re: More evidence why you should oppose the "national" minimum wage hike ...

No, not really. It will probably lead to greater unemployment as this wage price is not at the point of market equilibrium that COL would require. Thus, employers will likely be forced to cut jobs.

Both workers and employers benefit from a strong local economy. And to have a strong local economy, you need conditions suitable to both workers and employers.

This policy, by failing to adjust for COL, hurts workers more than necessary in some areas and hurts employers more than necessary in others. Let's assume for the purposes of discussion it's an undeniable truth that a minimum wage hike to a $10.10 national average is "necessary." With this policy, workers in NYC are paid less than is "necessary," and employers in BR must pay more than is "necessary."

Thus, unless you're in an area where $10.10 is also your COL-adjusted equilibrium wage, i.e. your COL is at the national average, your economy is likely to see weakness wrought on by either pressure on labor suppliers or labor providers (relative to the rest of the country).

In all liklihood, this policy is a net negative to our country's economic well-being, even if you could argue that a $10.10 national average minimum wage would be positive were it otherwise applied on a COL-adjusted basis.

And if what you're arguing is the "fairness" angle that the President has told you to argue, you should be jumping up and down screaming, "Workers in New York are getting screwed!"

Right?