If we tracked inflation since 2009, the $7.25 would be around $8.65. Some might consider a stagnant rate as unreasonable in the face of annual inflation.
The result is that the inflation rate as experienced by the well-off (who consume more luxuries) is generally quite different than the inflation rate as experienced by the poor.
There is no good data that I know of over a long period of time for this. But https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/working-pape... has estimates for recent years, and it appears that inflation for low income groups is currently significantly higher than for high income groups. Mostly because price differences have been rising between stores available to low income groups versus high income groups.
How well that stands up to scrutiny I don't know, though I encountered it recently on an old (probably 1960s / early 1970s) Studs Terkel interview, as a guest comment.
(Guests were Willard Moss, pioneer amateur filmmaker, & John Dubay.)
It found that, indeed, the rich pay less for the same good than the poor. And that the gap is increasing over time.
I am agreeing with you.
But misinformed isn't bad-faith. I was pointing out that, yes, actually listening to the other side does reveal real good-faith arguments against the increase.
> Reasonable increases in the minimum wage, particularly ones that track inflation and cost of living are not going to harm the economy.
My understanding is that plenty of the arguments against it are from people concerned about the areas of the country still near the federal minimum. It's absolutely a good-faith argument concerning what they see as an unreasonable jump, of ~double the previous amount, instead of a reasonable increase.