3 ms·

But the wages not being spent by others (because they're paid to the barista) would then be spent by the barista, which then means other businesses could raise

But the wages not being spent by others (because they're paid to the barista) would then be spent by the barista, which then means other businesses could raise their prices a bit... The barista making $10 more per hour can go out and buy dozens of coffees of their own, or meals out at restaurants, or movies... It would keep the lower level of the economy moving.

roenxi 8y ago
How can money get to the barista if it is "not being spent by others"? All the barista's income is coming from wages spent by consumers on coffee. The point is, gp said "it isn't unreasonable" with the implication that nobody would notice (eg, "enough to cause people to massively switch to instant coffee"). That isn't a safe position - it is likely consumers of coffee will have to cut back on something. They would notice. On your specific point that you think allocating more resources to baristas will help the economy - why not allocate the baristas to doing something more useful, where the market rate for their time is higher than $10? Allocating more to baristas is a lot of things, but it is not an evidence based strategy for increasing the general prosperity. What is it that these baristas lack? Maybe they should be trained to produce that thing, instead of getting handouts or fighting with their employers?