That's easier said than done. I wish life were that simple.

That's entirely without context. The increase in productivity is a result of streamlined business operations which have been studied over decades to reduce the waste of time and energy needed to complete the duties of each employee. The skillset required to accomplish their duties has been greatly reduced. The skillset of an entry level fast food worker from the 1950's compared to one in 2013 has actually decreased considerably as well. So, if your argument that because increased productivity should be justification of a wage increase whereas the work as a unit has less marketable skills than one 70 years ago and in fact all the productivity gains are from a business process stand point. I wholeheartedly disagree. 

Plus, whenever there is a discussion of fairness or what someone deserves it is no longer a discussion on what is right and equitable. Anyone can justify anything under the sun under the false premise of fairness.

If there's higher productivity, there is more wealth to be shared, and that wealth should be shared decently evenly. The insane gaps between an entry-level worker and company CEO's are unconscionable, and undefendable.

McDonald's themselves demonstrated that their wages are indefensible, as they do not provide a living wage.

Mc D's managers make great money. Every person I have known to work at mc donalds has also recieved a raise after 6 months to a year. With that said, it entry level work. All raising the minimun wage does is hurt workers who are n't as good as others. By forcing everyone to paid so high, it becomes worthless to hire someone who cant work as fast or as well as others. I manage a pizza place, and there are workers I could keep on payroll if I could pay them less (min wage is 8.00 dollars here in California). As it is, if they aren't fast workers, and great with customers, I simply have to let them go and find a better worker. Usually for me I hire 2 at a time becuase I know 1 can''t hack it. Usually 16-23 year olds. But since we are forced to pay people the same wage, we are forced to get the same quality of work from all employees. And this is pretty basic work, no highschool diploma required. Just a good work ethic, which is severly lacking in many people for entry level jobs.

Well, now that I have an understanding on how you view/understand economics and business I can appropriately address this situation. 

1. Employers don't hire people as a favor. Businesses exist to make money for their owners. If hiring a person is worthwhile said person must produce more than they are paid. If they cannot, they will no longer have a job. Now of course a business has the ability to raise wages but it cannot do this in a vacuum, hence it must raise the price of their product which in the fast food market where low cost and accessibility reign king would drive away customers. What happens to those jobs once business dries up? The answer is obvious if you're being intellectually honest. 

2. Wages are not set by picking numbers out of thin air. Set them to high compared to the value created/produced and the business vanishes. Set them too low and workers look for alternatives. So, if your true intention is to help people then instead of focusing on the juvenile aspect of wages (which is quite a liniar and generic cause that is used often to rile up uneducated and emotional people) we must focus on those alternatives and answer what and who is responsible for the limiting of alternatives. That is an easy one to answer but I am not getting paid to give a social-economic class here. 

It’s both the easy and extremely difficult solution that, though I may very well be incorrect, assumes people like you would completely disagree with. It involves removing the barriers that the state imposes on business creation and removing the legal defenses that the State has granted large businesses to avoid competition. Once you do that you would see what we saw in the automotive industry during its heyday in the early 1900's. What's the invigorating idea is that we have so many more industries today, much wider range of technologies and markets to reach that potentially we can see that explosive nature multiplied. 

That increase would require a LOT of new talent and workers across all skill levels; Increased quality of life, increased personal income, traditionally entry level jobs fulfilling their purpose of training youth on how to conduct themselves in a work environment, and giving everyone plenty of alternatives and choices.

Value produced, as you said. The value produced by these employees is higher than it was in the past, never mind that they are not personally responsible for the higher productivity. If they produce more value, they are worth more.

You are forgetting one aspect.

Demand.

Supply for the job far outways demand to the point that if far outwipes any share of increased profits.

The real issue is... what the hell happened that these jobs are suddenly primary employment jobs. 

Such jobs should only be for teenagers and those looking for a little extra money/reason to get out of the house.

Some jobs are so low skill and value that they just shouldn't be jobs that people work as a primary income source.

I will note again, that Germany has no minium wage and it hasn't devolved into some distopian shadowrun country. In fact, they generally seem to have a giant surplus of "high-wage" jobs.

I'd argue that minium wage being used to make shitty jobs liveable draws focus away from creating non-shitty jobs.

The reality is that they are a primary job for an appreciable number of people, however. The bigger question would be "why?"

You also have to look at living standards and other such things. Low-paying jobs can have a hell of a lot of their income eaten up by things like how much money you spend to get to and from work, among other things.

I also tend to have a very dim view of supply and demand being used as an excuse to radically overpay some people and hideously underpay others. We may be actors in the market, but we should be treated with a bit more respect than a drum of oil.

Back to my earlier point, however, we would need to address why some people are relying on what should be purely a side-income job. Are these people statistical anomalies, or is something more sinister at play?

Well first off.  People are treated better then a drum of oil.  Living costs are largely included in "real" jobs.

For Fast Food jobs, living costs aren't included because you don't need to hire people with living costs.   Sure you will if someone applies since they have more expeirnce then the younger kid, but the mintue they get something better they can be replaced within a week.  Areas that don't have a sizebale "Leisure" workforce see wages rise quite a bit in the service industry.

Again, the likely cause is of people depending on these jobs is probably... minimum wage. 

When you look at the countries that have the largest amount of people working in "real" jobs...  Germany and Denmark top the list.   What do these countries have in common?   No minium wage.

If there was no minium wage, these jobs would pay less.  The only people who could afford these jobs are those who don't rely on it as a primary job.

Hence the demand for "real" jobs would increase greatly... forcing things into action.

The requirment of minimium wage creates a false belief on what is liveable, and plenty of people become more then willing to work an easy job that pays little, rather then put in the effort to get a better job. 

As it is... society, like most countries societies consider these kind of service jobs a career, or at least the first step in one.  (by getting promoted into a more valuable position.  Though considering how few of those exist compaired to the service jobs...)

When you look at the countries that have the largest amount of people working in "real" jobs...  Germany and Denmark come to mind.

It should simply be a matter of removing minium wage and At will employment.   Countries with both of these conditions seem to work the best and attracting "real" Jobs.  (Removal of at will employment while keeping min wage seems to be disasterous for countries like this though.)

Well either that or just ban anyone with a guardian from getting a job.  I wouldn't recommend that though.

I have an idea of what you mean, but explain your point on "removing at-will employment." Do you mean putting in rules about firing and quitting a job that makes doing either harder? Like, i know 2-weeks notice is the law in a lot of countries, rather than courtesy under an at-will system. Just as At-Will employers can fire you for any reason aside from the protected categories, or for no reason at all...