Raising minimum wage will help the current status of the US' economy

I'll first respond to Pro's rebuttals to my R1 arguments: 1) It's the wrong time for stimulus, the economy is heating upPro counters by with text from a blog at the economist. com, which includes the following: "The Fed now believes that the time for those unusual measures is over, and that it is appropriate to begin raising rates. " . http://www.economist.com... So we have a disagreement between "R. A. ", the author of this blog post, and the Federal Reserve. I'm going with Federal Reserve on this. This point firmly stands. 2) Keynesian economics (Fiscal & monetary policy) are unrelated to MW This point appears to be dropped, therefore Keynes is null and void in support of MW in this debate. This point firmly stands. 3) Keynesian economics is flawed due to Says law No longer relevant. See #2. 4) Fiscal policy just transfers wealth, monetary policy is similar except it creates money out of nothing. Same with MW: it's just a wealth transfer (I will only cover MW here due to my point #2 & #3 arguments) This point appears to be dropped. If true, how could it stimulate the economy? You'll have some MW workers no longer working and much less to spend, along with some businessmen with reduced profits and also less to spend. The minimum wage doesn't create money out of thin air. This point firmly stands. 5) How does increasing government revenue help the economy? Pro tries to counter here via selective reading, never answering the above question, but only responding to my "raise all tax rates to 100%" analogy. In fact, I can turn Pro's statement: "we are the United States of America and we are a country that prides our self in freedom of choice and success, and having money allows someone to do what he or she want and by having the government provide for us it takes the illusion of success away. We don’t need the Government providing for us all. " The minimum wage IS an example of Government help, so it seems my opponent is arguing against the resolution. This point firmly stands. I will now discuss what remains of Pro's R2 arguments. "What I meant is after the MW is raised the economy cannot react by changing the prices of cost of services to match the jump in MW. " Pro speaks again as if raising the MW creates wealth out of nothing, which is false because it only shifts existing money around. "This means the cost of benefits stays the same and there would be no need to cut hours. " I'm not sure what this means. How can costs stay the same when the cost of labor increases? "But if the MW was raised the supply of money to the Fed would increase through people being moved up into new tax brackets and more taxes taken from income taxes. " (and subsequent paragraph) I assume the Fed is the federal government here (? ) This whole paragraph is filled with flaws. First of all, MW workers are unlikely to see a change in tax bracket, but if they did, I'm supposed to again believe that increases in taxes are going to benefit the economy? That a larger social security net and welfare state is also going to improve the economy? What is this based on? Marxism? "Yes by not allowing inflation by the fed it will slowly start a fiscal drag," (and subsequent paragraph) I'm really not sure what this is saying. I assume the meaning of "The Fed" is now the federal reserve (? ) But the Federal Reserve NEVER announces a specific date when they are going to change monetary policy. Additionally, the Fed has a fixed inflation target of 2%. "Also your statement to people loosing their jobs to machinery. .. " (and subsequent paragraph) You have to be very careful when looking at the motives of those advocating raising the MW. Unions and those making above the MW would love to see the MW raised because it reduces competition for labor. In fact, the origins of MW are based in racism and eugenics. . http://www.cpsvictimsupport.com... I followed the link in Pro's source that claims "3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12", shown below: . http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org... I'd like to provide a quote from that link: "Of those paying $12 per hour and under—the group that would be directly impacted by a minimum wage increase—nearly 6 in 10 (58%) support raising the minimum wage to $12" Do you see the problem here? If they support this, why don't they just pay the 12$ now? It seems to make no sense until you hear an economists viewpoint on this: "However, the conclusions of the Small Business Administration study . .. . are very revealing, . .. . Contrary to the arguments made by so many well-meaning but misguided opponents of the minimum wage, small business owners actually favor an increase in the minimum wage. The reasoning is that it would force their larger rivals to pay higher wages, thus making it more difficult for large firms to offer discount prices on wholesale and retail products. " . https://mises.org... Note that 85% of small businesses already pay their employees above minimum wage. . http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org... Also, only 3% of workers in the U. S. earn minimum wage and only 1.5% are full-time workers. Even if the funds for a MW hike did appear, like magic, from out of nowhere, would the increase in spending of this group make any difference? Now consider the negative employment affects and this MW driven supply-side economic magic seems quite far fetched. Pro claims that recent literature on MW show that increases have had little or no negative effect on the employment. First of all, even if I concede that a MW hike does not impact employment, it wouldn't matter. Pro needs to show how a MW hike will IMPROVE the economy, not how it will avoid negative effects. But lets look at this information, first regarding the 600 economists who support a MW hike. I turn to economist Greg Mankiw, who asked a leading member of those 600 about it: "My friend told me that he viewed the minimum wage as a second-best policy. He would prefer increased cash payments to the poor, such as a much-expanded earned income tax credit (EITC) or a more general negative income tax. But if his first-best policy was politically impossible, a minimum-wage increase was, in his view, an improvement over the status quo. He admitted that the minimum wage had adverse effects on employment, but he judged those to be modest in size. " . http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com... So this leading economist views a MW hike as another form of welfare for the poor, which does nothing for the economy as a whole (or my opponents resolution). Mankiw also states; "Some economists, such as David Neumark, view the adverse employment effects as larger than my friend does. But, even if my friend is correct that the disemployment effects are modest, one should look at the magnitude of the anti-poverty effects. The minimum wage is not well targeted to poor families. " And a view from two other economists: "Still, the American Economic Association has over 20,000 members, and I suspect that a clear majority of these members would have refused to sign that petition if they had been asked. They believe, as I do, that the negative effects of a higher minimum wage would outweigh any positive effects. That is one reason I would surmise why only a fraction of the 35 living economists who received the Nobel Prize signed on to the petition" . http://www.becker-posner-blog.com... With that all said, I see no reason to believe a raise in MW will help the economy as a whole. At best, it will help a small view at the expense of others.