Well, Mr. Strawman, the problem with increasing the minimum wage to $100 an hour, is that it wouldn't be fiscally sustainable for most businesses to maintain that wage without vastly increasing the cost of goods and services, which would have a negative "domino effect" on the economy. Yes, it does sound stupid, and that is why no one want's to increase the minimum wage to $100 an hour, until the standard of living requires it when inflation catches up to that level of minimum wage some time in the year 2088 or so.

Wow

The blog post actually addressed that, as inconceivable though it is that people somehow continue to think that this is a valid argument: [quote]Now, as a general rule with these numbers, you should never observe too far away from the mean — that is, you shouldn’t take the effects of small changes to see what would happen if we, say, increased the minimum wage 500 percent, or to levels that don’t actually exist right now. But the results are promising.[/quote] Nobody's proposing increasing the minimum wage to $100/hour because nobody's saying that the relationship between the minimum wage and poverty is entirely linearly negative (although it might approach that for modest increases) - policy that is effective within a certain margin isn't necessarily (and in fact almost never) continues to be that effective when taken to any extreme. Policy is consequence based.

[quote]Nobody is suggesting that we do that.[/quote]

It's vague, because finding out the exact wage that can reduce poverty to the lowest amount possible would be very difficult. As Seggi pointed out, the relationship between increasing minimum wage and reducing poverty isn't necessarily linear.