Ok, a couple of lines were messed up.

1967: $1.40 -> $9.80
1968: $1.60 -> $10.75 --- Highest value
1969: $1.60 -> $10.20

2005: $5.15 -> $6.17
2006: $5.15 -> $5.98 --- Lowest value
2007: $5.85 -> $6.60

I guess quasi HTML comments (.-.-) comments out lines.

Sorry, some data was misinformed.
1955: $0.75 >> $6.55
1956: $1.00 >> $8.60
1957: $1.00 >> $8.32
1958: $1.00 >> $8.09
1959: $1.00 >> $8.04
1960: $1.00 >> $7.90
1961: $1.15 >> $9.00
1962: $1.15 >> $8.91
1963: $1.25 >> $9.56
1964: $1.25 >> $9.43
1965: $1.25 >> $9.28
1966: $1.25 >> $9.02
1967: $1.40 >> $9.80
1968: $1.60 >> $10.75 --- Highest value
1969: $1.60 >> $10.20
1970: $1.60 >> $9.65
1971: $1.60 >> $9.24
1972: $1.60 >> $8.95
1973: $1.60 >> $8.43
1974: $2.00 >> $9.49
1975: $2.10 >> $9.13
1976: $2.30 >> $9.46
1977: $2.30 >> $8.88
1978: $2.65 >> $9.51
1979: $2.90 >> $9.34
1980: $3.10 >> $8.80
1981: $3.35 >> $8.62
1982: $3.35 >> $8.12
1983: $3.35 >> $7.87
1984: $3.35 >> $7.54
1985: $3.35 >> $7.28
1986: $3.35 >> $7.15
1987: $3.35 >> $6.90
1988: $3.35 >> $6.62
1989: $3.35 >> $6.32
1990: $3.80 >> $6.80
1991: $4.25 >> $7.30
1992: $4.25 >> $7.09
1993: $4.25 >> $6.88
1994: $4.25 >> $6.71
1995: $4.25 >> $6.52
1996: $4.75 >> $7.08
1997: $5.15 >> $7.51
1998: $5.15 >> $7.39
1999: $5.15 >> $7.23
2000: $5.15 >> $7.00
2001: $5.15 >> $6.80
2002: $5.15 >> $6.70
2003: $5.15 >> $6.55
2004: $5.15 >> $6.38
2005: $5.15 >> $6.17
2006: $5.15 >> $5.98 --- Lowest value
2007: $5.85 >> $6.60
2008: $6.55 >> $7.12
2009: $7.25 >> $7.90
2010: $7.25 >> $7.78
2011: $7.25 >> $7.54
2012: $7.25 >> $7.39
2013: $7.25 >> $7.28
2014: $7.25 >> $7.25

(Wow, this got long...)
When minimum wage became the big issue, with all the protests, I thought back when I made minimum wage. I flipped burgers and live in a house with 4 friends. Sure I couldn't afford rent and food at minimum wage, but I could afford 1/5th rent and food and have plenty left over. My friends (who also worked the same McJob) saved money, a couple bough used cars. We had every game system, a great stereo, I had a top of the line computer. We had enough and some luxury items. I thought back then and how much I made. I adjusted my wage with inflation and it came to...... $6.52/hr. WHAT? wait a sec, all those protesters with signs said if I adjusted for minimum wage, it would be 10.75/hr! What gives???

So I grabbed every minimum wage since it's start and adjusted each one for minimum wage. Here it is (Note: I did this 3-4 months ago, there could be more inflation now):
Year: Wage then -> Adjusted to 'today' (3-4 months ago)
1955: $0.75 -> $6.55
1956: $1.00 -> $8.60
1957: $1.00 -> $8.32
1958: $1.00 -> $8.09
1959: $1.00 -> $8.04
1960: $1.00 -> $7.90
1961: $1.15 -> $9.00
1962: $1.15 -> $8.91
1963: $1.25 -> $9.56
1964: $1.25 -> $9.43
1965: $1.25 -> $9.28
1966: $1.25 -> $9.02
1967: $1.40 -> $9.80
1968: $1.60 -> $10.75 $10.20
1970: $1.60 -> $9.65
1971: $1.60 -> $9.24
1972: $1.60 -> $8.95
1973: $1.60 -> $8.43
1974: $2.00 -> $9.49
1975: $2.10 -> $9.13
1976: $2.30 -> $9.46
1977: $2.30 -> $8.88
1978: $2.65 -> $9.51
1979: $2.90 -> $9.34
1980: $3.10 -> $8.80
1981: $3.35 -> $8.62
1982: $3.35 -> $8.12
1983: $3.35 -> $7.87
1984: $3.35 -> $7.54
1985: $3.35 -> $7.28
1986: $3.35 -> $7.15
1987: $3.35 -> $6.90
1988: $3.35 -> $6.62
1989: $3.35 -> $6.32
1990: $3.80 -> $6.80
1991: $4.25 -> $7.30
1992: $4.25 -> $7.09
1993: $4.25 -> $6.88
1994: $4.25 -> $6.71
1995: $4.25 -> $6.52
1996: $4.75 -> $7.08
1997: $5.15 -> $7.51
1998: $5.15 -> $7.39
1999: $5.15 -> $7.23
2000: $5.15 -> $7.00
2001: $5.15 -> $6.80
2002: $5.15 -> $6.70
2003: $5.15 -> $6.55
2004: $5.15 -> $6.38
2005: $5.15 -> $6.17
2006: $5.15 -> $5.98 $6.60
2008: $6.55 -> $7.12
2009: $7.25 -> $7.90
2010: $7.25 -> $7.78
2011: $7.25 -> $7.54
2012: $7.25 -> $7.39
2013: $7.25 -> $7.28
2014: $7.25 -> $7.25

Now you see, the 10.75 is the highest value, in 1968. Claiming that should be the standard is as intellectually dishonest as claiming the lowest value ($5.98/hr) should be the standard. The median would be $7.78, and the average would be $7.94. A fair minimum wage increase would be in that rage. Last time we raised minimum wage in 2009, there was no issue... because it was with in that median-average rage. It was fair.

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to careers. They are entry level jobs for teens and young adults. Majority of minimum wage workers are just starting out. As you gain experience you become worth more to an employer and you should make more. If you aren't, look for a new job. Early in my adult life, I switched jobs every 1-2 years. Each job paid better than the previous.

There will always be somebody at the bottom. The young person who just starts out doesn't have anything. Some have debts, like college loans, so they have a negative self-worth. As we gain skills and earn more, our worth goes up. People love to tout the "Wealth inequality" but the better picture is "Income Mobility". What happens to those in the bottom 20%... From 1996 to 2005, over 50% of the people in the bottom 20% moved up to a higher bracket. In just 10 years, most moved up. Now why has the bracket increased in size if everybody is moving up? The bottom is always filled with new people entering the work force. The 9 year old in 1996 is now in the work force in 2005.

Also, when people point at those evil corporations and say "They make so much, if their CEO takes a paycut, they could afford this"... The problem there is math.
Lets look at McDonald's. They employ about 760,000 people in the US. Lets assume that the vast majority of employees work 30 hours a week at minimum wage.
If we raise minimum wage from 7.25/hr to 15/hr, that is a 7.75/hr increase (over 100% raise!)
Well each employee will make 7.75/hr more. That's (7.75 * 30 * 52) 12,090/yr more.
Ok lets expand that to all employees (almost all make less than that, and the managers and higher-paid emps will want more to boot).
12,090 * 760,000 = $9,188,400,000
$9.2 Billion needed to pay the pay increases.
McDonald,s global NET profit in 2012: $5.49 Billion.
McDonald's is now in the hole 3.7 Billion. All the profits is wiped out, and the company will go under unless something drastic is done.

Money doesn't grow on trees.
Money is just work tokens. You trade your labor for goods and services. Back in the day, I remember one hour of my McJob's labor could pay for a loaf of bread, a jar of PB, and a jar of jelly. A few weeks ago I checked at the store and it's still the same, one loaf of bread, and a jar of PB and J cost about 7.25... and coming soon, it will cost $15.

And lastly, the real way to help those at the bottom is to lower the unemployment... the true unemployment, including those who have 'given up' and no longer looking. Places with low unemployment pay more for all jobs. Labor is a commodity, When demand for labor is high, and supply is low, the price (wage) goes up. Heck HuffPost had a article of a McJob in North Dakota paying 10-15/hr, but they were also giving a $300 signing bonus! I freakin' signing bonus to work at McDonald's! That is what happens when unemployment is extremely low. Companies will pay more, and more willing to train (they accept they can't find people with training, so they will pay to give you the skills they need). So not only do you get a better wage, but you get better skills.

If we have to bend over backwards for every single rare instance of some ultra-hard-luck case... we will never have anything nice.

Does that poor person with no car, no legs, living in an area with -74 degree winters and no way to get to a public internet location (such as a library) get to the store to get food? Could that resource also stop a community center, library, city hall, etc to use a computer?

There will always be a hard luck case.

Wow... where to start.

People do vote for what they feel is best, but not FOR a person, but against. They pick the lesser of two evils. Heck last presidential election Obama himself said a vote is the best revenge. Voting for revenge? Really?

Tax cuts are tax relief. When you get a refund it is not a hand out from the government, it is YOUR money being returned because you paid too much. The government runs on your money. It takes from you for the 'common good'... and some of that common good is waste (pork).

Social programs don't help the poor. I know, I was poor. I was unemployed and the 'case workers' at the unemployment office actually told me NOT to look for work and they would 'take care of me'... The people who were there were reading the paper (not the classifieds), playing games on the computers, checking out web pages (not work related sites). I went home and found a job on my own. When I went back in to tell them I didn't need aid anymore because I found a job, they looked disappointed and in disbelief. The person I talked to said "But... but, we would have taken care of you". I told them I can take care of myself. But being around and having poor friends I can't tell you the number of times I've heard "I can't get a job, I'll lose my [insurance, ebt card, etc]." We 'declared war' on poverty back in the 60's and we only promoted it's growth. The people on the programs are so scared they might lose those programs they will vote to ensure they keep getting their crumbs. See "Obama-phone lady". Back in my poor days, (about 10 years ago) I was making around 11-12K a year (yes, that's poverty line). I'll be making at least 80K by the end of the year. I worked my way out... and I had to fight those who were trying to 'help' me. Crabs in a bucket is also true.

When a teenager gets pregnant, how is it NOT her and her boyfriend's fault (excluding rape/incest of course)? When you choose to have sex, you chose to take the risk. Years back, teen pregnancy was very rare. A handful in a state... but now it's way too common. High-schools are having daycare centers built inside. But we have pushed how socially acceptable a teen-pregnancy is... heck we even glorify it.

As for career women... fine. Women can pursue any career they want. But again, take responsibility of your actions. If you have a risk of getting pregnant, that is a risk you either can accept mitigate with birth control.

As for Pro-Life is not about the life of the baby... are you kidding? Abortion ends a human life. That can't be disputed. Is it a life? Yes. Even if it is a single cell, it has the properties of life. It grows, it feeds, it is alive. Is it human? Yes. It may not have 2 arms and 2 legs at the time, but I know people who don't have 2 arms, or 2 legs, either by an accident, or birth defect... they are still human. It boils down to DNA, and even as a single cell, it has human DNA and it is alive.

And when you drive by a sign, like when I visit my folks, from a young couple renting billboard space with the text: "Unexpected pregnancy? We will adopt your baby! Call [phone number]. Please." You see how people are begging to adopt. The waiting list to adopt a baby is in years. It's so long we are importing babies from China because that process (still years) is easier, and less expensive. My sister-in-law was adopted. All she knows about her birth-mother is: She was young, and not ready to take care of a child, and she did consider abortion. My sister-in-law is a wonderful, sweet person. We are all thankful her birth-mother allowed her parents to adopt her.

Second!

AKA: Crony-Capitalism.

Government allows Comcast to be the only choice for the vast majority of their customer. They now have a monopoly, a government approved one. If we had 10+ choices for high-speed internet, then this would not be an issue... All it would take is one to offer high-speed, unfiltered internet at a fair price and all the others would have to match to compete. Capitalism works best in a competitive market.

This is the gist of the book "Propaganda" (1928, Edward Bernays). A good book to check out.

Libertarians shouldn't be angry. People who risk their money in Bitcoins are making a choice. They are assuming a risk and acknowledge that it is a risk. Why do they take the risk, because there is a chance of a reward. That is how things should work. You take a risk, you don't get bailed out if it goes south.

If the lawsuit is successful, and the tower is blocked, it can be, and likely will, be constructed elsewhere. The lawsuit will not stop the fracking, at best it might delay it a little.

Now, it a competitor is trying tap into a big resource... would it be in his best interest to be as much of a headache as possible... Delay the development so his competitor has to spent much more to get things done. Hmmm... just a thought.

I'll buy that for a dollar!

No, they are confused by an unclear description of "net neutrality".

I've seen some places (non-fox news) describe "net neutrality" as "Enforcing traffic to be at equal speeds"... which is not the case. People using that description would be against it because they believe it would mean all web traffic would be slower, to match the speed of the slowest server... That reeks of "All must be fair, so we must race to the bottom" and "Everybody gets a trophy" that many people disapprove of.

If you inform them that Net Neutrality is against throttling speeds, and having customers get what they paid for... then most of those against, turn sides.

I see it as we either need to enforce Net Neutrality, or enable a free market, where we have more than one or two choices for broadband (or any other utility).... If we had 10+ ISP's to choose from, this wouldn't be an issue, one would not throttle, and that would force the others to compete. But we don't have a free market... and too many of those in power (both in government, and the big TelComs) would lose money to allow a free market.

A summer or two ago I saw a kid holding a sign that said "Speed trap ahead!". Over the next hill was a cop, mostly hidden by some bushes. The next stop light had another kid with a sign: "Speed Trap tips" and had a jar full of cash. Good show kids, good show...

Like Chernobyl? Run by the government for the public good... then it exploded in 1986. Then it was brought back online and ran until the end 2000 because the public good needed cheap power.

The problem is the lack of free markets. In most cities you don't have the option of 5 different gas companies. You get one. That is because the city leaders in their infinite wisdom on what is good for the people decided that ABC Company will handle all the hardware and maintenance.

I worked at an ISP as a Tech support manager years back, and our DSL lines had to use the local TelCom's lines. We had to pay a rental fee for those lines (to pay for maintenance) and at the end of the day, we made very little on DSL. You see they had the government contract. All phone lines in the area were controlled by them. Any other TelCom had to use their lines (with the rental fee). They had a monopoly, where the competition had to buy from them. And the TelCom had crappy lines and had no interest in fixing them. One section of town was wired with 'Paper lines'... copper wire wrapped in wax paper. These lines were meant to be used as a temporary fix while real line can be ordered and laid... but they used it as normal line. When ever it rained we had calls in and you can year popping on the line. If you can hear noise... think on what the computer picks up. The only resort they had was call the TelCom to fix it... and a few days later, when things dried out... "Everything is fine'. We got sick of it and we started to put up wireless routers all over town. We offered wireless internet, and started to move all our DSL customers to wireless... only then did the TelCom started to replace those paper lines with real lines. Funny how competition forces improvements heh?

With the utilities we don't have a free market. We have a strongly regulated, heavily controlled, government backed monopoly... and then we blame the free market when it becomes corrupt. I have one choice for a gas company. I have one choice for an electric company. I have one choice for a TelCom. That is not the Free Market.