Raising the minimal wage

No problem, Bernard ;)Again, I didn't see you say anything against my statement regarding a $10/hr average minimum wage across Canada and the US. So again, we should be just using that number, not finding the lowest or highest wages in a single state or province and trying to use that to our advantage.Hard workIt would be great if you had a source to back this information up with. Nonetheless, I wasn't referring to work ethics. My point is that they won't have the incentive to move up in the company if they are paid well doing the least amount of work, or they will most likely work the easiest job that pays the least, out of multiple options. Like I suggested previously, if WalMart paid $15/hr, that would be the same wage as a medical records and health information technician [1] (keep in mind the median pay isn't the starting wage, which is obviously lower), and there would be less incentive to get a job that requires an education and harder work if you can easily get an entry-level job sorting clothes. The disadvantage of this, as I stated before, is an obvious lack of interest in fields that are incredibly beneficial to society and the well-being of others.You have a good equation there, but it would only apply to manufactured goods, not services. And even then, there are other options when you're given money. You don't need to just spend it. You can save it, donate it, pass it down to your children, etc. So it won't always go back into the economy - just because someone makes more doesn't necessarily mean they will spend more. The richest people I know try to be as cheap as possible, because they want to be rich. And with this logic, why not just pay everyone $500/hr because it'll "go back into the economy"?I highly doubt the employer will work harder because he's paying his employees 50% more. He'd have more incentive to find over qualified staff so he knows his extra 50% is going to people he doesn't have to baby through their shift... Again, something else contributing to the idea that the uneducated or inexperienced will have a much harder time finding work.FairnessThese people actually don't "work hard." Minimum wage is for entry level positions. McDonald's, WalMart, etc. Jobs that require little to no work. If these people were in fact working hard, they would be working in places that require hard work. It is not hard to work at McDonald's. It would be a different story if someone working at a law firm, putting 10 hours a day doing filing and getting constantly bombarded with tasks with no more than a half hour break got paid minimum wage. Like I've been saying, the work reflects the pay. Someone doing next to nothing gets the minimum pay, something people aren't necessarily supposed to be "living" on, anyway.Rich & PoorYou have a good idea there, but simply paying people more money isn't going to fix it without causing more problems, as I've stated earlier. The main problem with this idea is that the rich create jobs. The reason people are rich is because they own businesses, created something that lots of people use, or are just really good at their job and have moved into positions that people pay lots of money for. The "1%" has created more jobs than the 99% multiplied ten fold. You won't see some guy working the floor at WalMart hire forty janitors, you'll see that big bad rich guy upstairs give those people jobs. The other problem with this is that those jobs are not meant to support a family. They're entry-level jobs, a good metaphor for life. It's the entry to life/the real world. Work an entry-level position for a year or so, go to school or get some experience, move up in the company or apply to other companies, or even start your own company, and make more money. The point of these jobs isn't to support a family, it's to give a kid or college student a way to make money while they're on the road to getting an actual career.I also highly doubt America & Canada is going to go to sh*t because some people make more than most.Government & MoneyThis is a really good point. However the amount the government would make would be pennies compared to other ways we could save money. And again, this goes back to my point that relying on people to buy more because companies pay them more isn't fool-proof. Why not just pay everyone $500/hr? It'll go back into circulation. People aren't just going to spend all their money because they can. Hell, if people were paid $5 more, that'd be enough to live off of, meaning they could save the rest, meaning companies won't be getting more money by giving their employees more."We need to give these low income people something to work for..."EXACTLY! So don't just give them what they want without them working for it. They're "low income" for low work, not because they've spent $30,000 on student loans to get their BA in medical sciences, but because it's easy, nothing work. We are giving these people something to work for, by saying "here's what you'll earn if you want to do minimal work and not get an education... and here's what you'll earn if you want to bust your butt and get some sort of degree." Simply saying "okay everybody, here's more money," isn't going to give anyone more incentive to work more beneficial jobs.The problem isn't with the wage, it's with the people who are deciding to work these jobs. If the average age of people working entry-level positions was 18, the average age of people working "livable" positions - such as accountants or secretaries - was 28, the average age of people working higher up positions in management or law was 40, and the average age of CEO's or high end businessmen was 55... we'd be set. Nobody would be complaining about the CEO's making a million bucks a year, and nobody would complain about the kids making a thousand bucks a month. The problem is the demographic of people deciding to work these jobs, not the pay of the jobs. These entry-level positions aren't designed for 40 year old single mothers of three, just like jobs that pay $15 an hour aren't designed for teenagers.Sure, there are exceptions, like uneducated immigrants or people born into bad situations, but completely changing the way the system is designed to cater to very few people is detrimental to the whole of society. The majority of your argument revolves around the idea that the jobs these people work for minimum wage is hard. It's really not hard, and they aren't working hard, and these jobs aren't designed for people trying to start a family. There's no reason to increase these wages.Thanks.Sources[1] http://www.bls.gov...