Any worker whose value-added is viewed by the employer to be greater than the competitive market wage that has to be paid for his hire is offered work by the employer in question. When the government imposes a legal minimum hourly wage above the wage currently prevailing for various types of labor services, the law necessarily threatens the employment of any and all workers who’s estimated value-added is now less than the mandated legal minimum wage.

Suppose that a worker helps to produce an addition to marketable output that has a competitive value of, say, $5 an hour. But the government now imposes a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Those workers whose value-added is only $5 an hour will find themselves priced out of the market, because from the employer’s perspective, they cost more to employ than they are worth in terms of value-adding revenue to be earned from their hire at a minimum wage of $7.25. A private enterpriser cannot successfully maintain or establish a profitable competitive edge in the long run, if (at the margin) he has to pay $7.25 for what has a market worth of $5.

thats basically the rationale for the no min wage people @Dr.Cosby

the idea is that a company will provide more jobs and have greater net employee wages without

i see both sides and im not sure what the solution is id have to read more about it but thats the counter argument anyway

The only “bad” thing about it is that companies get more control and they could become more monopolized at a faster rate

Providing more jobs doesn't necessarily mean providing good-paying jobs. What's the point of being paid $5 an hour when that can barely get you anything. If anything, that just means the government has to tax businesses and the rich higher to maintain welfare (assuming welfare remains constant in this scenario)

Because cost of living goes down too

Apartments will charge less

Groceries will cost less

That isn't necessarily always true. Look at HK for example.

HK? Show me a link

Lemme pull up some stats

Okay

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/05/the-coffin-homes-of-hong-kong/526881/

The same stats are also supported in the BBC docuseries "World's Biggest Cities"

"200,000 people in Hong Kong living in such tiny subdivided units, some so small that a person cannot even fully stretch out their legs."

Reading

Ok what does that have to do with minimum wage

That’s overpopulation

Not exactly. If the minimum wage is not adequate enough to buy housing, the price of said housing won't just go down to suit the needs of these workers.

Hong Kong has a $4.8 minimum wage btw

HK$32.50 (US$4) per hour Hong Kong's minimum wage was last changed in 1-May-2015.

https://wageindicator.org/salary/minimum-wage/hong-kong

Cost of living in China is 42.93% lower than in United States (aggregate data for all cities, rent is not taken into account). Rent in China is 57.28% lower than in United States

So rounding to about half

$8 = Rent in Texas

$4 = Rent in HK

My point is that this doesn't apply to many large cities and metro areas

GG @Fane, you just advanced to level 2!

It’s the same scenario

There’s like 7 cities in Texas

3 really large ones

And the other four are medium

Just wanted to ask, is the China statistics of the mainland or the mainland+HK?

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?country=China

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Hong-Kong

Good point you bring up, but I think overpopulation has a lot to do with it

Hong Kong is not China... well not for that website

Cost of living index in Hong Kong is 20.40% lower than in New York.

A single person monthly costs: 1,005.29$ (7,856.60HK$) without rent.

In HK?

1,000 a month for living expenses isn’t that bad