Let's talk a bit more about minimum wage and why businesses hire.
First, a business does not exist to pay "a living wage" or provide benefits for employees. It exists to provide benefits for its owner(s) and it hires employees to the extent they enhance the benefits the owners receive - if they didn't get some benefit from the employee, they wouldn't hire him.
People want apples. Joe decides to start an orchard and sell apples. If he has twenty trees, his cost per bushel is $5. To sell all the apples from his twenty trees, he can't charge more than $8/bushel. That gives him a profit of $3/bushel. As one guy, he can manage twenty trees by himself, but because his apples are popular, demand goes up. Now he can easily charge $10/bushel and still have people wanting his apples.
So Joe starts thinking, "If I could have 40 trees, I could reduce my cost per bushel to $2.50 and sell all my apples at $8.50, making $6/bushel instead of the $5 I'm making now [remember - the price went up because of demand], and get that on twice as many apples. But I can't manage 40 trees by myself. I'll need to hire somebody to help."
He gets 3.5 bushel per tree each season, or 70 bushel with 20 trees so forty will give him 140 bushel. At $5/bushel, he's currently making $350. At $6/bushel with forty trees, he'd be making $840, $490 more. He's only going to hire somebody if he can cover all the costs of the employee - his pay, benefits, unemployment tax, social security tax - and still leave enough of that $490 left over to make it worth his while to deal with the headaches imposed by various state and federal bureaucracies.
In a low unemployment environment, labor holds the upper hand and can force employers to go closer to that margin because demand for labor exceeds supply. In a high unemployment environment, employers can stay farther from the margin and make more money. This is not an injustice, just math.
The clamor to increase the minimum wage is an outgrowth of the high unemployment environment. It would artificially (that is, politically) force employers closer to the margin, even though the market does't support that wage. For most people with jobs it will be worth their employers' while to maintain the existing scope of operations and accept a smaller margin off their work. Those employees will get their raise and be grateful to the politicians, even though businesses will likely slow down the pace of future raises, trim benefits or find some other way to increase their margin.
But businesses thinking of expanding will find the marginal cost of new hires prohibitive and existing businesses will be more interested in getting greater productivity out of current employees than in expanding, thus making it harder for the unemployed to find a job.
And who are those people? They're people who are either new to the labor market (youths, ex-cons, veterans finishing their term of service, new immigrants, etc.) or who are currently unemployed (lots of minorities, long-term unemployed, disabled, skills in less demand, etc.). These are the people most harmed by raising the minimum wage.
Rather than raise the minimum wage, if you really want to take care of the poor, the immigrants, the disabled, the unemployed, and the minorities, you work to reduce the cost of hiring. This increases the demand for labor, forcing businesses to hire closer to the productivity margins. Not that long ago, for instance, fast-food joints couldn't get enough workers and had to come up with various incentives (college tuition support, low-cost loans for cars, etc.). We don't need a minimum wage law. We need to stop suppressing the market with excessive taxes and other restraints so the demand for labor increases.