Cool. Let's make it $20 per hour. Where's it going to come from? You used the phrase "the old fallacy" several times, and every time you used it as a dodge to easily dismiss what you yourself don't have any real argument for. As USLCPL said, the idea of a minimum-wage job is that it's where you start out your career, not where you spend the next twenty years. People who have any brains at all start off in one of these jobs, then either move up the ladder or move to a better job somewhere else. These jobs aren't supposed to support families, and families who find themselves in that position actually have several recourses available, as has been mentioned but you ignored while prattling about "fallacies".

Not a myth at all, which I've pointed out to you in the past but you conveniently "forget" as soon as it suits you.

The myth of the minimum wage is that when you rise it all other wages will soon follow suit. You have more dollars but they buy less and you're still stuck in exactly the same place on the ladder.

People who make minimum wage do so for a reason, their skill sets are not worth anything but bottom rung wages. A sad reality of life so you might as well get use to it.

The higher you make the bottom rung the less jobs there will be, foreign competition will see to that. Products move around the world almost as easily as you can move on the interwebs.

A good economy is not paying the bottom rung more, it's creating more bottom rungs and than being able to move up.

Nobody but nobody starts or runs a business to give you a job, you have a job only as long as your labor makes someone money over a given period of time.

Magic

Like what? Wages, benefits and services offered to the poor have only ever gone up in over a century. The only real exception I can think of was welfare reform in 199....7(?) and that proved to be perfectly reasonable.

Keep that in mind the next time you are serviced by a minimum-wage worker. Remember to give them a generous tip. Of course, you aren't going to do that consistently if you do it at all because what you're actually saying is that somebody else needs to do something about this "problem".

An understandable perspective, and a politically popular one, but not a correct one - for many reasons.

Firstly, forget that bit about higher-level execs being canned and taking regular jobs. Even when such things happen, it is not difficult for an exec to find another job as they have excellent qualifications. If there are no such positions to take, that is a failure of of economic policy, not the economy itself. There are three hundred and sixty-million people in this country, and at least two thirds of them want dozens of different things on a daily basis. Lie to yourself if you must, but don't lie to me by telling me that the market isn't there. The market is always there, it just gets tripped-up by people insisting on wage controls, price controls, subsidies, and other nonsense.

Secondly, you're more correct than you realize in saying the we do everything we can to help the rich. I say you are correct because it is no secret that there are a number of easily exploitable tax loopholes, no matter what the tax rate is, and I imagine that you're as PO'd about that as I am am. I also say you are correct because whether you realize it or not, you're actually helping the rich by insisting upon government intervention in such matters. In giving the government power to intervene in such things you are also necessarily giving it the power to determine criteria in such things. Guess who has the most influence over what criterion are used? It isn't you. It isn't me. It's the rich people who can afford to influence government. You're shooting yourself in the foot by trusting the government to fix this "problem".

Thirdly, you are also incorrect in assuming we do everything we can to help the rich. If that were true, all the rich people would be here, along with their businesses and jobs. However, we are losing rich people and jobs to other countries, which suggests that, at the very least, we are doing somewhat less to to help the rich than those countries are. As contradictory as this paragraph sounds when compared to the last one, it is surprisingly consistent with what happens when you let the government do things.

Four, nobody thinks that rich people are instantly good or that they did everything right. There's a whole political philosophy built around the supposition that rich people are bad or immoral, and you're supporting it right now. Heck, even I don't think that they are good or did everything right either, and I'm on their side. It's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of economics.

Finally, I'd like to address your last point: I'm not for wages so high that nobody can afford to employ, But I am for making the minimum wage as high as it possibly can be. More money in the hands of many means a stronger economy, and a better standard of living for those people.

Naturally, you're not for making wages so high that people can't be employed, but then you turn around and say that you want to make the minimum wage as high as it can possibly be. And who, might I ask, is the divine spirit who determines what level this wage should be set at? Even if the market didn't do this all by itself, it sure as f--- isn't any branch of the government, whose inexperience and /or incompetence in fiscal matters should be readily demonstrable by its current fiscal state. Am I to assume that you trust this agency, the same one that rich people employ to get around taxes and statutes, to competently effect a reasonable minimum wage? Are you serious?

Then there's that last sentence. I totally agree with that. More money for more people = stronger economy. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as requiring employers to pay more. We used to have a manufacturing economy that thought that way. That economy is now largely Chinese. Now we have a service economy that is also steadily being outsourced. Obviously, tightening controls on business is not the way to keep it around. We need to free business from wage controls, not to mention taxes and most regulations. We need to attract so many businesses that they compete for workers and customers, which has always translated into higher standards of living.