What? That only assumes they can afford them at a certain price point. there is no correlation that someone that can afford them now can afford them at a higher price or are willing to have "a little less spending cash."
And neither leads to less employment.
Here's the overall problem: assumptions.
no doubt there's a marginal good-not-sold whenever prices increase; the question is the elasticity of demand.
If we assume that there's a static amount of spending cash, then it would make sense to reduce employment in the frivolous entreatment sector (fast food, movies, etc) in order to increase the quality of the lives of those working in said sectors.
If we assume that the same amount of fun will be had no matter, then we don't hurt employment, and we improve everyone's life that's working: at the expense of investment capital (as even money put in the bank becomes investment capital for folks borrowing from the bank)
In truth, a 16 year old working at McD's doesn't need a 'living wage'. Instead we should extend the earned income tax credit and force it to be distributed into pay checks. We should adjust this so that someone working full time has enough earned-income to adjust their EIC up to the point that they are out of poverty.
A 16 year old girl wealthy parents will now not make nearly as much as a 32 year old widow with 3 kids. But the supply/demand driving the existence of the job will not be impacted; though the supply of people who should have jobs looking for them will go up.
I hate economics.