There was a lawsuit in the last few years between Burger King and its franchisees because Burger King required them to sell the double cheeseburger for $1. The franchisees could not afford the extra slice of cheese on the burger or they would lose money on it. This was the reason McDonald's created the McDouble which was two patties and one slice of cheese.
McDouble Story: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6803935
The effect of not ever getting into the workforce at all is devastating to those few that don't make the cut. Meanwhile, the effect of a couple of dollars extra to those already in the workforce is comparably small.
Consider that minimum wage could be raised arbitrarily. If 10$ is too low and 15$ is better why isn't 20$ even better? Why not 30$? The argument for which cutoff to choose can't be based on some basket on what people need to live a certain standard (i.e. a one-bedroom apartment in some urban area).
> Do you really think Subway franchises are running on such razor thin margins that they'd be forced to shutter stores if they had to pay their workforce marginally more?
Some of them certainly do. Subway is in decline:
https://www.businessinsider.de/subway-closes-over-900-us-loc...
Lots of low to minimum wage employers indeed do have razor thin margins. For example, Wal-Mart only has about 4000$ of profit per employee. Companies like Amazon only lose money on their fulfillment centers.
This devistation is a societal choice made by having a non-existent social safety net in the US. In other countries it's less devastating due to government programs and universal healthcare that protect people while still incentivising them to search for work.
You are using the lack of protections and support for the poorest in our society as an argument against paying them more.
First of all, I agree that raising minimum wage without a proper social safety net is completely irresponsible.
However, if you look at countries like France with "free" education, relatively high minimum wage, lots of labor protection and a strong social safety net, you will find massive youth unemployment. The social safety net is supposed to catch you from falling off the rope. If you're never allowed to get on that rope because you're not employable even at minimum wage, you're likely to stay in the net forever. Soon enough most people around you rely on the safety net and it becomes the social norm.
No.
However, individuals are not entitled to a job. Take it the low hourly wage, or leave it.
Same thing: not everyone is entitled to live in the bay area. Pay the rent, or move elsewhere.