no, that is really unreasonable, and if you think about what it functionally means, you would realize it quickly.
The idea that the same job you were qualified for at 16, without a high school education (in a country where some amount of continued education after high school is the norm) is not reasonable. There are people at the age of 16 who either want to or need to work and there should be jobs that suit their skill set.
Should I be able to support my wife and kids, and send my children to college, and have a modern home, as a caddie? simply because the job of carrying golf clubs for someone else exists that job should support all these things? My friends, in high school (to save for) and in college (to pay for it) needed these kinds of low skilled jobs. They were never meant or though of as careers. If you have spent 20 years rotating between different ultra-lowskill jobs that are meant as transitions I've got nothing for you. And if you are dedicated to walmart and stay there and put up with the crap conditions for 10 years, you can support a family (and since you can start at 16, this means you can afford to be married and looking at having kids in your mid-20s). But if you mean you should be able to afford to get married and support a family well while rotating around across work places in ultra-lowskill jobs, never building any useful skills or firm knowledge?
There need to be jobs that give people with no skills a chance to do something. Yes, we did have a recession and compared to pre recession levels, the percent of people at or below the minimum wage higher than it was under Bush, but it is lower than any time under Clinton's tenure except the absolute peak of 2000 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm). It's not exactly the end days in the US labor market.