As always, the irony of policies like these is that the poor are actually hurt the most, even though they're meant to be helped: now rather than the company offering an entry-level position for the previous minimum wage and then a higher position for 10.50, they offer only a single position for the new minimum wage and couple all the responsibilities into one role. Now you've got both the people at the higher and at the more entry-level position competing for the same spot - and it's pretty obvious who's more qualified. Now rather than the poorer of the two having some income, he has none, and is forced to live on government subsistence, creating more dependency on the government and taxing both the business, and the person he was competing for the spot with even more. So the poor suffer the most, but everyone suffers. And of course, the business's money is taken from it at the point of a gun, because this is the only way the collectivist-statists can make improvements - taking from some people and giving to others. Whereas the producer makes improvements with ideas, and raises the standard of living for everyone.

If wages go up to $15/hr, I'm going to choose those people whom I think can give me $15/hr value to my business. Those that can't give me that level of value will have to keep looking until the people that can give that higher level of value are all employed.

Not to mention that Minimum Wage is one of the biggest drivers of inflation, or more specifically, devaluing the purchase power of the dollar. It's no coincidence that as Minimum Wage went up, the purchase power as a portion of salary went down for low-skilled workers (not to mention everyone else).

If you are a minimum wage entry level worker, you should get paid as such. If you want more money work your way into management, start a business, go to school.... I'm sick of this entitlement crap..

I've worked my tail off since 16, I'm 35 now. I'm in management and worked my way here to make just under $17.00/hr... You want close to that, go to school like I did, bust your but like I did, and earn it.....

Rant is over... That is all...

If it goes to $15 I am certainly flipping burgers at night. I can't let that opportunity get away. I'll fight for that job (with my engineering degree and multiple registrations and licenses in hand). Ironically - I used to flip burgers in high school. "Hope and Change!"

Why stop at 15/hr? Lets go for 25/hr or 30/hr. Can you imagine a big mac meal for 13 or 20 bucs. The owners will also suffer because there will not be any customers to go in and get a meal made by someone who really doesn't care, but is making a wage that cannot be justified. A lot of business will be boarded up,
marqee." CAN'T AFFORD WAGES", CLOSED.

I agree with the prior statements..."They want the unskilled supported by the government so they vote for them to keep their checks coming". And 2nd: "I will only hire skilled workers for $15. an hour."
However, YOUNG people are also going to be hurt by this... As a business owner you didn't mind "investing" in unskilled young lives by paying them $5-7 dollars an hour and giving them work experience and teaching them a trade after school or during the summer. Now it will be more difficult to do this... what a shame.

Great post. "The Law of Unintended Consequences" arises.
What caught my eye is the substitution of automation for labor. I have been involved in creating and supporting automation in excess of 20 years.
Twenty years ago I installed equipment in Omaha, NE. Three months after installation I was invited to quote multiple process changes for my customer. When we walked through the area of the newly installed equipment...I got "stuck"....deer in headlights, toad blinking in a hailstorm STUCK! 15 of 17 historical laborers were "missing". They had been distributed to "labor demand" positions throughout the company...no terminations. I ran some quick mental calculations on this, financially. The project engineer I was dealing with disclosed that the machinery would be paid for in six months of "comprehensive labor" savings. Yay for me, Yay for them. Hmmm.
I was being asked to quote/develop 5 more projects with the potential of 60% labor impact each, compared to the one I had just finished.
The progression of this activity did lead to unemployment for some. The choice of this group is to increase their skills and move up, or at least maintain position, or move down the scale....displacing the lesser skilled. The displaced, due to minimum wage, find fewer opportunities or unemployment. To wit: Over the past two decades massive quantities of "old" machinery have been overhauled and shipped to China.
Without historical minimum wage requirements a lot of unemployment would have been avoided.

Simple. As an employer, who will I hire? The low-skilled worker who will likely not give a damn about the job and need extensive training to do it. Or, the higher skilled worker who has already proven themselves in another area of employment, and is looking for work due to no fault of his own? A no-brainer for the employer. If I'm gonna pay $15 an hour for a worker, I want someone who has already proven to be trainable in my particular workplace. Makes sense. Something the left does not understand nor have much, if any, of.