should the government raise minimum wage

This round will be dedicated to explaining why I am winning this debate and CON is losing. CON Argues: "minimum wage jobs are temporary jobs and meant to be treated as such. " Without any evidence whatsoever (which means that this point falls by its own lack of merit), CON claims that "minimum wage jobs are temporary jobs and meant to be treated as such", but does not provide any evidence that minimum wage jobs are temporary. People who work minimum wage jobs tend to stay in those jobs, or move from one minimum or barely above minimum wage job to another for many years of their life. (Source: . https://www.bls.gov...) The implication is that minimum wage jobs are not "temporary" even if CON thinks that that's what they're mean to be. But the idea that minimum wage jobs should be "treated" as temporary is belied by the realities of long-term earning potential for anyone who holds a minimum wage job. Oxfam explains: "The likelihood of leaving low pay decreases dramatically as tenure in a low-paying job increases," as "the characteristics associated with low-wage employment lead to greater rates of permanently low earnings," concluded researchers Brett Theodos of the Urban Institute and Robert Bednarzlk at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute. " (Source: . https://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org...) So, on both counts CON is wrong. It is empirically false that minimum wage jobs are temporary, so CON's proposition that minimum wage jobs are "meant to be temporary" is contradicted by the reality of minimum wage work. The evidence and empirical research out there suggests that CON fundamentally misunderstands how minimum wage labor works. As a result, CON's unfounded opinion that "A minimum wage job is a starting point not a career. " is also negated by the same. This is confirmed by FiveThirtyEight blog. (Source:. https://fivethirtyeight.com...). CON further argues: "if the rates are too low it will also discourage illegal immigration which we all know is a problem. " Once again, CON has no evidence to support this claim. In order for this claim to have bearing on the outcome of this debate, it would need something to support that it is true. But, the broader point is that the minimum wage has no application to illegal immigrant labor because illegals work is under the table. (Refer for general explanation to: . https://en.wikipedia.org...). CON further claims: "And continuously increasing that wage only raises the costs of all goods and those earning that minimum wage will have their income gone sooner. " This is negated by my evidence above, from Robert Reich, discussing economic outcomes post 1996, and Liu, discussing improvements in standard of living. The bottom line is that raising the minimum wage raises the standard of living for working Americans, which negates the claim that "increasing [the minimum wage] only raises the costs of all goods". However, the broader point here is that like everything else, CON has no evidence to support this claim and there's a lot of evidence out there against it. CON once more without evidence claims: "Also raising minimum wage will raise taxes " This is wrong because there is no indication that raising the minimum wage will raise taxes. Taxes on companies and the minimum wage are totally different things entirely. (Obvious source is obvious: . https://en.wikipedia.org...) Con's point about "A higher minimum wage would be a heavier burden on employers especially small business owners. ", as well as the point about the impact to small businesses (" If a business has three people working for it and it is a very small business but the people want to be payed more. So they start getting people to protest and then the minimum wage gets raised. ") and the like are all negated by the evidence I've cited above, which is still not rebutted by CON. Rather, con is just restating this point. Once again, Reich and Liu explain that this is false because of increased economic activity as a result of higher disposable income. The sort of final gesture at an argument CON makes reduces to this: 'the minimum wage ruined Detroit, which was once known for "having amazing cars" but because people wanted "the wage to be higher . .. in the end companies could not afford to pay them, so after laying thousands of people off they eventually moved to a place where the minimum wage was lower to prevent shutting down" and this "completely crashed the economy". Basically everything about CON's argument here is wrong. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) First, Detroit auto workers were not minimum wage workers, they were unionized factory workers. Raising the minimum wage would have no impact on them whatsoever because they were already making more than the minimum wage was to begin with, and they were making more than other minimum wage workers would have made even if the wage would have been raised. Second, Detroit's decline was due to many factors beyond labor costs. They are explained in the article I cited, but the bottom line is that CON has illustrated no evidentiary link between the minimum wage and Detroit's decline. CON's points fall in totality. I have won this debate because I proved that (1) the minimum wage should be raised because it does not pay a livable wage which creates an unfair burden on taxpayers and charities; and (2) raising the minimum wage will stimulate economic growth. CON makes no effort to rebut either my first or second contentions. My first contention holds, totally unaddressed by CON. My second contention holds, for the same reason. Moreover, my evidence regarding my second contention negates every single claim that CON has made about economic harms. Finally, I have rebutted above every single claim that CON made WITHOUT EVIDENCE and provided sufficient evidence to the contrary. I am winning this debate and CON is losing.