Your argument would convince me if it were true that increasing the minimum wage to a living wage applied only to Burger, Inc. employees. Fortunately for Burger, Inc., however, most minimum wage workers work for other employers and they will be buying more Burger, Inc. burgers, fries and massive containers of ice cold liquid gold. Accordingly, Burger, Inc. can well afford to pay all of its employees at least a living wage and, of course, skim even more off the top for the executives before pawing the happy stockholders increased profits. I'm assuming of course, that Burger, Inc. is well managed — that its executives are worth their handsome salaries, benefits, bonuses and bountiful perks. If they are, more power to them — that's what capitalism's all about, making money, presumably for everyone.<quoted text>
Again, Burger Inc. isn't necessarily going to see a sales spike. The Burger Inc. employee probably doesn't pay for meals at Burger Inc,: if he does pay, he doesn't pay full freight. There's no correlation between increased labor cost and revenue gains here, kuda. Saying it often doesn't make it causal. All that's known is that if you double the MW, Burger Inc's labor cost in SEA will increase. Dramatically. That's what's known. What CAN be inferred is that there will be fewer employees and/or fewer hours for those employees, as the business attempts to recover it's operating margin as to remain profitable.
The "pie" is not infinite, recall.
I have no issue with raising the MW to some degree.$15/hr is excessive, IMO.
I don't think "everyone" benefits if unskilled labor is artificially overvalued.
I'm curious how you arrived at the determination that $15 per hour specifically would be an excessive wage or that paying that amount would "overvalue" minimum wage workers. How much would you say their labor worth — and on what basis?