The consequences are hard to predict because it involves multiple antagonistic feedback loops, and even whatever you define as "value" at the beginning might en

The consequences are hard to predict because it involves multiple antagonistic feedback loops, and even whatever you define as "value" at the beginning might end up shifting over time. Here's one way of looking at it that I think cuts a bit through all that. It starts with the following assumption: - People earning minimum wage now, as well as people earning the higher minimum wage in the future spend a larger fraction of their income than average. I believe this is almost axiomatically true: Minimum-wage earners by definition have below average income, and the fraction of income that goes into savings and investments rises with income. Now answer the following less-obvious question: What (rough) % of jobs currently paying less than 15$ actually produce value exceeding those 15$? Example: someone at McDonalds get 7.25$/h. Their work serves 16 customers in that hour (in reality they may prepare the food for 30 customers, but split those with a cashier etc, but that doesn't matteR). That means each customer currently pays $7.25/15 = 50c for that labor. Raising the minimum wage would double those costs to $1. Let's say the meal comes out at $12.50 instead of $12. If people still feel they're getting more value out of that meal they will continue to buy. That will result in a net transfer of wealth to below-average earners, who are more likely to spend it, leading to the projected increase in employment. If people balk at the price and start cooking their own food, people working at McDonalds will lose their jobs. In reality it's almost certain to be a combination of both