That's a local Fox affiliate, and they link to several different sources throughout the article, not just CNN.
It may be a local Fox affiliate, but that means nothing as Fox affiliates are not strictly biased to one side. The "different sources" include websites from berkeley, democrats, and Seattle's own website. Not exactly moderate sources.
Like I said, the only reason this type of increase is controversial is because minimum wage hasn't been keeping pace with productivity and inflation over the years. Keeping it at an unsustainable low level is not an option, since we're stuck with full-time workers who also have to rely on welfare as things stand now.
Try taking a couple accounting and macroeconomic courses and maybe a business course, then get back to me on this.
Those people who have jobs and rely on welfare need to look at their personal spending and where they live. If they can't afford the way of life they choose, maybe they need to change things in their life or get a second job. Even I have had to get temp jobs every once in a while to keep up with my current lifestyle since the revenue from my business fluctuates throughout the year.
As I said, the cost of goods is not tied to the cost of labor, especially considering we get a lot of our goods from overseas.
Thanks to democrat tax policies forcing all our manufacturing to move to other countries. Fortunately, our great President is bringing those jobs back. Cost of labor does affect the price of goods. If a company's expenses go up, such as labor costs, where are they going to get the money to cover those new expenses? From food stamps? No, they have to eventually raise the price of their goods to cover the cost. A lot of bigger companies can sustain an increase in costs for a small time, but they will always end up hurting them in the long run. The bigger the company, the longer they can withstand the raised costs.
If you have to raise your prices slightly, that's a price most customers will be happy to pay if their wages go up and we're investing tax dollars back into education, healthcare, etc for the working class.
Not if they eventually end up being in the same hole they were in before the price increase. You're talking about inflation, which is not good. Then you will have people asking for $30/hr, then $40, then $50. Why not just start paying everybody $100/hr? I bet that sounds good to you, right?
Tax dollars invested into education, healthcare, etc won't matter if there is no longer a working class since robots will eventually be a whole lot cheaper than humans.
Other countries also deal with disabled workers and people that refuse to work, and do a much better job of caring for both. I already gave you data showing that illegal immigrants pay a lot in taxes.
They don't have to deal with as many burdens on their taxes like we do. Illegal
immigrants aliens pay sales taxes, but not nearly enough to pay for the "subsidies" or welfare we provide them to break our laws. We can't tax their incomes if they are paid under the table. More taxes out then taxes brought in.
We subsidize sugar, corn, and big oil among several other industries. None of these corporations are in any danger of going bankrupt, so it's absolutely asinine to continue giving away our tax dollars to them.
As for the politicians and policies, it's less about incompetence and more about the system of quid pro quo among neoconservatives/neoliberals and their lobbyist donors. They still require ignorant voters to support them in order to retain office, however.
This is mostly a bipartisan issue on how our taxes are spent. Funny, you didn't include "neoleftists" or "neodemocrats" in your post. I wonder why that is, hmmm?