> "My business can't survive unless my employees are living in poverty." which, in reality for a lot of businesses, is "I won't be as profitable if I have to pay a living wage".
I really like the way Nick Hanauer puts this particular topic. It has a certain logic to it, and appears to be supported by some historic data and trends.
I won't do it justice, but in effect the message is that if my employees can afford my product, it's better for the economy and business. Using restaurants as an example, if all service workers can afford to eat at a restaurant, then restaurants as an industry do better, and the economy grows, and individual businesses do better.
My take on it is, without public policy, such as a minimum wage, it's hard for a business to be an outlier. If one business pays a living wage, but non of the competitors do, that business doesn't necessarily have enough of an advantage to stay ahead of lower priced alternatives. It's only when we create rules through policy, do we create a level field for competitors to operate in, with effects such as increasing the customer base by increasing the purchasing power of a class of citizens.
This of course doesn't mean the rich should be eliminated, or everything should be equal of course, but the attitude that "I won't be as profitable if I have to pay a living wage" isn't necessarily correct, and it's possible for businesses to thrive once the shocks of rapid changes work themselves out. It also depends a great deal on other elements of policy, such as international trade, but those are other topics for other days.