> As if the parent comment wasn't as well. Tu quoque fallacy. Try again. > I was just pointing out that it's a two-way street. No. Watch closely. You said

> As if the parent comment wasn't as well. Tu quoque fallacy. Try again. > I was just pointing out that it's a two-way street. No. Watch closely. You said if we drop wages then people can't pay their bills, and therefore we should not drop wages. Your claim is that we should not do something based on the consequences of that action. The parent said that increasing minimum wage is equivalent to making it more expensive to employ someone. The parent is not claiming anything, but genuinely asking: - assuming increasing minimum wages is another way to say that we would make employment more expensive - then how is it that making employment more expensive helps decrease unemployment? Which is a genuine question that you have not answered. > Suppose we continue with the status quo False dilemma. What is being argued is neither continuing the status quo nor increasing wages, but a third alternative, namely (I presume) abolishing minimum wage laws.