If you can't tell the difference between, required qualification, and recommended qualifications, you don't need to work there. If they state "entry level" and require years of prior experience, you don't want to work there.
They don't want to hire you they want to hire the people who will work for cheap and are easily manipulated.
Problem being "entry level" doesn't have a fixed definition. Means different things for different companies...and sections of single companies...
And last week, and the week before.
But you want $15/hr to work a french fry station.
Matter of perspective - Have you played Pokémon or Battle Toads?
My experience of entry-level graduate jobs is that they hire you and then just leave you without direction or training in the hope that within 5 years you will magically become 'experienced'. Then years down the line you can't get hired elsewhere because you don't actually have any experience.
I want to weight in here. As a software developer with 11 years of experience I can tell you that 99% of the cases it goes like this. The Software Developer Lead tells the Project Manager, we need more experienced developers, someone medior-high. The project manager forwards the request to HR. HR asks then the qualifications needed by this person. They get provided to them. After 2 weeks of search (yes after 2 weeks HR gives up already) they realize the finding seniors is not as simple as posting in linked in, since this people are normally hired and not actively looking. Since HR is incapable of doing their job (or sales is incapable or doing theirs and budget is an issue) they lower the requirements and change the name.of the vacancy to -entry level- or some other random name. They never tell the software team and therefore the 'requirements' remain the same and the vacancy looks stupid.
Stop trying to have the govt increase minimum wage for entry level jobs then.