Low pay and awkward, inconsiderate scheduling are not mysterious things that need to be explained.
China has seen living standards double and double and double again because they worked hard and invested in capital. India too. Africa following the same path. I keep an eye on per-capita energy stats which suggest the average person living in China is locking in to a better living standard than the average person living in the UK.
Seems likely that restaurant workers will be worse payed by the time I'm old.
I fully acknowledge that it is easier to get a doubling in living standards in China than the US. But the strategies they are using are wildly different and most of the things China they are doing to achieve amazing outcomes have been made illegal in the US. Indeed, one of the strategies a lot of countries have used to get ahead is ... allow people to hire workers at low wages and keep local costs low enough that their people can save money. This has moved a lot of wealth from the West to other places. Indeed, stories of big lifestyle improvements from a minimum wage are practically non-existent. Big wins come from owning capital, saving hard, education and upskilling where success stories are common.
The framing in this article isn't pushing people to think in those terms, it is pushing them to pick a fight with their employer. That is a strategy for people who are about to lose at economics. For example if restaurant workers want sustainable improvements they should be lobbying for mechanisms to get part-ownership of the business or educational bonuses - both of which are easier fights to win and would lead to better long term outcomes than raw wage increases.
A strategy like higher wages or forcing better conditions for workers through legislation is basically the exact opposite. In 20, 30 years time people's material living standard is going to be determined by how much productive capacity was bought to bear and how much new capital was built. Minimum wages are a sideshow that don't move the levers that make people wealthy. If average wages halved and people were allowed to build out cheap energy stations like China has (be that whatever tech), we'd probably find living standards going up rather than down.
The key to me, I suppose, is if the goal here is for people to be better off, we have very serious examples of people becoming better off quickly. The superficial evidence to me is that it was investing in new capital, especially manufacturing capacity and energy. Which makes sense, because to live a comfortable life we need an overabundance of manufactured goods and energy. Minimum wages are a policy that pushes against that in a small way. If wages go up, if it does anything it will probably reduce manufacturing. If that happens that happens (China is so wealthy now that people aren't rushing across the globe to manufacture there for example), but government intervention to force wages up is a terrible idea. The goal should be for living standards to go up because there is so much stuff available it is hard for them not to.
If you look at the USs energy per capita stats, the raw total figure is dropping. It doesn't matter how much time people spend lobbying for higher wages, if the energy per capita stat is dropping then someone is going to have less energy available to them no matter how much kicking and screaming there is. Less energy means less stuff & less comfort. If they get wages up that won't change the physical reality, at best it'll mean some different group of people will get really stomped with shortages. That is not an environment where anyone is likely to thrive.