> You're just asserting this without any argument or evidence. I don't think it's a controversial statement at all. Even then, my argument was just in the next

> You're just asserting this without any argument or evidence. I don't think it's a controversial statement at all. Even then, my argument was just in the next sentence. > Workers don't specifically need a job at that company. Nor companies specifically need a job filled by a given worker. It's a statement about general needs. If a company finds no satisfying candidates, they can deal with leaving that post open. If a worker doesn't find a satisfying job, they will still take something because they need to eat. > Even if they need a job, they can go work somewhere else. Doesn't make a difference if "somewhere else" offers the same low wages. Which is what happens, because most companies have the same incentives and the same lack of limits to push wages below livable levels. > Even if you want to do this, it still makes minimum wage a ridiculous policy, because it harms the same workers it's purporting to help The OP linked article shows that there's no clear evidence on whether minimum wages destroy employment or not. > When there are policies that do only one and not the other (e.g. UBI) Of course UBI or UGI policies would be far better, and would remove the need for a minimum wage. However, they work in the same direction: give more power to workers to offset the power of negotiation that business have. And, being pragmatic, a minimum wage increase is far more likely to be accepted, at least in the short term, than UBI.