It is a truism that when you raise minimum wages (price fixing) total employment goes down. This is widely accepted as true and well understood as the accepted cost of doing business for the social engineering value of price fixing. One can debate whether it is a good idea or not, but cannot honestly argue that raising labor prices does not lower employment levels.
It's not a *truism* at all. Raising the cost of labor *may* cause employment to go down, but it is not a given because so many other factors are more important - like the demand for labor in the first place. This is even more true when you are talking about the legal minimum wage, which in times of strong labor demand is often below the de facto minimum wage.
In the mid-90's, when unemployment was very low, the minimum wage was around $5/hour. But the lowest wage actually paid even at low end establishments was $8/hour - with 5% unemployment, that was the lowest market rate. Under these circumstances, you could have raised the minimum wage by $3/hour and have had no effect on the job market. (It's also relevant that even when places do pay the minimum wage, it is generally paid to teenagers and part-time workers; it's a very small part of all wages).
In any event, the effect of the legal minimum wage is not relevant to the above-minimum wages paid by a retailer: Apple raising its wages doesn't automatically translate into reduced employment at all; that's completely up to Apple. It may translate into higher labor costs, which may or may not have an effect on the bottom line, depending on the productivity of the more expensive labor. I don't think that many people would believe that Apple would be more profitable if it dropped its retail wages to the legal minimum. And there's no reason to believe that Apple is wrong to think that its results would improve by paying more. (Again, Apple deciding to pay more is much different from a minimum wage increase causing all wages to rise regardless of the productivity or financial well-being of the retailer.)
The same principal applies to other forces like regulatory costs, like the ACA (Obamacare) mandating employers pay more health care costs for employees who work over a certain number of hours or have a certain time of service or for a company with over 50 employees. This increases the employer's costs of keeping employees so they may lay some off, or hire fewer.
This is true for employers who don't already offer equivalent benefits; it's not true for all employers. And the effect, again, depends on a lot of factors, not just the cost of labor. Employers that are already optimally staffed may have to eat the cost, since reducing the workforce can lead to lower revenues than paying the same workforce more.
The same principal applies to a recession. As sales decline, the available budget for employee costs reduces.
Again, this is too simplistic - you can't just focus on the cost issue without looking at productivity and other factors. In a business affected by a recession (and I'm not sure that Apple would be included in this group), revenue decreases *and* productivity decreases (i.e., if sales drop by 1/3 and staffing levels stay the same, a fully staffed workforce producing 2/3 as much is going to be overall only 2/3 less productive than the same workforce producing at full capacity.
In the USA we have all three factors at work all at once in case you missed it. They all bias toward lower employment. The actual numbers published by the FEDGOV confirm this as the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3% and the participation rate in employment ticked down a percentage point or so.
Rocketman
I'm not sure that any of these factors are very relevant to Apple: it doesn't pay minimum wage; it doesn't seem to have suffered from the recession; and it already offers health benefits. These factors are even less relevant to Apple retailers in the UK.
----------
What on earth are you talking about? I've lived in both Denver and California for a total of 4 years.
Incidentally, Americans tend to know very little of British & English culture.
Americans are superficial because they act nice regardless of what they really think. Europeans are rude because they tell you what they really think, even if you didn't ask. You pays your money and takes your choice.