From a business point of view I'm sure they would prefer no minimum wage at all. But there are obviously more factors to consider besides business. Obviously t

From a business point of view I'm sure they would prefer no minimum wage at all. But there are obviously more factors to consider besides business. Obviously there is such a thing as too high of a minimum wage, that will severely dampen employment for lots of businesses. Jacking up the minimum wage in itself to an arbitrary value that is too high is pretty poor policy. But in the current state, too often, those on full time minimum wage jobs are still below poverty level, and thus qualify for many government benefits. In effect, my tax money contributes to your low-wage employee. From a personal perspective, I don't really like your option 1. I'd actually ideally want that person who is only worth sub-minimum wage to linger in the safety net for a while and learn skills that will make them more valuable than below-minimum wage level. Such would be a far better value for my tax dollars than subsidizing low-skill employment. Some economists feel that up to a certain point, minimum wage actually increases employment (in non-competitive labor markets, eg monopsonies) and increases aggregate demand enough to compensate for the cost effect (because low-income workers have a higher marginal propensity to consume, which would offset the cost effect). Of course, minimum wage is not the only anti-poverty tool out there and some economists feel it is too blunt. And the "correct" minimum wage probably varies hugely by location. As you say -- there are a lot of nuances. I'm just saying, there is more to this than just the employer perspective.