Morally the government cannot tell two people that they cannot agree to a mutual contract. However, the reason for this is because the symptoms of such prohibition is that more people will be worse off.
Well, then it stands to reason then, that if the later fails, the former must also fail.
But since you are too far lost to understand a foundational argument, we'll have to stay on the symptom level. I don't know if you realize it or not, but it's the reason why I know whatever argument you come up with, I'll always be correct and you will continue to be wrong like
the person asking to make red lines with green ink -- due to the fact that moral absolutes are just as sure as physical ones.
In other words, you're always righter than me, because of your moral understanding and virtue. That's an impressively bad argument.
You can bluster all day, and it won't make your arguments any less hollow, and it won't make the data fit your chosen ideological commitments. And given your lack of proper skepticism in general, it is really no surprise. You are, simply and thoroughly, and even objectively mistaken. Your problem is not truly with me, but with math itself.
But they can't build any profit that they wish (don't you agree building in any profit wished would be nice?).
That was the whole point of my last. The demand curve doesn't allow it. The demand curve doesn't automatically allow them to raise prices just because their marginal costs have increased.
They have to mind their competition. The ONLY control.
I assume that since you emphasized "only", you are conscious of the fact that you asserting something rather tenuous.
The only advantage. They sole tool they have in a highly competitive market is their *own* costs. These costs must be controlled if there is any profit at all to be had.
Often those costs can't be controlled.
If the government simply raises all costs relatively evenly inside an industry the response cannot be to eat the costs because the superfluous profit in a highly competitive market doesn't exist by necessity.
The government isn't going to raise all costs across an industry. Just the wages of some of the workers. And I don't know what you mean by a "highly competitive market", but the fact that many of the companies paying minimum wage are also very profitable demonstrates that they could, indeed, pay more to their employees. I'm not sure what a "superfluous profit" is versus any other type, but any profit is profit enough to motivate a business venture.
Therefore, other measures must be taken to mitigate the problem. These measures will be, as we have seen every other time this has been done, is to hire less of the people the minimum wage is supposed to help.
That's simply in blunt contradiction to the facts. As I've pointed out several times in this thread, in literally half of the cases where we've raised the minimum wage, the unemployment rate began dropping afterwards. If significant layoffs occur after minimum wage hikes, it appears to be too small to detect.
Also, as the cost for labor goes up, the cost of living will go up.
The cost of living increases with economic growth. Slow economic growth actually forestalls cost of living increases somewhat, but that doesn't make it worthwhile. So, indirectly, you could be half-right if the hike spurred enough economic improvement that it actually showed up in GDP. But since the minimum wage disproportionately benefits a small minority of the workforce, and costs a small amount of money relative to the overall economy, the benefits to those people impacted are likely to far exceed any increase in the cost of living attributable to the hike.
And beyond that it will also allow capital investment that had been previously too expensive to enter the market and displace more workers.
In other words, employers will work even harder to find ways around having employees at all. Perhaps, but as I've repeatedly pointed out in this thread and others, most of the businesses that do pay minimum wage are already working pretty hard to minimize labor costs. So the impact isn't all that great. And ultimately, if it makes the economy more efficient, isn't that generally a good thing? We could abolish all sorts of technologies if we really want to ratchet up the workforce, but that wouldn't really serve the general good.
Then you have no idea how a competitive market works.
Oh please, do explain.
The businesses involved complete each other down as close to unprofitability as they can and still stay in business (thus the necessity of no superfluous profit).
No, that's called a price war. And while it does happen once in a while, that isn't the general case. That's why there are still dozens or perhaps hundreds of fast food chains, and the number is growing. That's why there are still several many car companies. That's why there are several large retailers. You think McDonald's and Burger King are locked in a fight to the death? No. Because they both know that it isn't in either of their interests to do that. And because consumer choice isn't as simple as always buying the product that is even a little bit cheaper.
Even in your example, they couldn't possibly ALL lose because they wouldn't all go out of business at the same time.
Sure. And sometimes, when a business becomes too uncompetitive, it fails, and its competitors pick its corpse to the bones. But most of the time, they are only going to go so far in getting customers for themselves, and undercutting their own profitability is too far.
The one remaining would win if all the others sold their product at a loss and went out of business because the remaining business wouldn't have to compete anymore.
Is there one, or more than one fast food chain in the world? Are there more, or fewer than there were fifty years ago?
It sure is easier to make money when your foes are vanquished.
Sure. But vanquishing your foes the way that you suggest is highly unprofitable. And there aren't a lot of examples of it in the real economy.
Here's a secret that you don't seem to understand. The only way to defeat your foes is to not worry about them, but to worry about giving your customers the very best value for their money that you can. That means you have to CONTROL YOUR COSTS better than they can, without worrying about your foes costs at all. Get it? It's a paradox, but it means your idea of superfluous profitability that can eat increased costs is wrong.
If it were true that all businesses are so worried about customer experience that they always give the absolute lowest price that they can, then none of them would be profitable. Forget "superfluous" profits, they wouldn't make any money at all.
