okay, so if you're against welfare (which i understand), and you're also against a minimum wage.. how do you expect poor people to survive? and how do you expect the economy to continue rolling if the the middle class is hamstrung?
If an individual's labor at a company is only worth, say, 5$ per hour, and the business has to pay them $8.00 an hour by law, the business doesn't then hire the person anyway, they just don't get hired at all. That means:
A. No chance for the person to gain the experience needed to make more than $5 an hour, and
B. An hourly wage of 0$, which is, by all standards, much worse than not making a "living wage"
That means the individual making 0$ an hour is not adding wealth to the economy. Then the individual making 0$ an hour gets on welfare to survive. Who pays for these people to live? The middle class, which is indeed burdened by this extra weight they must carry. This is not even mentioning the increased cost of hiring an American worker thanks to his governmental overlords, over a foreigner willing to work for a fraction of the cost, and even excluding the incredible cost of empire which directly makes the average American that much poorer. I expect the economy to continue slowing to a halt; there is no "if", the middle class is hamstrung.
Let's say the minimum wage is raised to $10/hr, nationwide. The direct effects are easily understood: the unemployment rate goes up, the amount of people on welfare increase, and the middle class is further burdened. Let's say the minimum wage is raised to $20/hr, nationwide. Same thing, just worse. At some point, the middle class evaporates--no business can afford to function, nobody can afford paying the bottom rungs $20 an hour, and so the economy either flops, along with the nation, or there's a coup d'état.
But let's say the minimum wage was lowered to just $1/hr. What would it matter? Nobody really wants to work for that wage, or less, so there may as well be no minimum wage to stop it; people know what others are worth, and what they themselves are willing to work for, so there's no point for government to actually define a minimum wage, except to buy votes for democrats from welfare recipients (it's the perfect scheme, if you ask me; you not only satisfy the people with a "living wage", but you get more voters for your party: it's brilliant.) Anyhow, once that's out of the way, and people are no longer prosecuted for wanting to work at their own determined price, the amount of people on welfare diminish, until welfare is no longer required, and the poor people survive immensely better than they did with government assistance.