I can't help but notice that there a lot of classism in this thread.
At exactly what point is someone "too rich"? Is it upper middle class? Is it a store manager? Is it a district manager? Is it a regional manager? Is it only reserved for CEOs? Do athletes count? Movie stars? Rock stars? Doctors? Scientists?
And who decides who makes too much money, and who should feel some sort of personal shame if they're not giving enough of it to their employees or other people that they work with? And who decides how much they should give back?
Because if you think any business owners or CEOs are just going to cut their own salaries so they don't have to do any "employee restructuring," due to a minimum wage increase, I think you're mistaken.
But as long as any of these people are spending their money, or investing in the stock market, or whatever else--basically anything other going all Scrooge McDuck and literally hording their cash in a giant vault--isn't their money helping the economy?
Stephen Tyler: 130 million.
I'd call it less classism and more realism. As I've typed before, we've had 30 years of supply side economics. This means that businesses haven't really had to compete for labor for quite a few years. Furthermore, most of their taxes have been foisted on to the people who're doing the actual working(this is called corporate welfare, and it costs us more than human welfare annually.)
Then we have SCOTUS to thank for actually giving the wealthy and rich a louder voice in our political process, after all, it wasn't poor and middle-class people who put off-shore bank tax loopholes in the tax code! We've seen time and time again, large businesses and wealthy people running roughshod through or political process with their greater spending clout.
CEOs and Business leaders SHOULD feel shame in not paying their employees more. Many of the people on foodstamps are people who are employed full time. This is a fucking travesty!
You ask who should decide they make too much money? I fucking say we do. We live in a goddamn democracy, so we get to decide how businesses run on our goddamn soil. Oh wait, I forgot, our politicians are bought and paid for(note that John Boehner's #2 donator is Comcast, which has been trying to buy Time Warner and end Net neutrality on the first link, and see John Boehner's response in the second.)
Don't forget, businesses have been colluding with each other over labor too! Trying their best to make the labor market non-competitive! Wage fixing at it's finest!
Lastly, the rich and businesses spending leads to this "trickle-down" theory of economics(read supply-side) and I've written on it in this post before. Yes, them spending money helps the economy. But so does everyone's. There are way more non-rich people than rich people and they have a greater desire for commodity(goods and services.) So if you put more money in the hands of the working class and poor, they will buy more commodity simply because their thirst for it is greater. This means more money for everyone and more opportunity for business(can't sell something if no one can buy it, thanks Henry Ford!)
The reason why there's so much backlash on making a minimum wage hike is because the place that will suffer the most is the stock market. That's right, there is ONE victim to this minimum wage hike, profits. The people who make their living by investing in businesses(read: the wealthy) have a vested interest in keeping employee wages down.
To answer your question about people investing in the stock market helping the economy, no, it doesn't really help. The stock market is at the highest it's been, ever, but it hasn't translated into any real job growth. We're struggling to get back to the place these unregulated businesses kicked us from before the housing bubble.
I can't help but feel like your post comes from a place where you haven't really paid attention to the things around you.