Seattle's minimum wage may actually cost restaurant workers

As you point out, this has a number of consequences, all of which are acceptable from the perspective of unions:

- Low wage unqualified jobs, beneath some lowest threshold of skill simply cannot exist. This level varies between markets, but e.g there are no shoe polishers or elevator attendants in Scandinavia.

- The natural rate of unemployment is higher than it otherwise would be. Basically instead of having 10% doing low paying jobs, you have 10% on generous unemployment benefits.

So essentially - and in accordance to all economic theory I know - having high wages and few unqualified jobs is certainly possible IF you

- spend lots of tax money on having an educated workforce

- have generous unemployment benefits

- Accept that society basically provides for anyone that doesn't provide value enough - either by training or just supporting them financially. Labor collectives prefer the state to pay these people instead of them driving wages down (because as you point out they don't provide that value)

Basically the scheme is possible if you tax the top N% of earners so much that you can let the bottom M% not have to work crap jobs.

Whether this is an appetizing solution depends on your political preferences of course, I'd say it's a pretty progressive version of social democracy, and it's found for example in the Nordic countries.

In most parts of the US labor market there is no such power parity between employees and employers - and minimum wage laws are just trying to band aid the problem instead of addressing the root cause.

I doubt the US will see scandinavian levels of worker organization any time soon, but a reasonable fix would be to have a social safety network that is so strong that it competes with employment. A non time-limited unemployment insurance that paid a reasonable fraction of the minimum wage (e.g. 50-75%) would likely have a significant effect on the bargaining position of workers.

If the US had an actual safety net, those laid off workers wouldn't be so bad off either.

Actually ending up with a positive outcome requires more reform than just minimum wage - which may actually be negative (on its own, and short term).

There has to be good unemployment benefits for all, you have to have good employment security so hours can't be cut and so on and so forth. The idea is to have such a strong labor collective that driving bad employers out of business is a sustainable strategy. Organization level needs to be pretty high, say at least 50% for unions to have any real power here.

Long answer: Yes, and it's an acceptable drawback because being allowed to underpay worker is an unacceptable competitive edge. If one wants exceptions it's better to do with directed efforts such as lower payroll taxes for small or new companies.

Without EITC & food stamps and other assistance $2/hour wouldn't cover food & rent even working 2 jobs, so they'd be forced to turn those jobs and look elsewhere, most likely to crime.

EITC & food stamps to the employed are a subsidy for the employer and distort the true market price for labour. Perhaps less than a minimum wage does.