There's no magic money here. Companies that don't pay subsistence wages leave employees to collect public benefits to make up the difference. The businesses are being indirectly subsidized by the taxpayer. All setting a minimum wage at a subsistence pay does is stop the companies from mooching off the taxpayer.
> It’s just as likely to kill jobs.
And that's fine, there's no reason that all jobs have to be done by humans. This is why wholesale reform needs to take place as well, including basic income. Not leaning into robotization of low-skilled jobs amounts to turning America into a renaissance faire as a make-work project.
> The businesses are being subsidized by the taxpayer.
The other way around with means-tested welfare, since the taxpayers would pay more if the worker was not employed.
> All setting a minimum wage at a subsistence pay does is stop the companies from mooching off the taxpayer.
No, it stops the business, the customers it would have, the would-be employee, and the taxpayer from benefiting from the mutually-beneficial exchange that would otherwise take place.
To the extent there is an abuse prevented, it's that it is limiting the ability of employers to exploit the inherent power imbalance of capitalism to suppress wages for jobs with worth above the minimum wage to below it. But basic income provides a more robust solution to that problem without also prohibiting work at any wage.
> It’s just as likely to kill jobs.
And that's fine, there's no reason that all jobs have to be done by humans. This is why wholesale reform needs to take place as well, including basic income. Not leaning into robotization of low-skilled jobs amounts to turning America into a renaissance faire as a make-work project.