Like most young people, I have right-wing relatives whose political views drive me up the wall. Me being me, I occasionally argue with them, but I have to pick my battles, even if there are daily posts I want to counter with logical arguments.

This is one of the latest things my uncle has shared on Facebook. It's one of the stock arguments against the minimum wage, with a military twist. And it does make a few good points. For instance, most people do learn to read from teachers. And if you multiply 15 dollars an hour by 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year, you get $31,200 a year.

The rest is split between bringing up a good point -- that those in the military do not make enough money to support their families -- and ignoring the reality of minimum wage workers.

Low income military families are a reality. Although in addition to their pay, service members get tax-free allowances for housing, food, and clothing, and access to special military shops, called commissaries, where goods are sold for just above cost, many families still struggle to make ends meet. A substantial number of military families take advantage of the federal government's food stamp program to put food on the table. There is also a specific military program to help raise families' income to 130 percent of the local poverty level -- although there is a cap on the total money a family can receive -- called the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA).

This NBC report talks about how military families use food banks to provide enough food for their children and themselves -- as much as 25 percent of active families according to the Feeding America report that was released in 2014. Clearly, this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but it doesn't need to be an either-or response that leaves others out as well.

Now admittedly, raising the minimum wage wouldn't help military families; the military pays a yearly salary, not an hourly wage. Yet it would help other families quite a bit.

For one, minimum wage is worth less now than it used to be -- its value peaked in 1968. Even the increase in 2009 has since lost 8.1 percent of its purchasing power.

The picture at the top makes several allegations:

One, at $15 dollars an hour, a person would make $31,200 a year. Two, if you are working a minimum wage job, you have failed (they specify fast food workers, but we'll generalize this to include all minimum wage workers). Three, if you don't want minimum wage pay, don't have minimum skills.

Let's tackle these one at a time, shall we?

To begin with, to get $31,200 as the annual wage, you are assuming that the person is working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. That doesn't take into the reality that many of those who make minimum wage aren't full-time workers. They work part time, which would give them a wage far less than that: $20,400 if they work 34 hours a week.

And yet there is a sizable portion who do work full time for minimum pay, and those people need a living wage. The graphic above is not for $15 an hour, but for $12, but it still shows something important: minimum wage workers aren't teens, and many of them have children.

Point two of the picture: if you are working a minimum wage job, you have failed. Now considering this picture elevates military service, I would love to see their response when I say that 1 million veterans would be benefited by a minimum wage increase, even to just $10.10 an hour. Most of those veterans are over 55 and have college educations. Please tell me how they have 'failed.'

We'll move on to point three, because it makes my point easier to make: not all of those who make minimum wage have 'minimum skills.' As I just pointed out, there are over a million minimum wage workers who have all the skills they picked up in the military, and sixty percent of those have college degrees. I somehow don't think they have minimum skills.

But let's look at the population outside of these veterans. Nearly a third of fast food workers have at least some college experience. And according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report, in 2012, 284,000 college graduates were making minimum wage, up 71 percent from what it was in 2002.

Clearly, not all of those working for low wages lack skill. And, in addition, may we mention that many of these workers have high school diplomas? In theory, considering that's the highest level of public education, a high school diploma should be enough to get you an adequate job, and it isn't any longer. Some 27 percent of employers in one study raised their education requirements from a high school diploma to a college degree. Workers who cannot afford to go to college -- and please do not tell me that they can work their way through school because you cannot do that with today's tuition -- are left with minimum wage jobs because the economy has changed, leaving them behind.

So, in conclusion, while the military does need to work to pay soldiers enough to support their families, that is a separate issue from raising the minimum wage so that civilian breadwinners can support their families. These minimum wage workers are not teens, unskilled, or failures because they work in fast food or the service industry, they are adult human beings (on average around 30) who have education and are trying to support their families.

Can we at least agree that both deserve respect for their hard work, even if it is drastically different?