And I'm calling a foul on that, because it takes us out of things that are at least notionally connected to the economy we live in. Engaging with that argument allows you to take shots at unprovable theoretical problems at the outer reaches of the debate instead of the debate we're actually having about potentially raising the minimum wage to $10 or $15.

But since you won't relent, and I'm feeling generous with my time in the holiday season, I'll bite.

A $100/hr minimum wage sounds unthinkable, and we couldn't just jack up the minimum wage to $100 and expect things to go smoothly -- economies don't like short, sharp shocks. But it's not like people would stop working and producing goods if we phased one in over time. What would happen is prices would go up to adjust to the fact that labor costs more.

A HA!

But, of course, your consumers are most often someone else's employees, so the extra money they're getting would make them able to pay the higher prices you're now demanding as a business owner. The entire wage scale would shift upwards, and everyone who's working would be fine. Non-workers would have to have their "wages" (retirement income or safety net spending) increased in proportion to the amount of the minimum wage increase, but that's not hard to do in a hypothetical where it's possible to multiply the minimum wage ten-fold -- I just assume the same can opener you did when you created the mythical scenario, and we're done.

See why it's not helpful to have economic debates this far outside the bounds of our current economic realities?