A higher minimum wage is the answer to poverty

For many people living in minimum wage is it not about maintaining a standard of living, it is about getting a standard living. It is easy to say that a person having a fine life getting a pay raise, possibly will not go out spending it extravagantly. That does, however, not account for every minimum wager in the states. If a person, who barely has enough money to provide for him/herself, finally get enough money to buy proper food, get a decent apartment or other necessary things, do you not think that, that person would go out spending that extra money, to achieve the life every human deserves? This notion is in theory, and fails to account for human nature and differences, perhaps for many people an increase in income relates to a slight decrease in debt. The argument that increasing minimum wage would translate into paying for necessary things does not take into account the financial costs to businesses and the failure of economics to produce a spending model that is predictable and can be implemented ( an example would be how bailouts never seem to trickle down ) you said, Do you not think that if a person like that, got a small pay raise, he/she would go out instantly, and use some money, to make his/hers living standard decent for a human being? There is also a lot of "luxury" things, people in the middle class take for granted, that a person in minimum wage would desire enough to go buy it. Therefore, there will be put new money out in the economy. Well, This depends on your definition of things everyone should have a right to enjoy, the addition of money so that one can attain luxuries does not negate the effects of poverty, the enjoyment of luxuries should not be a factor in determining poverty as compared to the 1800"s, the poorest person in America today may enjoin more luxuries than many wealthy people did of that era, so the notion that luxuries are an incentive to spending is false and neither do people spend more because they desire luxuries. How does new money come into the economy when as people earn more they end up being taxed more and paying for more expensive luxury i.e public transport vs a car and as such the new money in the economy simply enriches another while increasing the effects of poverty. You said The thing about, if the companies got more money, they would just take the profit themselves, and therefore not create more jobs, is a complete misinterpretation. The secret behind getting filthy rich, is not saving money, but using money to make yourself wealthier. People who owns big companies, usually live by that rule, therefore when people suddenly begin to buy more, they would not just keep the profit. They would expand their company, therefore hire more people, so that they eventually would be able to earn more money. Well, I don"t understand this statement, savings are used for investment and reinvestment, if your notion was true then companies like apple would have kept manufacturing strictly in America. However, the fact that these rich people moved production to china so as to cut labor costs contradicts your narrative. Buying more does not translate into hiring more people, it could even translate into reducing labor costs so that one can not only produce more but make a bigger profit and out compete competitors. Are you saying Warren Buffet became filthy rich because he used his money to become wealthier by hiring more people, you use your money to become wealthier by investing in sound investments and profitable trade.