It would still distort the market just as badly. People making minimum wage have easily replaceable skills for the most part. If they go on strike, the company can just hire other people who are willing to do the job.
It is all about labor being performed at a loss.
People cost money to just exist. Showing up for work is not free.
What happens when business operates at a loss, ignoring investment plays?
It runs dry and then dies.
People laboring and not making enough to fund their labor do the same thing. They die. Really.
Since we do not generally look at people tipping over as being acceptable, especially ones who are employed, others step in, or are forced to step in and subsidize the business.
It is one thing to suggest doing that for a small business makes sense. Fine.
It is quite another to suggest large, very profitable ones need us to do that.
They don't, and that is what this is about.
How much it costs to exists has no bearing on what companies should pay you. That would be like me trying to get a raise based on my mortgage being unaffordable.
People laboring and not making enough to fund their labor do the same thing. They die. Really.
And that’s a social issue. Raising minimum wage to take care of that makes about as much sense as your health insurance being tied to your employer.
Let the free market sort out how much people should get paid and let the government and the taxpayers (including corporation) provide a safety net.
Yes I consider myself to be a “big government free market capitalist”.
It is one thing to suggest doing that for a small business makes sense. Fine. It is quite another to suggest large, very profitable ones need us to do that. They don't, and that is what this is about.
Okay, so we have the government provide a safety net, tax all business the same at a graduated tax rate like we do individuals and let them deduct wages like they do now.
I do not care how much money people make, encourage them to make as much as they can, but insist they also pay their own way.
For about 40 years, in the US, wages for basic labors have been near flat, while cost and risk exposure have gone through the roof.
Back when this all started, the promise was it would get cheaper to live, so no worries.
So which is it?
Actually make it cheaper to live?
Fund labor properly?
Let people suffer and die early?
I do not find any subsidy acceptable, unless there is real need.
Amazon has no such need. Amazon has a want, and so does it's many peers. Understanable. But, labor has real needs being unmet and those come well before I have any real concern for wants expressed by people unwilling to fund real, basic needs of labor helping them to make more than enough money otherwise.
I know, rough. Get that. But, we are talking about real people here, lives, kids, families. All of that matters one hell of a lot more than persuing an idealized, fantasy free labor market ideal ever will.
In fact, the only way to change that is results. Better answers to the "which is it?" question I just posed.
Answers today are trending worse, not better. And that is a primary driver behind a large and growing number of people, myself included, seeking to do things very differently.
People should get as wealthy as they can. Business gets as big as it can too. All good, so long as doing those things does not leave the carnage it currently does.
I will not respond again, but will gladly read replies.