It's grossly over-simplified and doesn't take into account the costs of living in other states. I find it interesting that they chose Ohio as their example. If they chose California, the costs per employee to raise them to a "living wage" given the overall more expensive costs of living in that state would be MUCH higher. Closer to $20.00 per hour, including all mandatory benefits.
In that case, the prices of everyday items would go up significantly. So much so that you're left with a zero-sum change: In other words, the employees at the bottom end get paid more. But their cost of living goes up to match it and they gain nothing in the long run. This has happened EVERY SINGLE TIME that the minimum wage has been hiked upwards!
You also get employers who likely decide to cut costs by cutting down on the amount of employees. To take Walmart as an example again - First to go would likely be the "greeters" at the door. Many retirement-age people work those jobs to make ends meet because their pensions or other benefits such as medicare and drug prescriptions have not kept up with inflation. That's a lot of old people now out of work. Possibly to the point of losing their homes and either having to be institutionalized or move in with their kids, and that burden makes their costs of living go up. And that's just one example of a consequence I can think of.
Another point to consider. Walmart, McDonalds, and other such jobs were never meant to be "living wage" jobs. These are entry level positions - training wheels for young people (or supplementary income for old people as in the example above). Basically - if you're working at Walmart or McDonalds past the age of 25 or so? You're doing something terribly terribly wrong with your life or you're retired and something has forced you to go to work again. (Again, likely health related)
If a "living wage" is mandated, you can pretty much kiss goodbye the ability of many small or start-up companies to grow. There's a huge hurdle to jump when you get past the current "50 employee minimum" past which the employer must take over the healthcare costs. This kind of law ONLY benefits large corporations and/or those who can soak the costs. It may not mean that much in the long run for Walmart and other giant chains. But your local "Mom and Pop" store? Oh yes - that will hurt them very badly.
In that case, the prices of everyday items would go up significantly. So much so that you're left with a zero-sum change: In other words, the employees at the bottom end get paid more. But their cost of living goes up to match it and they gain nothing in the long run. This has happened EVERY SINGLE TIME that the minimum wage has been hiked upwards!
You also get employers who likely decide to cut costs by cutting down on the amount of employees. To take Walmart as an example again - First to go would likely be the "greeters" at the door. Many retirement-age people work those jobs to make ends meet because their pensions or other benefits such as medicare and drug prescriptions have not kept up with inflation. That's a lot of old people now out of work. Possibly to the point of losing their homes and either having to be institutionalized or move in with their kids, and that burden makes their costs of living go up. And that's just one example of a consequence I can think of.
Another point to consider. Walmart, McDonalds, and other such jobs were never meant to be "living wage" jobs. These are entry level positions - training wheels for young people (or supplementary income for old people as in the example above). Basically - if you're working at Walmart or McDonalds past the age of 25 or so? You're doing something terribly terribly wrong with your life or you're retired and something has forced you to go to work again. (Again, likely health related)
If a "living wage" is mandated, you can pretty much kiss goodbye the ability of many small or start-up companies to grow. There's a huge hurdle to jump when you get past the current "50 employee minimum" past which the employer must take over the healthcare costs. This kind of law ONLY benefits large corporations and/or those who can soak the costs. It may not mean that much in the long run for Walmart and other giant chains. But your local "Mom and Pop" store? Oh yes - that will hurt them very badly.