Seems like people are either for it or against it.... How about a compromise?

Tie the min wage with inflation.  If they did this to begin with then we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. Every year your money is worth less and less. So why not tie it with inflation? This would ensure people get a gradual bump in their pay every year to make up for loss due to inflation.  If you aren't getting a pay increase every year (most people on min don't) then you are actually making less money every year. 

Why do you think states are raising their own rates above the federal?  Because 7.50 per hour is way too damn low of a wage and isn't livable in most cities/states.  The min should be at least $9 per hour right now.  Hell, seems like most fast food chains think they are high class nowadays (Wendy's, Sonic, Whataburger (they actually pay their employees 10 or above starting out I believe), etc.).  A crunchy taco at Taco Bell used to be 49 cents in 1999 and now it is 1.31-1.49 in Texas.  This was the time period the min went from 5.15 up to it's current 7.50 over a few years (gas prices exploded in the early 2000s and probably put more pressue on Taco Bell than increased min wage).  I don't even eat fast food more than once a few months but perhaps our fat asses should be paying more for fast food.

First, if minimum wage continued to rise with productivity we'd be over $18/hour.

Second, its not like it will just jump to $15/hour. It will slowly increase over the next few years to adjust for inflation, which won't be nearly as high as you think.

Third, since 1978, CEO bonuses have gone up well over 1000%. The money has flowed their way and not to the workers.

Lastly, if more people have money, they will spend more, especially the middle class. Will some businesses fail? Yes, but others businesses, better ones, will take their place and thrive.

Higher minimum wage = more spending by people (people with low wages spend more of their money than the über rich ones who just keep their money in stocks/bank accounts etc.) which leads to more demand, more products sold, less crime, and is overall good for society. Temporarily, some jobs might go away as those businesses that rely on paying their workers a sub-livable wage are forced to restructure, but quickly enough, businesses will adjust, and voila, you'll have a better society.

I recently (as a fiscal conservative) decided that government assistance is SIGNIFICANTLY better for the economy than a minimum wage.

By increasing the minimum wage, you are causing a massive cost of living spike, for which the working and middles classes will not be compensated for. The middle class is often the largest driver of our western consumer driven economy. By killing their spending power, you actually kill the economy.

Government assistance on the other hand, helps to "level the playing field" without the same problems as the minimum wage. I mean ffs, legally speaking you need to pay a babysitter minimum wage. Do you really think i'm going to pay an 11 year old $15 an hour to watch tv with my kids?

Thats a REDICULOUSLY flawed argument. Minimum wage causes cost of living inflation. If you double their income, they will NOT see double the spending power. The working poor (above minimum wage) and the middle class will actually see their spending power go down, and therefore there will be LESS products sold, and less demand.

Also note that those working at minimum wage now make up more than enough money in government assistance that their spending power will remain the same or go down.

I don't believe you have to pay an 11 year old babysitter min mage considering she isn't going to be reporting the income to the IRS and she is kind of "child labor".  I believe you can state whatever price you want and that they agree with.  It is like having a kid mow your lawn for 10 dollars (youngsters would probably want at least 20 these days) even though it might take him over a hour and half to do it. 

It's really not.  If minimum wage went up to $9 an hour.  You think the cost of everything will increase by $1.75?  Not even close, maybe 10 cents.  

If you work 40 hours a week, no matter the job, you should be able to afford a decent living.  Not dirt poor poverty like we have today.  And companies cutting hours to under 30 so employees receive zero benefits simply needs to end.  

Too much greed in the world today. 

LEGALLY speaking you need to pay a babysitter (an hourly employee) minimum wage. Most people do not and are violating the law.

But if you want an example that is more rigid, consider the hourly nanny and the PCA (personal care attendant). Both are usually sub $15 an hour. I can find a summer nanny for $11-12 an hour in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Further out in the suburbs I could find one for $8-9.50 an hour. Understand that the nanny's wages are gross, meaning you need to subtract that amount from my NET wage. I would need to make $3-4 (4-5.50) more hour NET to continue to pay this nanny without hurting my purchasing power.

$9 <> $15 does it buddy?

$9 an hour is barely above where the market has placed most peoples wages. The number of people that actually make federal minimum wage is alot less than you seem to think. The amount than make less than $15 an hour is much much much higher.

Prices won't increase proportionately to minimum wage increase, not even close. Consumer goods are priced for the middle class, not for the lowest earners, so while prices might increase somewhat, their purchasing power would still be substantially higher. And isn't part of the point that it shouldn't really be possible to have a job yet still need food stamps (or whatever else governmental assistance you mean)?