1 & 2) Not everyone needs a college degree to land a non-min wage job. plenty of trade/vocation schools will teach skills necessary for a higher wage job like a plumber or electrician.
3) it's not about a job being beneath someone. it's about what the market will bear.
and the way they are going about it, yes, it's entitlement. why does one feel an unskilled position, a job that requires the mental capacity of a 3rd grader, suddenly deserves nearly double the current min wage?
4) not necessarily drugs, but if they're still stuck in a dead end job, we know they're not the brightest and hence not financially saavy. they'll use that money towards 20" rims and iphones (and yes, they already do).
lastly, entitlement isn't about dollar amount. i'm sure someone as educated and successful as you already knew that though.
On 1 and 2, you're right of course. Not every skilled labor position requires a college degree. I put too much focus on higher education where there's a high barrier to entry (namely tuition). My main point is that there are fewer jobs than people willing to take them. Therefore, SOMEONE has to end up doing the crap jobs. Not everyone can be a plumber, electrician, carpenter or college educated worker. There's a million and one reasons that someone might not be able to find a position. I just don't see a point in punishing people just because they have a job that seems "beneath" others by forcing them to earn a wage that's not livable. Does it suck that there are grown adults working the counters? Sure does. But that's a fact of life and it's sure as hell better than them being homeless and
completely reliant on welfare.
On 3. Don't kid yourself. The market can probably bear a MUCH LOWER wage than minimum wage if it weren't a law. Like I mentioned before, fewer jobs than people. Guess where the power is? Absolutely does not mean we should just remove it. On the flip side, who says the market can't bear a higher minimum wage? Other first world countries do it and are just fine. I don't think it'll cause apocalyptic inflation. I'm on the OPs side of this. I think it'll cause a modest rise in the price of some goods which higher wage earners will barely notice and that's about it. I'm sure there's some percentage of the population (between lower income and middle class) who will be impacted somewhat more but you can't condemn an entire demographic to poverty just to keep everyone else comfortable.
4) Yeah sorry, this is just blatant stereotyping with a hint of racism. A couple of points here:
a) Sure there's people who blow what little money they have on stupid stuff. But I also see a lot of people who can't afford a car and take the bus to work or have to run 2-3 jobs to make up their rent check. Don't lump everyone in together.
b) What business is it of anybody else how one's money is spent? Can we honestly say everyone on this forum is perfectly fiscally prudent (myself included)? Did you really need your designer clothes, watch, tv, computer, smartphone or whatever the hell else it is you fancy? I'm sure if we were all good savers here, we'd all own a house before we're 30 and be able to retire by 45. But we're not because we all like to spend money on stupid stuff (and vacations). The only difference is that we're (i'm assuming most ATOTers make at least middle class wage) not on welfare and we're using our own money to do it because we make. Why not extend that benefit to the poorest class? That way at least, our tax dollars won't directly be going to support whatever habits you think are endemic to the poor. Give them a livable wage so they can spend it prudently if they're smart or stupidly if they're not.
Entitlement is a term that carries negative connotation almost universally when referring to a person. People are using it in this thread as if McDonald's workers are each demanding a new Maserati and a BJ for free instead of asking for a bump in minimum wage which can maybe give them some ability to pay rent, be fed and have some clothes. God forbid you own a cell phone...