The point I was trying to make was a different one: increasing the minimum wage to match actual minimum living costs won't be cause of hyper-inflation.
True, but a drop in the bucket is meaningful when the bucket's already full.
My view is that the status quo where people end up working on such a low compensation that their personal finance situation is unsustainable, is already unfair.
I don't think it's unfair that I can't live in Beverly Hills; I don't have a right to live in BH and yesterday I had to drive by my local Maserati/Lamborghini dealership knowing I have no business being there either. We have mobility here in the US. Making a living is cheaper elsewhere but many are not willing to use their mobility to go there.
Seniors do it all the time. Once they retire and their income is lower, they change their lifestyle to fit their reduced income. They've taken on the responsibility of preparing for their retirement. In my youth, I'm choosing to go the other direction and "burning the midnight oil" to increase my income to improve my family's lifestyle in the short term and in the long term have a reserve for when I'm no longer working.
If instead I force someone by way of government to give me more of their money for the same work, I'm taking away from someone for my gain. That's not fair either. It's their business, their resources, their time and treasure on the line. "Tweaking" the market to make it more fair is a slippery slope and shifts the responsibility of making the economy work to the "tweakers" instead of keeping it in our own hands. "With great power comes great responsibility." So we give them responsibility and power all with a single vote. Then we complain when "we don't have a voice".
Sorry if I'm too much of a smart-ass, and thanks for the exchange. Cheers.