* Fewer than 1/4 of all minimum wage workers are under 19. Interesting that the WSJ fails to mention this.

* The majority are between 20 and 25. Maybe from an upper middle class perspective this seems to support the argument that minimum wage only affects "young people," but working class 24 year olds LIVE ON this income! Oh, and before you say "those numbers are just college students at their jobs," you should know that the average college work study job earns $10.50/hr.

* Women are twice as likely as men to receive minimum wage. Surprise surprise!

* The highest percent of minimum wage workers are in "leisure and hospitality" (read: "cleaning hotel rooms"). This is not a typical "teen summer job." It is a job worked primarily by immigrant and minority women.

* The WSJ chooses to ignore state minimum wages. Of course the number of workers making $5.15 is limited... the wage hasn't been raised in 10 years!

But facts don't really matter here. The WSJ will just keep repeating the GOP talking points. I'm proud that both my Republican Senators in aine voted FOR the wage hike.

Make that: "...Senators in MAINE..."

If you spend more than a year making just minimum wage then I have five words for you: Screw you. I've got mine.

AGAIN, take a look at which kind of jobs these are. If you're working cleaning hotel rooms, there isn't a huge opportunity for upward mobility.

Programmer Cat - you act as though there is unlimited opportunity in the workplace for exchange mobility, for everyone to rise in the system if they just TRY hard enough. The problem is that this just doesn't make sense. If federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr and EVERYONE in the American workforce busts their ass and really does everything they can, there will still be people making $5.15/hr. That's just the structure of the wage stratification.

It's like what good old Ron Reagan said: "In America, anyone can be a millionaire." What he failed to mention is that not EVERYONE can be a millionaire. The system just doesn't support it. Which, for the record, is exactly the problem with your cherished "rational self-interest" life philosophy.

---

Nabb1: Some jobs simply aren't worth more than that. Dropping fries is not a career.

And therein lies the problem. For the American economy to work, SOMEONE has to work cleaning hotel rooms and operating the fryolator. Since the system dictates that someone HAS to work these low-skill jobs, why can't we at least make sure that they can feed their kids?!

Deciding to raise a family by dropping fries is a poor plan. Very poor

Exactly, VERY POOR! As in, it's the only option available to many VERY POOR adults. I know this is hard to imagine, but there are regions in this country (and even in your state) where there is 30%+ unemployment. Many people simply don't have the option of working in a better job with better pay and opportunity for advancement.

And before you say, "well those people should move to a region with more opportunity," you should stop and think. There are only so many jobs available in the American economy. No matter how you rearrange the people who need jobs, there will still be two factors that will get in the way of your "boot-straps" approach. First, the number of people that exceed the number of overall available jobs will remain the same. If there is 5% unemployment nationally, there will be 5% of people without jobs, no matter how you shuffle the population. Second, the STRUCTURE of the available jobs will remain the same. Again, shuffle the population however you want, but a growing number of the available jobs in the nation are still going to be low-wage service sector jobs.

It's really very simple when you just stop and imagine it that way.