If we assume the economy is already in perfect equilibrium then raising the minimum wage will cause inflation but the wages will adjust upwards with the same coefficient vs the minimum wage.
Another factor is that if you give money to people who haven't met their basic needs yet is that they will spend their money faster which means it circulates faster which will generate another employment opportunity. This is effectively a scheduling problem akin to starvation in process/thread scheduling in the kernel. If you ignore a specific thread too much then it can block other threads and result in underutilization of resources.
The latter tells you that you shouldn't prioritize the needs of the wealthy so that "wealth trickles down".
As long as you're clear about what tradeoffs you're making, and as a society we still want no employment effect, if it works at $100, what's the problem?
You only have something to discuss if it's clear that unemployment will rise, and even so you need to decide how much is tolerable in exchange for whatever you get out of raising the minimum wage.
If we don't use evidence we choose blindly.
Somehow this doesn't seem to matter though, we still teach the theory.