After the call I googled Working America and learned that it is "A Community Affiliate of the AFL-CIO." So when you read in a newspaper that the AFL-CIO says x percent of people polled are in favor of increasing the minimum wage, see if the story mentions that the poll question set-up is designed to make the respondent feel like a greedy, uncaring lout if he answers "no."
The set-up to the question could point out that Congress raising its own salary at the taxpayers' expense has no relation to the minimum wage, since the workers in question are not getting a raise at the taxpayers' expense, but at the expense of businesses that employ them, which means at the expense of the businesses' investors and customers, which means at the workers' own expense, since some of them will be fired to keep investors and customers from having to shoulder the expense of giving them a wage that their productivity doesn't merit. Congress, on the other hand, doesn't get fired. Incumbents get re-elected almost as a matter of course. And even if a pay increase angers voters and they vote out an incumbent, someone new is voted in and the total number of Congress-people is unchanged. The same cannot be said for minimum-wage workers.
Yeah, that's probably too long. Maybe the set-up for the question could just mention that increasing the minimum wage causes unemployment. And keep the somber music.
Besides, is anyone really hoping for an increase in the minimum wage so they can get their first raise in ten years? Why the hell would someone making minimum wage ten years ago still be making minimum wage today? Most jobs that pay minimum wage are entry level. You're not supposed to stay in an entry-level job for ten years. Pick up a skill. Or two. Per decade.


