Companies are rewarded for keeping workers poor: it costs more to be poor

I'd like to contest the idea proposed in class today (2/23) that suggested companies would actually profit from paying their minimum wage workers a higher wage because the workers could spend their increased disposable income on products. In reality, the opposite of this is true for several reasons:

• People who work low wage jobs tend to spend their money on products more frequently than those who are in the middle and upper socioeconomic bracket. People who are not working low wage jobs tend to save or invest their money, rather than spend it. While this may seem counterintuitive, the reasoning is pretty simple if you consider the combination of living paycheck to paycheck and the stress of low class living (and working) conditions. Because low wage workers are living paycheck to paycheck, they often won't know if they will have the funds in your disposable income to buy things like a pair of boots and if your shoes have holes, you probably need a replacement sooner rather than later. Because it's more difficult to save up for that pair of boots (especially if you don't want to wait 2 weeks wearing a pair with holes), most people are likely to buy a cheaper pair of boots. The cheaper pair is more likely to wear out faster and possibly cause foot/spine/hip pain, but it's better than a pair with holes, right? Because they needed the shoes replaced immediately and the cheaper pair will wear out faster, they will need a replacement much sooner than if they had been able to afford a stronger pair. This means that over time, they will end up spending a great deal more on multiple pairs of $50 boots than someone who bought $150 pair that lasts for 3 years. It costs more to be poor.
• In addition to being forced to consume on a more regular basis, people experiencing poverty are more likely to experience health complications as a result of their limited spending budgets. Aside from housing and dietary restrictions (for the sake of limiting the conversation to discretionary spending), low wage workers experience greater health complications. The inability to take time off for illness/mental and emotional health has a severe impact over a long period of time. The stress from the lack of general control in daily life causes health concerns in and of itself, not to mention the reality of daily experiences in unsafe conditions, such as public transportation (such as increased risk of sexual assault, physical dangers (like joint stress), and other situations). People experiencing poverty have a higher risk of health concerns and less of a chance to deal with them.
• People who have a continuous disposable income often do not spend their money on products, but instead end up saving, paying off debts, and investing in Wallstreet. What's very interesting about investing in Wallstreet is that Wallstreet doesn't produce any product and all workers are upper/upper-middle class, meaning they are paid to not produce anything but rather to maintain other people's wealth.
• American consumerism is fueled by people experiencing poverty. Capitalism requires the constant consumption of goods in order to perpetuate our system. This means producers have a clear incentive to create breakable and cheap goods, most of which are consumed by their low wage workers. Companies are rewarded by keeping their workers at a low wage to increase product consumption.
• Finally, we should not just have a living wage/minimum wage. We need a maximum wage. There is no reason on this earth that anyone needs to make more money than they could ever hope to spend in a lifetime. Perpetuating wealthy hierarchy and class discrepancy maintains racial as well as class dynamics that are inherently abusive.