tl;dr: Every minimum-wage supporter would actually be fine with the extremely reasonable position of paying everyone in proportion to the replaceability of the

tl;dr: Every minimum-wage supporter would actually be fine with the extremely reasonable position of paying everyone in proportion to the replaceability of their actual work and then letting businesses that don't know how to provide value just go out of business. Raising the wage floor is just an imperfect-but-actionable proxy for that because nobody is willing to honestly explore curbing the excesses of the executive and investor classes. > "What do minimum wage supporters expect to happen with people whose labor does not produce >= $minimum_wage worth of value?" Can I assume that you're referring to the executives? Just kidding. Of course you aren't. You can either mandate that people get paid commensurately with the difficulty of replacing their actual labor (as opposed to merely of their position[0]) or you can raise the floor and hope that it approximately achieves something close enough, but you must pick one. [0]: The position of CEO of a company has great value, someone needs to make those decisions. But the actual labor of a CEO can often be trivially done by even the least intelligent and least motivated employee. They are eminently replaceable. And yet the CEO gets paid in proportion to the position rather than their labor. Right now executive pay is artificially high relative to their actual labor as "the cost of doing business" and laborer pay is artificially low relative to their actual labor as "the way to stay in business". Why does that seem ok?