The US Minimum wage ought to be raised substantially.

The Con fails to fully illustrate. .. how raising the minimum wage would negatively affect the economy. Yet Pro fails to address my point regarding the studies he points to are taken, largely, during times of economic growth (namely the 1990's and 2000's). In times where any commodity is in great demand (in this case labor), the price elasticity is as the graphs show. However, in times where the demand is below supply, price stays low or even lowers. Owning a portion of a franchise is not a small business. I believe Pro here misinterprets what a fast food restaurant franchisee is. I shall attempt to elaborate. A franchisee pays a licensing fee to the owner of the franchise, say McDonalds. The franchisee must then buy all of his sellable items from McDonalds, sell only the foods allowed by McDonalds, cook all according to their recipe, using their equipment and all facades and other more "personal" items are required to be reviewed by McDonalds. The Franchisee also pays an annual fee, in this case 4% for the privilege of having the brand name. In all other facets, the franchisee is a small business owner. They set pay, hours, number of employees, health care and retirement etc. Any profit on top of the 4% is the business owners to keep. As stated above, this is typically $50k per year. Any wages are paid, directly, by the franchisee, NOT McDonalds. If this fails to qualify as a small business owner, I'm afraid my definition of "small business owner" is quite different than Con's. Con cedes there is no census as to the full impacts of raising the minimum wage. This is indeed true. However, Pro fails to illustrate why, if there is no consensus, it would be wise policy to change minimum wages. Pro holds to increased spending by the poor to counter negative effects on the economy. However, if wages are raised, providing that economic conditions remain stagnant, those lost profits for business owners have to come from somewhere. These can come from: raising prices; lowering hours or workers; delaying or eliminating raises to long-term employees; or loss of profit. As my previous example stated, many small business owners and franchisees don't have a large bottom line to eliminate profit. As this level would undoubtedly eat the cost of loss of profit, it is doubtful this option would be the most common. Also, for a franchisee to raise prices requires the acquiescence of the franchise (McDonalds). Between this acceptance, if it happens at all, and the time of the wage hike, profits will be eaten into dramatically. It must here be noted that the most common purchasers of the cheapest goods are often the poor, and the workers at places with the cheapest goods are also the poor. If the local Dollar Store must become the Dollar-Fifty Store, it will see diminishing total sales, and people who shopped there for lower prices will either seek even lower prices elsewhere (unlikely) or merely make do with less. Either instance hurts the very people Pro says will benefit. The unemployed who would accept a minimum wage job will be unable to if hours are cut to minimize losses. At a time when unemployment is just now starting to curve toward "normal" levels (generally accepted at about 4%), eliminating growth in the minimum wage market will hurt job creation, and can very well lead to the opposite. The federal minimum wage is a baseline that all states must meet. Here Pro and I have some common ground (a rarity in political debate). However, Pro does not show that the lowest portion of the country is suffering under the current minimum wage. On the contrary, the cheapest cost of living places in the country are closely in line with the current minimum. If Pro wishes to raise the absolute minimum, he will have impacts on the areas that are at the baseline minimum. In Summary, Pro does not address the possible negatives to small business owners (franchisees) or the poor. Pro also does not show that the current minimum wage is unliveable in the cheapest areas of the country. Furthermore, Pro does not explain sufficiently how a lack of consensus among economists on the effects of raising a minimum wage is evidence that raising it would have positive or even negligible consequences.