We live in a democratic system in which the rules say when a majority of people (through their representatives) believe that a change to some policy may make things better, the majority can implement those rules.

Now, you can go out and convince people that doing something like this will be in their best long term interests, and by all means do so. We have had campaigns in our history that convinced us in a phase change that, for example:

-- smoking was bad

-- food and drug regulation was effective

-- we should have traffic and road safety standards

-- the list goes on and on

And in many cases, after such laws were passed, everyone realized that yes, it was better and we wouldn't change it back. Let's campaign for higher teacher pay. Yes. Let's advocate and convince people that more housing is needed. Great, I agree. But let the democratic process back it.

Now another way is if you change the rules by which democracy operates to encode a general ability for "enlightened fiat" to enable some group that knows better to decide that the things it favors are positive and should be done even if many / most people disagree. This has not gone so well in the past. Just because you used it in a way that you agree with, who is to guarantee that others with not so good intentions (or even just competence) also pass different laws that aren't so good. As a certain unpleasant senator says, "you may come to regret it sooner than you realize."

What I dislike is when people believe they're right from a moralistic point of view — on a very particular and self-selected cause — take it upon themselves to experiment using other people's lives, and add layer upon layer of tinkering onto the systems by which many people have learned to live effectively, trying to solve certain emotionally-touching problems but creating more as they go because the depth of their solution never keeps up with the depth of reality and exceptions to the solution. Don't discount the fact that the system that we have today produced the greatest prosperity and increase in standards of living for many, many people, before you tinker with it.

I don't disagree that some of your goals may be good. In fact I think climate change may be such a problem that needs fiat to overcome popular will. Or public health crises, for example.

But I don't know all the side effects and unintended consequences. For that reason, I don't support you (for example) just being able to say, "I know this is for the greater good so we should put this exception into place against people's democratic choices desiring not to do that thing." Raising a minimum wage definitely does not rise to the level of governing by fiat. And I don’t know how you decided that one issue was the one to invoke this power on. For now, go out and convince people that they should adopt it by an overwhelming majority. Then I will have no criticism.

If they don’t wish to adopt it, maybe it is the fate of the US that democracy cannot survive into middle age and still make the right decisions when people get old, wealthy, and complacent. But let people decide that America has declined because of it and it’s in their best interest to do so.

People are still coming to the US to work for minimum wage. Why are you second guessing that they find it still worth it?

Finally, your example of Seattle minimum has been shown to be full of holes. Just because Seattle's bubble could do it (so far) and not show noticeable unemployment doesn't mean it holds in general. Just ask everyone whose jobs were outsourced to India whether a lower relative wage provides a large incentive to shift labor away from a place with high costs. It's patently apparent it does have effects.