This is a shift of context: the first was in "us" (the non-boss political establishment not responsible for distributing receipts) "giving" raises. The second is "bosses" giving employees raises, now dropping the context of the reason for the wage increase; being compelled by force of law.
The line of reasoning is entirely dependent on the reason for an employer giving more wages. If he needs to give raises to retain talent, it is presumably because the skills he is purchasing can demand a premium, which can be reflected in the prices of the product or service being offered.
If most of the goods and services used by the people most "helped" by the commanded wage raise are themselves wage dependent, then their prices must increase or employment levels must decrease and efficiency of the remaining workers must increase to compensate.
As market prices for goods and services are not that linearly dependent on one factor, this result on employers will inversely affect employers with the least price flexibility; the ones with the least margin, the ones employing the low-income workers.
The line of reasoning is entirely dependent on the reason for an employer giving more wages. If he needs to give raises to retain talent, it is presumably because the skills he is purchasing can demand a premium, which can be reflected in the prices of the product or service being offered.
If most of the goods and services used by the people most "helped" by the commanded wage raise are themselves wage dependent, then their prices must increase or employment levels must decrease and efficiency of the remaining workers must increase to compensate.
As market prices for goods and services are not that linearly dependent on one factor, this result on employers will inversely affect employers with the least price flexibility; the ones with the least margin, the ones employing the low-income workers.