I see that Elizabeth Warren seems to think the minimum wage should be tied to productivity growth and that, if it had been back in 1960 or so, the rate would be a much more live-on-able $22 per hour rather than the current $7.25. That’s of course a bad, job-killing idea on its face, but an even worse one when you think about it. My recollection from Econ 101 many moons ago is that increases in the minimum wage drive increases in hourly wage rates generally, since the market will maintain a gap between what high-skill workers such as plumbers and electricians receive and the statutory minimum paid to the non-skilled workers at the bottom. Ergo, tying the minimum wage to productivity gains would tie all wage rates to productivity gains. But if 100% of the benefit of productivity improvement goes to workers (all workers, remember), which seems to be what Sen. Warren has in mind, there’d be nothing left over to provide a return on the investment that generated the productivity improvement in the first place, and such investments would basically stop. That would not be a good thing. I’m remembering all this from my college days, which were awhile ago and not always dry if you catch my drift, so I may have mangled some details, but I doubt it. Input welcome. . . .