Whether or not the minimum wage is good or bad overall is secondary to the question of whether employers should be the one’s paying the tax in the first place.
People on the left already complain when Walmart doesn’t pay its employees enough so that they have to get food stamps. There seems to be a strong belief that employers should pay living wages and that this is not the job of the government.
A good law would be something like this: If you work at Walmart for $N, you get extra $X from government. If you work anywhere else for $N or less, you also get extra $X from government. If you stop working at all, you still get $X from government. -- Written this way, it is less of a support for Walmart, because you can take it anywhere else.
A bad law would be like this: you must keep working in Walmart in order to get extra $X from government. This can be done indirectly, for example if Walmart must pay a fixed fee or do some insane paperwork, which is nothing for them given their number of employees, but would ruin a smaller employer.
I upvoted this because it correctly explains why this is controversial, not because I think the argument is correct. I just wanted to point this out because people seem to be mixing the two up but the distinction is relevant on this post.
The other part is that paying for things is extremely unpopular, and the minimum wage sounds like it doesn’t cost anything.
People on the left already complain when Walmart doesn’t pay its employees enough so that they have to get food stamps. There seems to be a strong belief that employers should pay living wages and that this is not the job of the government.
What are the exact rules?
A good law would be something like this: If you work at Walmart for $N, you get extra $X from government. If you work anywhere else for $N or less, you also get extra $X from government. If you stop working at all, you still get $X from government. -- Written this way, it is less of a support for Walmart, because you can take it anywhere else.
A bad law would be like this: you must keep working in Walmart in order to get extra $X from government. This can be done indirectly, for example if Walmart must pay a fixed fee or do some insane paperwork, which is nothing for them given their number of employees, but would ruin a smaller employer.
I upvoted this because it correctly explains why this is controversial, not because I think the argument is correct. I just wanted to point this out because people seem to be mixing the two up but the distinction is relevant on this post.
The other part is that paying for things is extremely unpopular, and the minimum wage sounds like it doesn’t cost anything.