I don't know Breitbart
Breitbart was a professional right-wing liar before he died. He was like a low-rent version of Hannity or Glenn "Dumbest Dumbfuck in Dumbfuckistan" Beck. When he died his organization went into complete disarray and is still there. Flynn has sort of taken over. He's a low-rent version of Breitbart.
but I thought there was some truth in what he wrote. But I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Well, it is easy to be taken in. And be aware of confirmation bias. You may think there is truth in what he wrote because you already agree with him.
I don't buy the "truth is in the middle" compromise. It is too much of a social quid pro quo. "I'll acknowledge that my far flung opinion may not be exactly right if you acknowledge your opposite opinion also may not be right." That is no way to do rationality. It smooths over conflict. It avoids confrontation.
The truth is somewhere. Maybe it's in the middle, but I doubt it. Where ever it is, I want to know it. If the truth is waaay over on the right, then I want to believe it is waaay over on the right. If the truth is waaay over on the left, then I want to believe it is waaay over on the left. I do not want to be attached to beliefs I do not want.
[1]Increased expense results in lower profits (that is ok if the company chooses that route), higher prices (if the consumer is willing or can pay them) or reduced headcount (jobs for only the most skilled {likely those second income earners} leaving a segment of society unemployable [those most at risk]). typically I do believe these problems are temporary until the market reaches it's new balance so it might be temporary pain for a greater good.
I agree on the lower profits. I disagree on the higher prices. The market sets the price, in most cases. Head count is also not something a company can always control. There is only so much belt tightning you can do. If you need the floors swept, they must be swept. You cannot fire the guy who sweeps them. You pay him and rake in somewhat less profit.
And, as I already pointed out, there is not wave of unemployment following the minimum wage hike. You are hanging on to an idea that is demonstrably untrue. You should not hang on to beloved ideas after they have been shown to be wrong. It causes you to make bad decisions.
Why not make minimum wage high enough that you can support a house (with spouse and 2 kids) in NYC with 1 income. Or perhaps just a little more so they can be comfortable with a few luxuries.
I have no problem raising it to a living wage.
Or should we use the illegal immigrant model with 6 families in a house sharing expenses and assigning a few members for daycare? BTW that model still leaves money to send back home.
Why have a minimum wage at all? Surely that would allow corporations to hire more people. Is that not what you are arguing for?
Do you understand the disconnect between the stock market, unemployment and wages?