Not to beat this thing to death, but everything the government does is like this. Increasing the minimum wage is probably not as significant as requiring health insurance. Places like Chicago or Maryland can get away with doing it, so long as the costs can be passed on, which usually means either that on balance, competing jurisdictions are no more business friendly than they are, or that the affected industries don't really have meaningful competition in neighboring jurisdictions in any event, possibly because of the convenience factor.
That's just one more reason why a federalist system works better than a unified government. If they could impose their policies on the entire nation, then there would be no competition to bring them back to earth. On the other hand, if every jurisdiction agrees that the benefits of a policy outweigh its costs, then there is no problem with businesses fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid the policy because all jurisdictions will have the same policy.
That is exactly what is occurring with the anti-smoking campaigns....towns and counties with smoking bans are losing business to surrounding areas without them and so now they are demanding the entire state have them in order to not have the competition.
The government should have no place in making business decisions whether it be mandatory smoking bans or mandatory health insurance. Let the market decide with consumers and employees directing the decisions with their feet and wallets.
".........increasing the minimun wage is not as significant..."
So you say! Calculate all of the contract wages that are tied to the minimum wage. They all go up. Calculate all of the additional revenue govt will rake in. Why do you think unions and government are in bed on this issue?