If you work somewhere and everyone else gets a raise because there's a new company-wide minimum wage, but you don't get a raise because you were already compensated above that level and you got there through hard work (or so you think), you might quit, not because you resent the people who got the raises, but because you figure that you'll get a better deal at a place that gives raises to people who work harder.

As to state-wide minimum wages - "the" argument against it is that less people are employed at a higher price of labor and that those priced out of the market are likely to be the ones hurt the most by it, though their numbers might be smaller than the numbers of those employed at the higher wage. (Of course this applies to the company with the $70K minimum wage as well: that company could have used the money it cost to implement this policy to instead hire more people.) There are counter-arguments along the lines of the demand for labor being inelastic and other such, but it's kinda off to not present a sensible argument against a minimum wage while presenting a crazy strawman argument against it, the latter implying with a high likelihood that the author supports a high minimum wage.