There was an article just recently that said that I belive it was 40% of college graduates are working in a job that does not require a college degree.

Now later in that profession through promotions and/or to get promoted you might need that degree.  They might also not hire unless you have a degree for that reason.  But most college graduates are over qualified for their jobs.

Then you take into the current economy and you have some people wokring minimum wage because there is no jobs in their field.  There are a few people I know that are like 45 years old that are working right now at menards or home depot at basically minimum wage.  They have degrees, but they lost their jobs due to economy and haven't gotten new ones yet.

You seem to think strong economy = higher prices. It doesn't have to work that way.

In a lot of cases, the limiting factor isn't supply, but demand. If more people have more disposable income, it allows them to buy more things, which increases demand for those things, which in many cases simply means more profit due to more sales for the company that makes those things. And if demand increases, companies can either increase supply or increase price. Increasing price will of course price out the very people that were able to afford it anyway, so increasing supply enables them to meet the demand and make the same profit. And to increase supply, they need to hire more people.

As for the idea that the market is a better way to determine this stuff - don't make me laugh. You clearly don't comprehend economics even to a mild degree if you think that the employment market is one that works well in that way. There is always more supply than demand in the employment market - you'll never have zero unemployment. As a result, companies are at the advantage, able to lower pay further and further. Since the difference between paying people just enough to survive and paying people less than enough to survive is zero as far as demand is concerned, and people being paid less need more hours to survive, the result is actually LESS employment.

The market is in no way a good method of controlling this sort of thing. Ever heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? It applies in economics constantly - the optimal value isn't found, the nash equilibrium is found. And in most cases, unless you apply restrictions, the nash equilibrium is very different from the optimum. In the case of Prisoner's Dilemma, despite the fact that both prisoners cooperating is the optimal result, each prisoner gets a better result by defecting, and the result is one that is less optimal for both.

The government plays the role of the regulator. They provide ways to circumvent these sorts of problems. The minimum wage is one such control - in this case, a minimum wage set around the real optimum will provide the best net result for everybody, for multiple reasons.

Note that Australia has a minimum wage 50% higher than the one being discussed here. Unemployment in America is 7.6%, Australia's is 5.4%. Note that Australia also has much more generous unemployment benefits (which require you to continue looking for a job) that don't expire after a certain amount of time, so it's not because fewer people stay in the job market.

It doesn't force companies to pay everyone the same. It forces companies to pay at least a certain amount. And the amount required certainly isn't particularly burdensome.

If people lack education, that's a failing of your system. If people lack drive, it's their own damn problem. Experience is a different matter, of course, but then, minimum wage jobs shouldn't require any particular amount of experience - after all, experience should increase your perceived value.

The government isn't disrupting anything. It's setting restrictions on the "game" - I use that term in the sense of "game theory", which is very applicable to economics. Otherwise, the game ends up greatly favouring a non-optimal result, just as occurs in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Its not going to work out how they expect.

Companies that pay $7 - $9/hr are going to have to do one of two things to deal with a minimum wage increase:

1) Fire/timesize workers
2) Raise prices

Guess which one the businesses are going to choose. Its not going to have the effect they believe it will. Illinois is in the middle of a death kneel, and this will only hasten it.

Australia's minimum wage is $15.96 per hour or $606.40 per week

you cut of 96cents.

EDIT: now that our tax has reformed to no tax for first $18000 earned that also helps the minimum wage people.

Cost of living in Illinois is only tha low because of everything out of a 50 mil radius of Chicago. Within that 50 miles is pretty expensive. For example I am living in city limits of Milwaukee on the eastside (nice area) for cheaper than I would be living in the run down ghetto burbs of Joliet.

The hilarious thing is last 2 companies I work for (little caesars and target) always went over alloted hours. Pinching them that much more to reduce hours will have drastic effects on work. My target had bare minimum of workers on the sales floor (1 during weeknights) that reducing hours wont have any effect because that one person will need to be working no matter what. The trucks needed to get unloaded and stocked no matter what. Little caesars was in worse shape. My store was only suppose to have 150 hours per week but 2 people were suppose to be scheduled at all times which meant at least 170 hours a week were used and 2 people can't handle the diner rush themselves so it was more like 240hours used a week.

No, I think that driving up the cost of labor = higher prices. It does have to work that way.

No, it doesn't. Like I said before, economics is a highly complicated field, and the reductionist attitude that people like you apply is just plain wrong. There are a hundred different possible results for increasing the cost of labour. Higher prices *can* apply. There is no reason why it has to.

USD$10? It's the same here in Mexico, more or less... HAHA who am I kidding, it's about USD$0.70 here (: