The thing is, by the time they raised the minimum wage, most of the lowest wage earners made far more than the new minimum wage already. Raising the wage a buck or two every decade or so only kept up with inflation. It was basically virtue signalling by the democrats because it's a worthless gesture.
Sure. The MW, like all internentionist measures, is either useless or harmful. It either has no effect on the economy (useless) or it prevents legitimate economic activity that makes all of our lives better (harmful). The MW is an "unbacked price-floor". Since the government does not buy up the surplus labor caused by the over-pricing of low-skill labor, the only real effect of the MW is merely to ban completely legitimate employment/work that would have been voluntarily performed between $0 and $MW, but for the MW. This ban does not benefit customers, if anything, it can only raise prices. It does not benefit businesses, if anything, it can only narrow profit margins. And it does not benefit workers since the only effect it has is to prevent people who would have voluntarily taken a job paying somewhere between $0 and $MW from doing so. Thus, the only people who profit from the MW are the political demagogues on the platform waving to the crowd under bright-lights, kissing babies and self-congratulating themselves for "raising the minimum wage".
There are a tiny number of people whose work-value is just marginally above $MW (not profitable to fire them) but who were earning just below $MW (but not much below, since then they would have just gone to work elsewhere and gotten a pay-raise) prior to the MW hike. This tiny number of people genuinely benefit from the MW-increase in the sense in which the MW is proposed to the public. But the total social costs of the MW, when properly accounted, are staggering. Devastating your economy for the benefit of a tiny handful of workers who were "underpaid" by $0.50/hr. is utter insanity. Some of the biggest lobbyists for the MW are the unions, which is odd when you think about it. They bill it out as though they are just generally representing "all" workers, but they
specifically don't, that's what a union is all about! So, why all of this interest in MW workers? It is because a high MW "saws through the bottom rungs of the ladder", meaning, it makes it harder for young workers to acquire the skills that highly-skilled union workers currently have. In turn, this makes those skills even more scarce, and generally helps pad the high wages of union workers. Thus, unions are some of the strongest proponents of MW laws even though no union worker has ever earned a MW, and no MW-worker has ever been part of a union, in fact, they are among the very "rate-busters" which unions are willing to violently attack!!
PS: This is basically the cliff's notes of the chapter on MW in
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell.
PPS: Another way to understand the distorting effect of the MW is to look at it from the perspective of someone in an entry-level position who has just gotten their first raise. You were hired at MW, you put in a year of work, and you got promoted and now you are making MW+$2. Awesome. Recent newhires are making $2 less than you are today, however, a MW law gets passed and they will now be making what you are making, despite only being on the job for a few weeks. Now, granted, your boss will likely give you a raise next year, but will it be the full $2 (actually for parity, it needs to be based on ratio, so slightly more than $2). Probably not. Not to mention, you're now 2 years in, rather than just 1 year. Thus, those who are slightly experienced, and earning just above MW, are among the people who are injured the worst by the MW. And note the irony that these are the
very people that MW-campaigners often hold up as examples of the people they claim to be helping. Sorry mate, giving my less experienced coworkers a $2 pay raise and wiping out the $2 difference that I've worked for a year or two to earn through promotions isn't helping me, it's slapping me in the face for my diligence...
