Should the minimum wage be set at the state or national level?

I’ll go to Alabama and be unemployed when the minimum wage goes to $15.50. You use to be able to a house for 18 % to 20 % of a house in Connecticut or Massachusetts.
There is a great big difference in cost of living and housing cost between states.

Both… the national level is the bare lowest min wage, and the state is slightly higher.

I am going to say state.

It should go at a state level, for the same reason other things should be at a state or regional level. It costs more to live some places than others, and basing minimum wage in Mississippi on living costs in California would be a windfall in Mississippi; while doing the reverse would be of little help to those in California.

Both.

You can’t let states set it without some level of federal supervision otherwise you’ll end up with some state somewhere setting it at 1 cent or something ridiculous.

I’m not sure that even state level is even enough.

There is no correlation between the cost of living in, say, Chicago and Olney Illinois.
As @zenvelo says above, windfall and waste.

@ibstubro Good point. I’m pretty sure NYC has it’s own minimum different than NYS. Probably Chicago is the same. Southern IL is drastically different than Chicago. I would say the contrast there is even bigger than in New York State.

I think the present system, although flawed, is a good way to go. If it were not for a Federal minimum, I’m sure that there would be one or more states that would have no minimum and let wages in general be determined by “market forces”, meaning the lowest wage at which an employer could get a warm body. I’m definitely in favor of a Federal minimum wage, with the ability of states and counties or cities to raise that to reflect local economic conditions.