- it seems to me, historically speaking, any raise in the minimum wage results in corporate lay-off of wage earners and a raise in prices for products or services rendered. Without a mandate to freeze employment and prices, it's just part of a vicious cycle that seems to never end.

There is no evidence of a direct linkage between increases in the minimum wage and job losses or inflation. Instead increases seem to have a mild stimulus effect, as low income workers immediately put the increase back into circulation by spending it.

- I'm finding stuff online saying both:

"according to leading economists—including famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett—minimum wages can actually raise unemployment by giving employers less incentive to hire and more incentive to automate and outsource tasks that low-wage employees previously performed.

Higher mandated minimum wages also force businesses to raise prices to maintain desired profit margins. Higher prices can lead to less business, which means less revenue and, therefore, less money to hire and pay employees. "
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/minimum-wages-can-raise-unemployment.asp

and: "Does a rise in the minimum wage lead to higher unemployment? Economists have been arguing this question for a long time, and the “fight for $15” movement has really heated up the debate on how a higher minimum wage changes employment. According to the basic economics 101 explanation, an increase in the minimum wage motivates more people to enter the labor market because they will earn more money. At the same time, an increase in the minimum wage increases firms’ costs and the quantity of labor demanded decreases (firms hire fewer workers). Now more people are looking for work than there are jobs available, which leads to unemployment. Although some economists believe this explanation, several studies have found that an increase in the minimum wage changes employment little, if at all."
Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

More often than not.

Really:

- I'm finding stuff online saying both:

"according to leading economists—including famed billionaire investor Warren Buffett—minimum wages can actually raise unemployment by giving employers less incentive to hire and more incentive to automate and outsource tasks that low-wage employees previously performed.

Higher mandated minimum wages also force businesses to raise prices to maintain desired profit margins. Higher prices can lead to less business, which means less revenue and, therefore, less money to hire and pay employees. "
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/minimum-wages-can-raise-unemployment.asp

and: "Does a rise in the minimum wage lead to higher unemployment? Economists have been arguing this question for a long time, and the “fight for $15” movement has really heated up the debate on how a higher minimum wage changes employment. According to the basic economics 101 explanation, an increase in the minimum wage motivates more people to enter the labor market because they will earn more money. At the same time, an increase in the minimum wage increases firms’ costs and the quantity of labor demanded decreases (firms hire fewer workers). Now more people are looking for work than there are jobs available, which leads to unemployment. Although some economists believe this explanation, several studies have found that an increase in the minimum wage changes employment little, if at all."
Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

rich investor. Your source doesn’t pass the bullshit test I it’s first sentence.

- "Buffett was born in Omaha, Nebraska. The son of US congressman and businessman Howard Buffett, he developed an interest in business and investing during his youth. He entered the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1947 before graduating from the University of Nebraska at 19. He went on to graduate from Columbia Business School"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

Since he performs one or more of the following, I think he - at the very least, technically qualifies:
"Economists typically do the following:

Research economic issues related to education, the labor force, international trade, and other topics
Conduct surveys and collect data
Analyze data using mathematical models, statistical tools, and other software
Interpret and forecast trends, such as of financial markets
Advise businesses, governments, and individuals on problems related to fiscal policy or other economic topics
Present research in tables, graphs, and articles for academic journals, government publications, and other media"
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/economists.htm#tab-2

Smart move on their part.

It is, to quote Pramila Jayapal out of context, the prospect that a "second Donald Trump presidency could become reality", and a consequent prospect of the progressive agenda for 2025 not being worth the paper it was written on.

If this doesn't inspire progressives and young voters, nothing will.

Why do progressives expect to be "won over" by Biden to get their instinct of self-preservation to kick in? Weren't the consequences of 2016 exciting enough?

counter attack fascism.

the government-subsidising of wealthy corporations that fail to pay a living wage to their employees.
Without the government stepping in, to provide food stamps, welfare, and Section Eight, most low-wage earners and their families would be starving and homeless.
Those Corporations are even paying a lower tax rate than most middle-class families, shifting the responsibility of keeping their own employees alive onto the shoulders of the middle class.

I. Lower the Cost of Living
II. Boost Wages and Worker Power
III. Advance Justice
IV. Protect Our Planet and Our People
V. Make Our Democracy Work
VI. Break Corporations’ Hold on Our Economy
VII. Provide World-Class Public Education

Or is that off the table?