(02-20-2021 09:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Or, we could treat it like an Econ 101 problem and remove a lot of the complexities that exist and make some very broad assumptions.

Lad, this is rich, and would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. YOU are the one who is ignoring complexities -- starting with the most basic complexity, that if you increase the price of something, people are likely to buy less of it in aggregate. YOU are the one who is making very broad assumptions -- including that you can increase the price of labor with no measurable effect on the demand for labor.

Here are the comments I made:

georgewebb Wrote:Of course, the ones who will struggle he most are the ones who lose theirs job -- or whose jobs don't get created in th first place -- as a result of higher labor costs.

...if there are fewer jobs, the aggregate income of individuals does not necessarily increase, and thus neither does the demand for goods.

..Raising the cost of bringing on an employee would seem to make it harder, not easier, for people to "move about the company".
In particular, people are less likely to "move about the economy" if they know that jobs are harder to get.

Here's how you characterized those comments:

RiceLad15 Wrote:"You would have to arguing that raising the minimum wage would result in such a drastic loss in jobs, that all job openings in entry level positions would vanish and no company would be willing to hire."

(emphasis added)

Which comments most exemplify "very broad assumptions"? Which ones most clearly illustrate "removing a lot of the complexities"?