When the cost of something goes up, all other things being equal, the demand for that thing goes down.
With the cost of gas going up and up, I bet you're driving around a lot less than you were 5 years ago, right?
Do you still keep your home's thermostat on 68 degrees, the way we did back in the 1970's? Or does 75 degrees make more sense, now that we have much higher energy costs?
Here's another scenario. Assume you want to take piano lessons and there are 4 possibilities in your area:
*Lessons from the best teacher in town for $50 per hour
*Lessons from a competent, experienced teacher for $40 per hour
*Lessons from an ok teacher for $30 per hour
*Lessons on piano from an untried teacher for $20 per hour
In this scenario, in a free market, you might give the rookie teacher a try for $20 per hour.
But what if the government put out a decree which stated that all piano teachers, regardless of skill level, regardless of current demand, must be paid $40 per hour? Would you still give the rookie a try, or would you go for the competent, experienced teacher?
In this scenario, is the government really helping the untried teacher by raising the floor on piano lessons? Or are they guaranteeing full employment for the most skilled and experienced piano teachers at the expense of the others? (Look up the origins of the Davis Bacon employment acts when you get a chance. These were our first minimum wage laws, and were designed to guarantee full employment for whites at the expense of blacks. They’ve worked well.)
This is exactly what is happening at the lower end of the wage pool with today's minimum wage increase. There will be another mandated increase a year from now.
A few months from now, start looking for bewildered print and online editorials about increased unemployment among teenagers and low-skilled minorities. The funniest ones will have no sense of irony, and will end with calls for our government to do something about the problem.