Actually, it doesn't say that he has to fire someone because he had to give them a raise. What it says is that he has to fire someone because "business expenses" have gone up. This could be because of a direct expense (like a rise in minimum wages) but is more likely to be because of indirect expenses (minimum wage raises at his suppliers have increased the costs of his purchased materials and supplies).
A minimum wage increase impacts more than just the wages of employees and their direct employers - it impacts everyone who purchases products made by those employees or utilizes services provided by those employees.
Of course he checked his overhead, supply costs, and insurance - so it is safe to assume that he already knew of those costs. In fact, being the "good" businessman he is, he should have already known about any potential increase in the minimum wage. So it was relatively safe for XO and others to assume that the reaction was strictly confined to minimum wage raises within his company
or wage pressure at slightly above minimum wage levels.
Moreover, there are few minimum wage employees in the United States relative to the minimum wage level (though it has increased with the lack of an inflation level minimum wage hike over the Bush years). So the effects aren't likely to be quite as dramatic as you claim. Also, a dramatic increase in the costs from the "good" businessman's supplier is likely to be met with a better offer from another vendor. Therefore yours and Sir's assumption is even less likely to be true.
"Obviously" someone who has no frellin clue as to what it takes to effectively run a business, and work with other companies that also run businesses
Actually, I find that many of the right wing who make this remark quite often have "no frellin clue" themselves. It seems to be a standard freeper reply though.
