15 an hour is quite feasible. The only consequence it has is on the level of surplus value harvested by capitalists.

The working day is divided into two segments. The part that the person works to equate the cost of reproducing themselves. The other part is the portion not paid for by the capitalist: surplus labor, or, surplus value. This is the source of profit.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 increases variable capital (wages). The other part of capital is constant capital: machines, tech, etc.

The rise in variable capital will increase the necessary labor of the working day, taking away the portion that goes to surplus value.

The working class has fought and won a raise in wages throughout history, quite often. It is necessary politically when the wages (price for labor-power) does not equal the actual value of labor power (cost to reproduce oneself).

Capitalists can easily make do here. They will just devise new ways of getting more surplus value. The can raise the minimum wage no problem, they will just fire workers and buy more machines to replace the fired workers, and then make the workers that are left work really hard (condensation of labor).

And no, this wont make a big mac cost more money.

This fight is necessary, just and progressive for humanity. We shouldn't ask why workers at McDonalds should or shouldn't get $15 an hour. We should ask why we all can't have that much. Fuck, lets go farther. Down with the 1% and capitalism. Lets go for more then $15 an hour. Lets storm heaven itself!

This is really crap.

This imperialist fuck's argument amounts to this:

1) The US will need to defeat Japan through military means
2) The US wants to avoid "another Okinawa" (with a quote from Truman)
3) The US needed to drop the atomic bomb

So, lets look first at that Okinawa analogy. Okinawa, as with other pacific islands, were particularly brutal because of both their strategic importance to the Pacific front as well as their terrain. Both because of they needed to be seized in order to cutoff mainland Japan (and isolate it) and their small, heavily dense terrain caused warfare to be at times hand-to-hand, the battles here were desperate and ugly.

This leads us to the next point: the whole presupposition with the imperialist fuck's argument is that there was no other way but occupation, in the form of Okinawa, to end Japan's empire.

This is false. The US had other options to end the war. Occupation of Japan wasn't a strategic necessity in the way occupation of the pacific islands was. The US could have maintained a bombing campaign while getting the rest of the world to pursue political/diplomatic talks with Japan.

The reason the US dropped the bombs wasn't to end the war (which was already war, de jure shit aside). It was to a) ensure supremacy over Japan (which isn't the same thing as ending a war) and b) to ensure global imperialist hegemony.

Amerikkka doesnt give a shit about saving lives. What about all the people firebombed in Dresden? What about all the imperialist adventures before and after WWII? Don't give me some ethical crap about a country, at least 1/4 of which was still under apartheid conditions, that wants to save lives because it respects human life so it drops atomic bombs on an already defeated people.