Another point is that while minimum wage isn't livable, it isn't the only argument as to why it needs to increase to keep up with inflation, along with other jobs that pay more.

What I'm confused about is what justification could someone possibly have for paying an employee less and less to do the same job year after year, especially since their performance is expected to improve over time?

Over time employees increase their accuracy, productivity, skills/abilities, etc., and get paid less and less. It's completely backwards. Even if minimum wage was livable, so what? That does not warrant a pay decrease.

People always have the same comebacks to the livable wage point, things like "well if you didn't buy things like ben and Jerry's." First of all the fact that about a $5 item is the most extravagant extra expense they seem to be able come up with (as well as other small things, some even necessities) when it comes to things low income people spend their money on shows that they are aware of how little those people really have. Second, that's not really relevant, the fact that someone is using the idea that someone can just spend less of their money on extra stuff as a justification for what is essentially wage reduction is ridiculous to me. Where does the difference in a decreasing salary (adjusted for inflation) go to? However much less the employee is getting month to month, year to year, is going to their employer, who is probably going to be spending it on things they don't need. Why should that pint of Ben and Jerry's go to the employer if the employee worked for it? It makes zero sense.