> economists don't think it's strictly bad to do this anymore* Those same educated voices also tend to support UBI and other ... less than fully considered soc

> economists don't think it's strictly bad to do this anymore* Those same educated voices also tend to support UBI and other ... less than fully considered social engineering ideas. When it comes to government mandates I'm cautious, especially because you can't usefully go back. Even if they're a PhD they're in a field where you cannot test your ideas. If you want to pay a worker more, actually do that. Walk up to a barrista and offer them a monthly cheque to make up the difference between their wage and your proposed minimum. Your vote that Starbucks must pay more usually isn't accompanied with a certain minimum purchase guarantee that they can use to actually fund this. > You just said the business owner is the "only person paying" and then contradicted yourself by saying "people" pay more. Everyone pays for things because the economy is a cycle. Not usefully in that sense. I'm the only one paying my rent. You're not doing anything towards it. Even if you shop at my employer and indirectly pay my salary, you aren't putting money towards my rent. I'm the one who makes the food/fun/shelter tradeoff. If there's a slack month or unexpected expenses, I suffer. If you actually paid the store an extra 15% line-item specifically to use to pay their employees then I would accept that.