Oh I get it, profit drives demand.
Yup, the cost would be passed onto the people and it would translate into a value meal probably being less than $0.50 higher. How am I being short sighted? Please explain the benefit of fast food corporations holding more profit earnings vs. low income workers getting a better wage. I laugh when people always support big business.
It's not a matter of supporting big business; it's a matter of right and wrong. "Living wage" is a subjective term. What if someone else considers $18 an hour a living wage? Why not give them $20? An increase in price results in a decrease of sales. This is just simple economics. Companies spend millions of dollars trying to find the sweet spot between price and volume and which combo results in the most profit. All things being equal, an increase in price will result in a decrease of sales volume and a decrease in price will result in an increase in sales volume.
This would be a double edged sword. First they're paying their employees more so there's more expense there. Then they're going to try to recoup some (or all of that) through the sales price of their product which will result in less people purchasing said product. If volume reaches a particular point then you need less employees. So now the corporation is making the same money, selling less product and employing less people. Meanwhile there's people out there that would gladly perform that job for $8.00 an hour but they can't because it's illegal. That's fucking stupid.
The bottom line is that taxes and regulation stifle business but business' being business will find ways around that. Your utopia where Joe Poor gets more money and it comes from the pockets of the corporation just doesn't exist. It will come out of your pocket and my pocket when I want a large fry in the form of higher prices. So you frame the argument wrong. It's not a matter of who gets the money: the working poor or big money hungry corporations because the corporations won't absorb this cost. They'll pass it on.
Two examples:
1. Health care. Any company with over 50 employees has to provide health care. Any employee working over 39 hours (I believe) has to have company provided health care. So what are companies doing? They're knocking full time employees down to 35 hours a week or laying people off to get under the 50 employee mark.
2. Here in Los Angeles in addition to a state sales tax and the highest income tax in the country (9.3%) Los Angeles also taxes me for the right to do business in Los Angeles. That's right... I pay income tax to the state, sales tax to the state and tax to Los Angeles for having a business here. So what are business' doing? They're setting up shop in Burbank, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and other cities that are in Los Angeles but aren't the actual city of Los Angeles.
People get around this stuff. More taxes and un-necessary regulations rarely have the effect people expect they will. Instead companies just look for ways around it. So instead of my business being set up in Los Angeles I'll just get myself a nice house in LA and an office in Burbank. Now Los Angeles gets nothing.
Also, have you forgotten my stance on most social issues? I think most would consider me pretty liberal on social issues but on matters of economics, liberals are generally wrong. I agree that the income disparity in this country is in-excusable and we need to do something about that but I just don't think this is it. Once you remove the motivating factors to better yourself you start running into some pretty scary scenarios.