Who has determined he has more than he needs? Him? If so, then, maybe. Ask him!
Allow me to clarify my question, then perhaps you will address it earnestly;
Is a dollar worth the same to one who has enough to pay his bills and some left over as to one who doesn't make enough to pay his bills and must choose whether to pay bills or buy food?
Let us look at the issue in another way;
If a household has a food bill of $300/week and an income of $3000/week,
is the money in the food budget worth as much as it is to a household which has the same food consumption ability
but an income of $240/week plus food stamps?
Surely you can see that $.50 has far more value to the minimum wage earner?
For the most part, money means the same thing to me as it does to you or to anyone else. I don't know about you, but I can never seem to "have enough" when it comes to the stuff... I don't know, I guess MAYBE someone could get there? I haven't ever. I will always take more money, if you have any. In fact, even if I didn't have room in my house, I would build an extra room to put the money in, if you want to get rid of any.
Your sarcasm aside, if one is living within one's means, then by definition one has "enough"
If one's entire earning power cannot purchase life's needed goods, then one does not have enough.
Well my proof is, there is no such thing as a magical money tree. The increase in money which will come with the paycheck, has to come from somewhere... and without magic money trees.... the ONLY place it CAN come, is from the consumer. There is no other possibility, unless you believe in the magic trees. You can make all kinds of stupid superficial arguments as to how MUCH it will effect prices of this or that, or overall... but the bottom line is simple economics... the money has to come from someplace, and it will ultimately come from consumers. Unless there is a magic money tree.
[Edit: Sorry I misread your comment, I thought you asked me to explain how it would increase prices.]
Most companies don't, and that's the whole point... it doesn't HELP very many people, when you raise it. It HURTS a whole lot of people, because it causes inflation in prices across the board and it eliminates possible jobs. The minimum wage is used as a 'bottom rung' as it were, a 'first step' into viable and gainful employment. It is through these lowly 'shit jobs' that inexperienced workers can 'prove themselves' by showing up for work, and conforming to some manner of company guidelines and standards. Once those are established and you have met that level, you generally advance onward, to bigger and better things in life. It is NEVER something that is intended to be a means of support or livelihood for anyone. If it is, they need more help than a fity-cent raise!
So it doesn't help many, since there are so few who receive it, yet it's impact is so vast that it hurts a great many?
Hmm, I don't see how it can be both ways. A very small raise to a very small group of people, yet it has vast effects?
As to the rest of your comments in the above paragraph, who decided what lowest rung jobs are for?
Regardless of what you have decided that minimum wage jobs are for, the FACT is that they are jobs. Those that have them depend upon then, often work them longterm, and clearly do not qualify to earn more money in any way, be it due to age, physical or mental or social stature, or simply lack of any higher paying jobs. Those that can advance do, it is not they who we are concerned with.
Yes, there are LOTS of similar situations. Some people are just above minimum wage... well, when the minimum wage is increased to what they are currently making, they are going to expect to still be valued above the minimum wage, are they not? Therefore, you have to increase their pay accordingly, otherwise... they are made into minimum wage workers again, and take a step backwards. Okay, ya following so far? So we go next to one of the other many similar situations, the guy or gal who's making just above the next level of pay... and suddenly, the level below them are now making just as much! Well, their value is still worth more than the level below, so they have a right to ask for a pay increase too! And this goes on up into management... and sometimes all the way up to the CEOs.
Again... the problem is not solved. We have had this 'minimum wage' idea for how many years? And how many times have we increased it, supposedly, to help the poorest among us, to make things better for those who are struggling.... are we seeing any results from that? Are people somehow struggling less, after 40 years of trying to help by increasing the minimum cost of labor?
The "problem" (presumably poverty) will never be solved by one law.
The agony, the utter misery of some of the poorest of the working poor may be somewhat alleviated. That is the goal, and the only goal.
Now please, please show how the burden of an increased minimum wage has damaged the economy in the past.