There is an argument to be made here, but you need to make it. Instead you try to say something clever that on inspection is either wrong or very wrong.
The argument is that we're not sitting right on the edge of deployable technology that requires less human labor to accomplish all the things humans do today and will want to do with the new technology. We're refining existing technology (which is itself producing new technology--better $OLD_THING is $NEW_THING) and making it cheaper to use it, reducing jobs required to produce the outputs of that technology; and that means people can more-easily afford luxuries like fast food (instead of cooking your own food, you pay servants) or Tesla cars.
The pattern thus far has been that the greater availability of goods leads to more purchasing. How many things would you be able to buy with infinite money? You could get yourself a really, really high-end car, right? Well, the car you drive today could be produced in 1970, roughly, aside from some of the silicon (although transistor radios existed); and it would cost you the equivalent of millions of today's dollars instead of just $20k. The same is true of continuously-shrinking labor costs in providing high-speed Internet, gas, oil, solar panels, and the like.
For us to enter a post-scarcity economy, the cities have to plan themselves; the power grid has to plan itself; the factories have to build themselves; the robots have to be built by other robots; the vegetables have to pick themselves; the cars have to maintain themselves--and design themselves, for that matter. If it's just human operators and human engineers making and using this stuff to produce with 1/30 as much labor, then you just have the difference between 1790 and 1990.
Don't think so?
In 1790, 90% of the American workforce were farmers. In 1990, 2.6% of the American workforce were farmers--and we export over half our agricultural outputs now.
More-fundamentally, the technology you need in the end is essentially human-level intelligence--which will probably demand civil rights.
Notice this doesn't address consumption, which might go up significantly, or the tax impact of not having to subsidize these low skill workers with government benefits. It's a complex issue with many possible metrics for success or failure.
WAGES ARE PAID FROM REVENUES.
In the fast food industry, management calls in additional workers and sends workers on break or home for the day to keep point-of-sale labor costs at 14% of revenue--that means for every $1,000 brought in per hour, the franchise pay a total of $140 of wages, on average. They actually fail at that: the real fast food cost of wages in the U.S. is 25.4%.
The fast food industry brought in $198.9 billion in 2014, with a total wage load of $47.02 billion.
So let's say you bumped the minimum wage fro $7.25/hr to $8.25/hr. Imagine the average customer pays $8, and the wage cost is 25.4%. At $7.25/hr, that's $2.03 in wages; at $8.25/hr, it's $2.31. You're looking at that $8 meal becoming $8.28. No big deal, right? 28 cents.
What we're looking at is $47.02 billion being bumped to $48.67 billion--an extra $1.65 billion to buy the same amount of food. In terms of $7.25/hr wages, that's 113,793 jobs.
So here's the thing: if Americans spend $198.9 billion on fast food, they'll be able to purchase 3.38% less food at the $8.25/hr wage. That means you go from 3,242,758 million jobs to 3,133,154 jobs--109,604 fewer jobs. If Americans instead spend $200.55 billion on fast food, they spend $1.65 million less elsewhere because they simply don't have it.
So you keep saying, "Hey, consumption might go up, because the fast food workers have more money." The other side of this is there will be fewer workers, either fewer in fast food or fewer doing something else. The total wages paid in the United States in that given span of time--the year 2014, the month of April 2015, the second payday in June of 2016--will be the same. If a subset of wage earners (not 100% of all wage earners) earns more, then it must come from somewhere--something isn't getting bought, and somebody else is earning less or is out of a job.
Consumption goes down due to minimum wage increases. Population continuously expands and new technology and trade allow reduction in prices, which causes consumption to go up. when you put these together, the upwards factors--which are independent of minimum wage--outweigh the downwards factors, and you get a net gain.
As I said: minimum wage lags inflation, and as a result creates extra jobs--jobs which have lower purchasing power as inflation continues. Truing up those wages reduces jobs, and is a necessary step in keeping the minimum wage on-target. It doesn't do to have millions more jobs if those workers make $2/hr.
Your own claims contradict you. You claim stable 5% unemployment and clearly the minimum wage has fluctuated based on decreases from inflation and increases by law, therefore you've made the empirical claim that the minimum wage does not effect employment.
In the long term (actually pretty fast--1-3 years is enough), the workforce adjusts. Remember the recession that started in 2008, with recovery some time after 2010? Look at the labor force population age 16 and over spanning across that time, and compare it to the labor force participation rate. The LFPR continues to decrease after 2012, yet the labor force continues to increase. Even so, the unemployment rate continues to decrease--more jobs added than labor force. The employment-to-population ratio also increased after 2012, with a more-significant recovery rate after 2014.
As employment opportunities change, so too does workforce population. We had college students going to grad school because they thought they would have no jobs, and people retiring at 65 because they got excessed; now we have people leaving college early to enter the workforce, and people retiring at 70+. That makes the labor force bigger. Likewise, the rate of immigration changes--more when unemployment is low, less when it's high--to buffer our unemployment back to stable targets.
That doesn't mean you can't cause unemployment; it just works its way out. If you unemploy 15% of the fast-food workers by raising costs and decreasing consumption, then the labor force will slow its growth a bit as technology, trade, immigration, and everything else marches forward, and the balance will adjust to fit those workers back into the work force. Again, inflation and a fixed minimum wage is an additional force which also creates replacement jobs, just in a fashion which is suboptimal and needs correction.
You're thinking in very simple, one-dimensional terms about systems with many moving parts. You seem to believe confounding variables don't exist.
As for his knowledge, I'm sure he knows more than you or me.
I'm sure Bernie knows more than you; he doesn't know more than me. I would destroy Trump in a UBI discussion; Bernie would stumble over himself trying to explain how to make it work and how to pay for it, and start yammering about taxing the rich. Bernie also doesn't have a fucking clue about how trade works. He has the equivalent of high school economics as his entire knowledge on the topic, where he thinks production is magic and money is wealth.
Maybe you actually believe what looks to be a fairly naive picture.
From where I stand, you're a child who believes all the fairy tales I was taught as a kid. I've since ripped holes in those and built something actually sane, and you're over there clinging to Santa Clause trying to explain that reindeer can really fly.
You think it's naive that wage income has to come from somewhere, and doesn't poof into existence when a business writes a paycheck. You have the naive belief that paying one person more has absolutely no effect on the spending anywhere else in the economy, except that that person can now spend more, and thus conclude that there must be more total spending--never mind the inability of the person spending the money to pay the worker to spend that money to pay the other worker he was paying.
Maybe think further than one myopic extreme?
For example, rich people can do nothing and just live off investments that are managed by people they hire.
Those "investments" amount to getting money moved around. The idea is you put money in to buy something and hope that it sells to some other guy for more money--you take that guy's money. Somebody's got to lose in this, eventually. The stock market is a zero-sum game where the only money that comes out is money people put in. Part of that is inflation devaluing money, so people bring more money; part of that is you sell strategically to people who bring more than inflation in the belief that the stock you hold is going to keep growing faster than inflation, and then the stock falls for them and you run away with their money.
The purchasing power of the rich people's money is roughly defined by the productivity of the economy at large. That money represents a portion of all the labor, and can purchase what that labor can make. It's obtained in a manner that produces nothing of great use, but it's not a hole in the economy any more than gambling, gifts, or theft.