That is one way of looking at it.  Another way would be that the groups and minorities you've listed are now worse off for the fundamental flaw in this IR legislation = a minimum wage lowers available jobs.  Unskilled people are now being pushed out of the market and are completely dependent on welfare, because businesses can't afford to hire more people for less and build up their skillsets and experience with a minimum wage in place.  Not saying that I advocate this point of view, but the argument has merit. 

http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/10/04/radical-tenther-joe-miller-fed-minimum-wage-unconsitutional/

Radical Republican Joe Miller goes on to say unemployment benefits, Social Security, MediAid, MediCare are unconstitutional.

The Government should only provide military and police forces with small tax rates. Public spending is a waste of tax payers money and unconstitutional . A lot of reforms and amendments would need to be overturned that breach the original Constitution constructed in the 18th century. He goes on to say child slave labour laws are in breach of the American constitution. 

Should the American constitution from the 18th century be strictly enforced? Do you support Miller's stances on these controversial issues?

Very well, I'll play your game:

What kind of degree do you hold, currently?

Do you think that the vast majority of individuals would work more than a 40 hour work week, would not receive vacation, or would not get sick-leave if the government didn't mandate it?

Wait a second. If over 40% doesn't pay federal income tax, then how am I doing as a part time student worker for a public university making a bit of minimum wage.

Should the American constitution from the 18th century be strictly enforced?

It'd be an incredible world if the government didn't take 30% of everyones income. Imagine the living standards of the poor and middle class that had far less taxation.

Ultimately, major spending such as the mentioned (health care, pensions, ect) should be dealt with from a state or personal level. Many of the programs the government has that were listed (Medicaid/care, social security, ect) are utter failures, which cost much more than equivilent private programs.

1st paragraph: Actually, they don't. The median income for a household in the US is just under $50,000. Per the 2010 tax tables, a married couple doesn't pay more than 15% on any money earned until passing $75,750, and won't hit over 30% until passing $217,000. So they're not getting 30% of their money back, which leads to...

Then why was I taxed at 25% while making $30,000/yr? Yes, people do get taxes back to make the effective rate 15%, but you give the government an interest free loan until you get your tax return.

2nd paragraph: So, in exchange for giving them 15% back (well, less, taxes on $50,000 is $4900, less than 10%), they're expected to cover all the costs for the things they are getting from the government? If the states pick up the tab, state taxes are going to go up, making this moot. But if they have to pay for all those services themselves, can they get them all for $4900/year? No, thus putting them in a worse position than they were in before this "tax cut." Sure, there are inefficiencies in the system. But just throwing the whole system out isn't going to fix it. They need to step back and look where money can be trimmed- that's the course of action that is needed, not just cutting taxes to cut out all the services.

I never said the state would pick up the tabs for 100% of the programs, did I? Some programs would and should be phased out entirely like Social Security, because it is horribly inefficient. If the state did pick up the tab, they would likely do it in a way which would save taxpayers significant amounts of money, thereby  resulting in net savings. Again, my example has been compound interest rates - if you earned 7% on your pension instead of Social Security's 2.32%, you would be need only spend half the amount of money to get the same amount of retirement.

General topic: Getting rid of the minimum wage would be stupid; as things stand, people can't afford to have a place to live in some areas of the US on the current minimum.

You assume that places that have minimum wages in high cost-of-living areas pay minimum wage. From my understanding, a fast food worker in Beverly Hills makes about $20/hr. Wages sometimes have a way of changing based on income in the area.

Paying people even less would just make them even more dependant on the government for assistance, and isn't what people want to do, is get people off needing the government's help for everything?

Not quite. The argument for a lower minimum wage means that employers are able to hire more workers due to more flexible costs of employees. This would allow more people to go to employment, thereby resulting in a net reduction in government services, as some people that are currently under government assistance could then have a job.

If that $7.25/hr job ($15,080 per year, at 40 hours/week and 52 weeks/year- or less than the poverty line for a family of 3.) suddenly drops to paying $5/hr, where does that extra money go? Not to the people who need it; it stays in the pockets of the rich owners, helping to further the divide between rich and poor. Nay, I would propose slowly raising the minimum wage toward $10/hr, letting people earn a livable wage. Not a good life with fanciness, but to work toward getting a home and supporting a family.

Do you realize that when we raise the minimum wage, we're going to have more unemployment and a higher cost of goods for basic needs that those on minimum/low wages rely on? Why not raise minimum wage to $50/hr? I mean, $50 is a more livable wage than $10, right?