That's a ridiculously cynical way to view it. First, utility does not scale linearly with income. Second, this allows for greater economic efficiency, because fewer people will be caught in bad situations with an insurmountable hurdle to get out.

If you want to maintain your relative wealth, feudal times are great. The rest of us would rather increase absolute wealth.

All the previous poster is saying is that a minimum wage increase would not place that much upwards pressure on inflation, which is true.

In that case, I grossly misinterpreted the tone of the comment, and apologize for it.

I (and baldfast) had interpreted throwaway080383's comment as implying that he will be worse off from this legislation, as the increase in minimum wage will result in inflation, leading to no effective change in inflation-adjusted minimum wage, but a strong decrease in his own inflation-adjusted minimum wage. This is the standard conservative viewpoint that I've seen, which is repeated frequently, and is why I reacted so strongly to it.

Damn, yes I could see how my original comment would naturally be interpreted that way.

To be clear, what I meant to get across was that the wage increase was not going to be a no-op due to inflation or whatever; it will make those people's lives measurably better in the short-to-medium term because not everyone's wages will be doubled at the same time.

Yeah, technically, I will be slightly worse off in the short term because Amazon will cost a little more or my dollar will go slightly less far, but I'm perfectly fine with that if it means tens of thousands of families can now feed their kids or go to the hospital. In the long run, my hope is that those kids will be more productive/innovative, which is good for everyone.

> The rest of us would rather increase absolute wealth.

Some of us would be happy to just have enough money to do work we find productive for society, as opposed to what the market demands of us. Not everybody wants to ride the absolute wealth treadmill.

This comment appears to be misplaced.

Fine with me… and I work for myself and make less than minimum wage.

But some of MY customers may end up more able to pay me. I have repeatedly seen a tight correlation betweeen how well I do, and labor share of the economy. If this is real then it'll benefit me, all the more so if it becomes a trend.

Of course a minimum wage increase pushes all wages up.

If you were working at Amazon for $15/hr before this change and the other guy was working at $12/hr, but now makes $15/hr, wouldn't you want a raise?

I'm saying it will not push my wages up. And that's a good thing.

It might not push your wage up by much, but it does create upward pressure on wages in general.

And why do you care? You're not doing worse than you were before.

Are you saying your salary is based on keeping the working poor? OR are you saying you think corporations and their investors deserve a low wage workforce that the government will take care of with your tax dollars? I find no logical sense other then your mad that people can make money for WORKING.

When people make $15 an hour they will need less government assistance. This will take away from corporate's profits, which has gone through the roof without an salary bumps the last 40 years.

I don't think they are saying anything like that. I think they are saying that a minimum wage increase would bring the lowest earners closer to the higher earners, rather than causing inflation across the board. So that's a good thing if you care about wealth inequality.

I think inflation is just what people on the conservative economic side like to always throw out. Inflation is the new Bogeyman - https://www.bworldonline.com/inflation-become-bogeyman/

Edit: After submitting for 1 minute The number one weapon against doing anything to help the working poor is that it will cause inflation. It's a hollow baseless argument.

Yes, to be clear, I think raising the minimum wage and decreasing wealth inequality is a good thing, even if it marginally negatively affects me in the short term.

On hn you should always assume comments are in good faith and try to understand them from the best possible interpretation.

Well I am trying to see the best possible interpretation. What is the best possible interpretation.

I think the poster didn't think of what it meant besides what only affects himself. I have noticed that is where all discussion ends, but it really is implementing that his bottom line is negatively affected if the working poor get higher wages.