> This is economically logical for them: By keeping minimum wage low[er] they can afford things made by those earning less than them. The study is based on lab

> This is economically logical for them: By keeping minimum wage low[er] they can afford things made by those earning less than them. The study is based on lab psychology experiments, where none of the economic effects you mentioned exist. Participants choose gambles with the potential to move them out of last place that they reject when randomly placed in other parts of the distribution. In modified-dictator games, participants randomly placed in second-to-last place are the most likely to give money to the person one rank above them instead of the person one rank below. Last-place aversion suggests that low-income individuals might oppose redistribution because it could differentially help the group just beneath them. All of the above suggests/demonstrates that people near the bottom, have a psychological aversion to policies that would help those at the bottom, regardless of rational-self-interest. Also, there's nothing insulting in pointing out the connection between this study's conclusions, and Republican political-strategy/voter-behavior. If you think this behavior is perfectly logical and rational, I don't see why you would consider this connection to be insulting in the first place.