I would have had one question for Professor Galbraith. If Walmart can just raise prices by say 2% and that would pay for this increase then why doesn't Walmart raise its prices now and keep the profits? I mean if it would have no effect on the purchase patterns of its customers then it is missing out on really adding to its bottom line.
prof. James Galbraith sounds very manipulative at times - e.g.around ~42 min implying that min wage being comparatively lower now while unemployment higher means that lower min wage has no benefits (it may as well be only thing that saves people from much higher unemployment). Also, saying that higher min wage wouldn't affect automatization is obviously false - if I had to pay people half more, I'm pretty sute that I would look into ways to automatize their jobs much deeper.
The minimum wage debate is complex. It's counter intuitive in many ways. I'm still not sure what to think. My gut extinct is to raise the MW slowly. That makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense not to do anything....but I see the other side too.
IMHO it all comes down to how much employment loss are we willing to trade for a wage increase for many. Employment will be reduced by small amounts compared to number who get a raise but idle hands might truly be the work shop of the devil. Many people in the USA already work at below the current minimum wage and that was not addressed. The chains will be fine it is the very small businesses will be hurt the most. A Basic Income Guarantee or an hourly wage subsidy would be much better but the median voter probably does would not go for it and IMHO that is the strength of pro minimum wage side of the debate. Jonathan Meer does a good job. Galbraith makes a few good points but I do not understand how an economist could claim that SNAP and TANF etc. are subsidies to employers. BTW I think a higher minimum wage would help me because I think service would improve and I can afford to pay more.
