> There are more cost inputs than just labor Labor is usually the #1 cost for most businesses. Many businesses have slim margins already. The average net prof

> There are more cost inputs than just labor Labor is usually the #1 cost for most businesses. Many businesses have slim margins already. The average net profit margin for privately held companies across all industries was 8.6%, manufacturing was 6% and retail trade was 3.9%. [1]. Grocery stores are 2.5% and gas stations are 2.4%. [2] Not everyone can keep prices the same and forego profit to pay for more costs, especially when other costs have risen dramatically like healthcare. Many businesses and employers of minimum wage people are already in slim margin territory as evidenced above. > It's true the price of goods may rise, but relative to the increase in wages to workers, it will be a net win for redistributing wealth to the lowest earners, with the cost born by the variety of cost inputs (and profit) for the business. I agree and think $15/hr is a reasonable step, esp. in an expensive city like Seattle. But my point is that every city is different, there's a lot to consider, and there's a lot we don't yet know. > The second argument is that shifting money towards the lowest earning group will stimulate economic activity and unlock more wealth potential for the local market, thereby in some ways compensating for the increased prices by bringing more prosperity for all. Perhaps. But it could also result in pushing workers outside the city to suburbs where they have lower costs. They'll make their money in the city and spend it outside where goods are already cheaper. Or maybe they'll pay their debt instead (student/auto/etc). [1] https://www.sageworks.com/pdf/Private_Company_Report__03302015.pdf https://www.sageworks.com/pdf/Private_Company_Report__033020... [2] https://www.sageworks.com/datareleases.aspx?article=395&title=The-15-Least-Profitable-Industries-In-The-U.S.&date=October-4-2016 https://www.sageworks.com/datareleases.aspx?article=395&titl...