thing is @
uh-oh, your understanding of econ IS that basic, that it's hard to have a discussion. and that's not an indictment on you personally, since most people don't care to get through the mathematical and historical rigors to really study economics. as a result, overly simplistic concepts like "businesses won't be able to hire people if they have to pay people more, just think about it!" gain more traction than they deserve. A meta-analysis done recently showed how businesses actually fared after the minimum wage went up in the past, and lo and behold, they did just fine - often they improved. bottom lines were fine, hiring remained the same or improved, the sky didn't fall. to those who have studied economics, this election cycle is a reincarnation of "supply side economics," which has not been taken seriously since the 80s, on either side of the aisle.
The inverse idea, that is all over republican debates these days, is that cutting taxes leads to job growth, which is also demonstrably inaccurate when you look at history. Then again, studying meta-analysis and economic history/theory is a whole lot less entertaining than watching Trump make fun of people on stage, so I get it.
I'm not saying I wholeheartedly agree with Bernie's propositions (I tend to think some demographics can handle changes like that, while other markets are more fragile), but everyone knows the free college stuff won't go through anyway, so why make that the defining issue? And most of the people (on here) complaining about the increased taxes will feel very little of that burden, if at all. it's just that kneejerk "I hate paying taxes" that people cash in on. Of course we hate paying taxes, but that's how we pay for civilization.
but word, don't trust the jews. vote Drumpf.