okay: government mandates:
tax cuts for rich!
Well, it's a minor quibble, but I consider tax cuts (for anyone) a removal of government mandate.
Of course they are. Except it's still a change in the mandate, which doesn't remove the mandate. It's a very selective rebalancing of an existing mandate. Gee, when we add healthcare or welfare or social security it's an "entitlement". When we make multifarious tax cuts which primarily or exclusively benefit the rich, it's "removing a governmental burden". Notice how the debate's been framed? No non-anarchists are really advocating the removal of all taxes, so while we have taxes the burden should be shared fairly.
And yes, during many conversations (mostly years ago but a few more recently) people complain that small business would get crushed (not small business owners themselves -- most of them didn't complain and I've known a few). People who make $9/hr and up complain this frequently: "If minimum wage were higher (in the context of hikes which would not raise minimum wage for a single 40hr/wk worker above poverty level) then we'd all have to pay $10 for a burger at McDonalds, and $30 or more for a haircut! Can you imagine how awful all this would be?"
But even in your argument here...the complaining is not against the small business or the people who work there. The complaining is against the fact that it's happening.
Also, that's a strange argument (about raising prices). Most of our discussion here has focused on loss of jobs. I had assumed that was the standard argument.
"complaining is against the fact.." You're right, that argument comes from people who are angry with those arguing for the change. And since nominally it's gvt by/for people, they're angry with the advocates as proxies for the gvt. After the change occurs the primary focus will be on gvt itself, not the advocates who helped it happen.
"prices..loss of jobs"
The reason jobs would be lost is because all the (artificially) cheap stuff would cost more and the theory goes that people wouldn't gracefully accept the transition. The reality is that businesses would rather squeeze their employees first (especially the lowest paid ones), then the customer, then themselves last. The other argument is that with globalization, local prices would overshadow imported prices by higher margins, causing business to shift towards imports.
But the change in cost of goods/services is the beginning, and loss of jobs is a frequently forcasted result. More so today than in yesteryear since we're more globalized.
...except... if the minimum wage was at poverty level we'd all have enough to buy what we need? And higher earners would likely also get a little boost? Hello? Um?
Well why not set the minimum wage to $200/hour then? Why not? Let's all get fat and happy? Because there is some threshold at which companies cannot cut payroll or make less profit. Where that threshold is, is of course the biggest debate among the setters of this artificial wage.
Also, if the minimum wage was at poverty level, the poverty level would be moved higher.
1) less profit?!?!?!? Ohhh noes!!!
We don't need huge inflated corporate profits saddled on the backs of injustly treated workers. We need services and goods, not corporate profits. We're back to "greed is good for rich CEOs and corporations!" again while arguing against the poverty stricken masses.
2) I'll look up the definition of poverty but I really truly doubt that your assertion makes sense.
