Its controversial because if the market could bear a price increase, it would already bear it. The left hand side of your inequality is already at a local maximum, and can not be raised to pass on costs to the consumer.
If that is the case, that means that prices are fixed so either profits will decrease, service will diminish to cut costs to counteract the rising cost of labor, or both.
Companies whose costs can't be cut to cover the rising labor and profits shrink to zero will go out of business.
Why are we mandating that people go out of business when they have people voluntarily trading their labor for a set price?
Why are we reducing the roi of producers of capital which will lead to fewer investments?
Is this a play to reduce fast food for the sake of public wellbeing?
Is there a 5A argument here that the government has passed a law for the public benefit and that law invalidated labor contracts, so now the government owes just compensation for the delta between what their labor cost them prior to the new minimum wage? I would say yes.
hellojesus|2 years ago
Companies whose costs can't be cut to cover the rising labor and profits shrink to zero will go out of business.
Why are we mandating that people go out of business when they have people voluntarily trading their labor for a set price?
Why are we reducing the roi of producers of capital which will lead to fewer investments?
Is this a play to reduce fast food for the sake of public wellbeing?
Is there a 5A argument here that the government has passed a law for the public benefit and that law invalidated labor contracts, so now the government owes just compensation for the delta between what their labor cost them prior to the new minimum wage? I would say yes.