What is unrecognized is that today's poor aren't yesterday's poor, nor will they be tomorrow's poor. If you read Thomas Sowell, you will see that entry level wages may be flat, but people don't stay in entry level jobs. As Glenn commented about everyone he knows who owns a business, people move to new jobs for better wages. The MSM likes to report that income for "the poorest 10%" has not increased, but a sample of today's poorest 10% will show income growth over the next year. The problem with the MSM logic is that they aren't sampling the same people.
You could argue that the youngest 10% of babies are eating the same foods they were 10 years ago. This means that babies eat baby food. So what? It certainly doesn't mean that people who were eating baby food 10 years ago are still eating baby food.
So what if today's teenagers are earning the same as teenagers 5 or 10 years ago? Is it a "living wage"? It is for a teenager with no rent, utilities etc. If you are 30 years old with a family and you are working at minimum wage, whose fault is that?
Update: grammar correction