The placement of Minimum Wage on the graph seems off from the US political example presented on the next slide.

If 97% of Americans won't even notice a modest increase to Minimum Wage, doesn't that mean the price floor would be 3% of the labor supply, starting at the lowest? That would be far below the crossing of supply and demand.

Demand would legally offer wages only 3% of Labor would take, and possibly offer higher wages over time to fill more positions.

Investors won't take a smaller Return on Investment, so increased Labor cost goes directly into Prices, creating Inflation.

Probably why firms aren't keen on raising wages further to fill positions.

With Gini hitting 0.49, Lorenz is Labor at the bottom. A flat floor rising immediately with every cost of living increase.

40 years of making Labor so cheap that it's now a choice for the poor to work; we've successfully removed profit motive for the poor to work anymore.

Cost of working components for working poor:
transportation, parking, food, rising rent, childcare, partial health-care, aged utilities, maintenance (especially on anything bought or rented 'used'), etc.

Over half of those costs can be reduced or eliminated by not working, which would help explain the current level of Unemployment.

Minimum wage doesn't exist right now, politically. Reality erased it. Found the true bottom, and it's $5 more an hour and rising. At some point, Gini's got to change, or we're headed to hyperinflation.

PS: Demonstrate the positives and negatives of price floors anywhere they exist - not where it's politically expedient for you.

PPS: Don't speak for other economists. Own your opinions.