So I've heard variations of this dumb argument for a whole year now and I am finally able to address it.

Let's start with the premise that a worker's hours would be cut if they made a higher wage; why is that a bad thing? Who doesn't want to spend more time away from work?

Secondly, let's talk about the wages the worker walks away with at the current MW of $7.25/hr vs. $15/hr...

So if Person A works 40 hours a week for $7.25/hr = $290/week.

If Person A gets a MW increase to $15/hr, but then has their hours cut to 29 (which is the number Conservatives say the hours would be cut to), the worker walks away with more money having worked fewer hours: 29 hours a week x $15/hr = $435.

In what world is $435 < $290? In no world is that true.

So, let's go with the premise that 40 hour a week workers will somehow work only 29 hours a week instead...but that still leaves 11 hours of work to fill.

So if the employer cuts the original worker's hours to 29, they're going to have to hire ANOTHER WORKER to make up for the 11 hours they cut.

11 hours a week x $15/hr = $165/week

$165/week is 57% of the original wage while working just 28% of the hours.

So in all cases, everyone wins...