Fact check, you have obviously never owned or ran a business. Fact check, of course increasing minimum wage increases unemployment, inflation etc. When minimum wage is increased, employers have 1 of 4 options. They can take the loss. They can reduce employment. They can pass the extra cost on to consumers. They can eliminate those positions all together and replace them with technology. Tell us the facts again about how increasing minimum wage leads to new hiring.
Wrong. If done correctly (we are talking about minimum wage here), the amount is insignificant enough for most employers to not -
- Reduce employment (this just gets them into a downward spiral)
- Pass on extra cost to the costumer (this just prevents them from additional gains as a result of increased leasure spending, as a result of an increased minimum wage (they could gain more customers, even at the expense of their competitors).)
- Invest in automation (this has to be offset, by state incentives into job creation, with the automatically increased money from consumption taxes, otherwise many employers would do just that.)
So the point thats left is "absorb the loss" - but also offset it against other competitors, that are hit by a simillar amount, and state incentives for more investment, and more consumer demand.
So as a result the thing thats happening is, that the companies that can invest into that environment win, as their competitors might not make the cut. So as a result you have increased innovation (every dollar spent in that environment will count significantly more, than spent in other economic environments).
Over time, those effects will be eaten up by inflation. But this is about raising the floor - to provoke investment and innovation.
edit: Here:
https://mises.org/library/does-minimum-wage-boost-innovation
Also, because thats the Mises Institute doing the analysis here (ultra freemarket liberals) - yes, you have to make sure that the amount of companies actually not making the cut is somewhat limited. So you cant do it if you dont expect most businessowners to be able to absorb the hit, and invest into it.
But then the issue over the past years was not that rich people were getting too little return on investment. In fact in most economies, the middle class payed for their financial speculation losses, and then they actually profited from the economic crises through increased state spending and specualtion. The main street people did not.
Well accept boomers of course whose main interest by now is, that their stockmarket portfolio does well. (As a generalized notion.) Shortly before they retire.