There's two reasons this argument doesn't work. One - some 15-20% of Americans have a zero or negative net worth, which straightforwardly inverts the argument.

There's two reasons this argument doesn't work. One - some 15-20% of Americans have a zero or negative net worth, which straightforwardly inverts the argument. Let's say minimum wage is $1 and the family owes $100 in credit card debt that they are not paying off. They must perform 100 hours of labor beyond their current production to pay off their debts. Now some brilliant economists move minimum wage to $100/hr. Their debts are wiped, as the banks didn't automatically increase their balance to $10,000. Two - it's not regressive. It's a tax on everyone, proportional to how little labor you do. A defining characteristic of the poor, compared to the rich, is that the poor make their money from their labor and the rich make their money from their existing money ("savings" / "passive income" / "investment" / "401(k)" / etc.). Suppose, in your example, your brilliant economists move minimum wage to $100/hr. Immediately, one hour later, their bank account has twice as much money! Sure, they have suffered a temporary loss of purchasing power, but after 100 more hours of labor they've regained it. Meanwhile, some other family in the same economy has saved $1,000,000 in a bank account, representing some five hundred person-years of full-time work at $1/hr, perhaps inherited over the centuries, perhaps gained from business. Their savings are also rather wiped, leaving them with roughly 1% of what they previously had - but regaining it will take them another five hundred person-years of full-time work. So it is certainly a tax, but it is very progressive. Really these are the same mathematical effect. The more money you have, the more it affects you; the less money you have, the less it affects you; and if you have negative money it even affects you positively.