isn't and won't be a customer. Employees will give some of their money back in the form of purchases.

If your widget shop has to pay an extra $10,000 in wages, how much do you need to increase sales, to make the same profit you had before the MW increase?

Again, look at the CPI vs the cost of oil Why didn't CPI respond to the large increases in oil prices?

This is really kind of a dumb question because of all you left out and all you've assumed.

$10k per year? How many employees? How much business does your shop do? ($10k might be a small amount compared to sales volume) What are the profit margins today? (Would the owner be willing to shrink their margin a bit to accommodate higher wages to maintain current levels of output?) How efficient is the business? (Is there waste in the business that can be eliminated to help offset higher wages?) What does demand look like for widgets? (If demand rises thanks to increased pay, will increase orders for materials help lower costs - economies of scale?).

Why assume that a business that can't afford to pay higher minimum wages deserves to stay in business? If there are two McDonalds in town and only one goes out of business, why assume it was higher wages that caused it to fail and not poor management? Isn't that capitalism culling the meek? Who says a better owner won't buy up the failed McDonalds and run it more efficiently such that it can pay higher wages AND make a profit.

The implicit assumption in your question is that all businesses operate at the highest level of efficiency and work on the slimmest level of profit.

Lastly, if there is a product or service that cannot, in the current market of higher wages be produced at a profit, isn't that an opportunity for the entrepreneurs of the world to step in and develop new insights or processes or leverage new technologies? Forcing people to take lower wages to make up for a lack of innovation is bad for capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Higher gas prices, as you say, did cause higher prices in many goods and services.

Data says otherwise...

Now think about how much larger an input wages are, compared to gasoline.

Everything that's used in a business is affected by the price of gas, and unlike employees of a business, gas isn't and won't be a customer. Employees will give some of their money back in the form of purchases.

If your widget shop has to pay an extra $10,000 in wages, how much do you need to increase sales, to make the same profit you had before the MW increase?

Again, look at the CPI vs the cost of oil Why didn't CPI respond to the large increases in oil prices?

This is really kind of a dumb question because of all you left out and all you've assumed.

$10k per year? How many employees? How much business does your shop do? ($10k might be a small amount compared to sales volume) What are the profit margins today? (Would the owner be willing to shrink their margin a bit to accommodate higher wages to maintain current levels of output?) How efficient is the business? (Is there waste in the business that can be eliminated to help offset higher wages?) What does demand look like for widgets? (If demand rises thanks to increased pay, will increase orders for materials help lower costs - economies of scale?).

Why assume that a business that can't afford to pay higher minimum wages deserves to stay in business? If there are two McDonalds in town and only one goes out of business, why assume it was higher wages that caused it to fail and not poor management? Isn't that capitalism culling the meek? Who says a better owner won't buy up the failed McDonalds and run it more efficiently such that it can pay higher wages AND make a profit.

The implicit assumption in your question is that all businesses operate at the highest level of efficiency and work on the slimmest level of profit.

Lastly, if there is a product or service that cannot, in the current market of higher wages be produced at a profit, isn't that an opportunity for the entrepreneurs of the world to step in and develop new insights or processes or leverage new technologies? Forcing people to take lower wages to make up for a lack of innovation is bad for capitalism.

Data says otherwise...

Be more specific, what in that data said that higher gas prices did not cause higher prices in many goods and services? FYI, combining those 2 data sets in one chart is a really bad idea. Post them individually, the scale for crude makes the CPI data almost invisible.

Everything that's used in a business is affected by the price of gas, and unlike employees of a business, gas isn't and won't be a customer.

What percentage of business expense is gas? What percentage is employee compensation?

Again, look at the CPI vs the cost of oil Why didn't CPI respond to the large increases in oil prices?

Are you saying it didn't? That gas rose in price and did not impact CPI....at all?

$10k per year? How many employees? How much business does your shop do?

Yes. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter.

What are the profit margins today?

Take your favorite 2 or 3 sectors, that use MW workers, and use their current profit margin.

(Would the owner be willing to shrink their margin a bit to accommodate higher wages to maintain current levels of output?)

Wait, are you saying higher wages will shrink profit margins? Higher wages won't be made up by higher sales from all the increased spending by 42% of workers? Maintain current levels? You mean levels won't increase?

(If demand rises thanks to increased pay, will increase orders for materials help lower costs - economies of scale?).

(If demand rises thanks to increased pay, will increased orders for materials result in higher costs - more dollars chasing same amount of goods).

Why assume that a business that can't afford to pay higher minimum wages deserves to stay in business?

Exactly! So what if a chunk of the workers expecting a raise get laid-off instead.

If there are two McDonalds in town and only one goes out of business, why assume it was higher wages that caused it to fail and not poor management?

And why assume it was poor management if you suddenly mandate a $15 minimum wage?

Isn't that capitalism culling the meek?

I'd call that government shooting the wounded.

The implicit assumption in your question is that all businesses operate at the highest level of efficiency and work on the slimmest level of profit.

Nope. Not even a little bit.

Forcing people to take lower wages to make up for a lack of innovation is bad for capitalism.

The fan of government mandates thinks people are forced to take lower wages?
If only the government would swoop in and save them......DERP!

 

[abrere]

The optimum is $0 per hour.

that's right. LOTS of people aint WORTH $8 an hour, doing anything. But many of them ARE worth $4 an hour, so they could be making something!