Thanks for the data points. Maybe I should reconsider my belief that "A minimum hourly wage of $7 or 8 is too low to do much harm."
I do agree that the minimum wage has an anchoring effect, creating a sort of baseline from which negotiation begins for work at the lower end of the legal wage range, so a bump could affect wages a little above the minimum too.
The map suggests (logically enough) that the 35 million workers included in the 101% to 150% range are more concentrated in states that have a higher minimum than the federal $7.25 standard, so a hike in the federal minimum wouldn't necessarily affect them if those states do not also raise their rates.
And it's worth emphasizing that the authors of that little paper "set aside the important issue of potential employment effects, which is another crucial element in the debate." The standard economic objection to minimum wage is precisely the employment effects.