There is plenty of evidence that it would have an effect on profitability - its called a bell curve. Some surely would be able to successfully pass on costs, the problem is you are making sweeping statements assuming all would, which is just another assumption you pulled out of nowhere because it conveniently fits your ideology. The fact is, you have no idea how many would or would not be able to pass on costs and remain competitive.

You have yet to define what a "livable wage" is as well - I have also made the assertion that the current status quo is livable, but you seem to reject that. Not sure what your basis is, you have declined to elaborate so I made an assumption of $15/hr as stated before and you have yet to correct that. Under that level of increase, many jobs would be cut any many more unemployed. I am still not sure how you would count that as a net positive. Perhaps you also do not see how destructive the end of part time and temporary work would be, but I certainly do.Making a few less dependent of govt while creating whole new swaths of people who are wholly dependent on Govt somehow strikes me as extremely bad planning.

The thing you still dont seem to comprehend, is I have lived on food service wages before. No govt, no nothing helping. I knew many many people who did the same. So your entire premise rings hollow. Something you seem to not want to address as well. If people are now living on food service and taking welfare, perhaps that reflects not a problem with wages but rather with govt.

Given the level of inflation created by increasing wages, you have also given no reason as to why relative costs across the board would not rise - putting the retail/food service class of worker right back where it started in terms of wages relative to cost of living. Though having to overpay in terms of wages ma incentivize companies in the short term to devise long term solutions to cutting labor overhead, in the long term if the rent that was $400 doubles to $800 and the loaf of bread that was $2 doubles to $4 - but far fewer people are actually employed, thats just a recipe for disaster not an intelligent scheme for a more egalitarian society.

Mostly I think in the short and medium term, all your scheme would accomplish is put the lower class closer to the middle class in terms of purchasing power as absolute wages rose for the lowest class of workers - which instead of elevating their standard of living would actually just put additional pressure on the middle class, who increasingly had to compete with the lower classes of workers for resources. Eventually wages would start catching up for certain segments of middle class workers, but I think some groups would be left behind.

Creating more "middle class" by artificially inflating wages is not really possible, though it is possible, even likely, that the reverberations of Govt action will cause even more middle class workers to fall into relatively lower tiers.

Increasing standard of living of those on the bottom can only realistically be done by either lowering the relative cost of things they consume, or increasing the relative productivity values of the workers.

In either case, its not the plutocrats who will be harmed. This type of Govt involvement always ends up taking from the middle, productive segments of society. Your advocating Govt involvement here is not in the best interests of the working retail/service classes, the only beneficiary would be chaos.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)