The tax payer is the beneficiary to the wage increase.
Well, yeah. That's exactly what's going on. We're hoping to 'draft' employers to help pay for the social safety net. Setting aside the scapegoating aspect of that, it won't work. The value of a given job isn't something that can be changed by decree.
How is the value of a given job determined?
Ahh... well, that's the question, isn't it? And I don't think most MW supporters have given it much thought. Because when you do, you realize it's not something you can change by waving a wand - or passing a law. Value is, of course, subjective. Everyone values different things in different amounts. But in a market environment, value resolves to an aggregate of the values all the participants in the market. In other words,
we all decide what the value of the jobs and services we utilize are worth, by our daily economic decisions.
The fact that so many of you don't want to acknowledge is that, as a society, we - in the purest aggregate expression of our values - have decided that some jobs aren't worth a "living wage". We might be willing to pay a little for them, but they really aren't worth very much to us. If they cost much more, we can do without. If fast food costs much more, many of us will choose to flip our own burgers.
If we try to fight society's verdict with legal mandates, the market will simply adjust to "flow" around whatever obstacles the law injects. We'll either raise other wages and prices around the new artificial minimum (the manager is still going to make more than the dishwasher) or choose to do without the low value jobs. Probably some combination of the two. But in the end, we still won't value the jobs any more. And people still won't be able to make a living on them.
The city with input from business has determined a certain minimum wage should be paid to insure safety and fairness to the general public and employees. If you think there is some scheme to draft employers to help employers help pay for a social safety net in some unfair way, it is up to you to organize others who agree with you and change the law.
That's not the way civil rights are supposed to work. We're not at the mercy of pure majority rule. If we think minority groups are being singled out for unequal treatment under the law, we have an obligation to strike down such laws - regardless of how much organized support they may have.