Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending

Argument I: Demographics of Minimum WageEven if Pro proves that 20 million people work between the $0.55 gap, compared to only 15 million workers in the $2.35 gap between mw and $10.00 (meaning that 57% of all low earners are in the top 18% of low income, which better proves my case.) He can't simply increase the parameters to make the number seem bigger. He had to prove everything above $10.00, or anything above $9.00, or $8.00, is within the paramets of 'poor.' In fact, a person on minimum wage only needs to work 29.5 hours a week to be above poverty, well below the national average work week. In fact, anyone earning $10.00 an hour off Pro's presumed 25 hours a week would earn almost $1,500 above poverty, so why is wages above that important?Not that it matters, because unless Pro proved those 15-35 million people are poor and on welfare, he has no case to make. Now Pro is reversing his numbers. He said 47 hours is Average, and now he's saying 20-30 is average... He can't switch up his numbers half way through after I prove the first numbers hurt him. Pro said 47 hours, he needs to live with it. Even at 25 hours, a independent couple still earns $19,000+ a year...The biggest problem here is his constant ignoring of my stats. Almost ALL part-time minimum wage workers are in school, or part of a bigger household. Pro has spent the WHOLE debate pretending those arguments don't exist. Virtually all part-timers aren't dependent on their income, and those who are, are part-time because they lack the skills and experience to have a full-time job. Usually, they are new employees, or have disproven themselves as quality workers. A raise in minimum wage would ruin their careers.Pro dropped my A1 arguments... He may have attempted to address them last round, but Pro must understand that arguments should be addressed the round they are made. Not after they are dropped. Despite trying to address the cases, Pro simply fails at it. Saying things like how minimum wage earners can't earn $50,000 a year, when I CLEARLY SAID HOUSEHOLD INCOME. These issues all remain unanswered by Pro, who ignores basic parts of my argument that clearly disproves his case.The facts are... The average household income of minimum wage workers are far too high for Pro's case is stand, and more than half of them are living with their parents, or are secondary earners in their houses. There is simply no case that enough of them are on welfare to prove Pro's case.In fact, my case about the effects of Minimum Wage alone outweigh Pro's non-existent benefits.Argument II: Effects of Minimum Wage.Pro has simply ignored what I said. His denial is not an argument. Source after source, I have proven that minimum wage leads to job loss. All he had was crude numbers that only prove numbers mean nothing without a methodology. He couldn't even account for the fact that EVERY year sees increases and decreases, and his years are no different from the non-raise years. This is why methodology is important.I win on this argument alone... Pro so strongly believes his numbers, that he concedes this debate, as his numbers show that only 57% of raises lead to increases in jobs, while the resolution required ALL raises to lead to increases.That being said, Pro doesn't account for my studies, he just ignores them. Regarding his issue with my claim about new industries, that was an example of how his methods don't work... It's HIM who must prove his simplistic system is correct.Argument III: Less USFG Income = More DebtPro has ignored that I disproved ALL of those last round... I literally responded to each of these cases, and Pro dropped all of them. His case literally pretends I didn't say a thing last round... I shall repeat my last round:If Person A sees their income increase 20%, their productivity increase 15%, and prices increase 10%, but he loses 30% of his hours, he will see the following:Productivity decrease 19.5%.Income decrease 16%.Ability to buy things decrease 37%.Holtz-Eakin proved that the employees saw massive losses in revenue and hours... When I show that increasing wages decrease overall income by decreasing their hours. Pro needs to reply with more than "Con ignores that raising wages will lead to more income."The cost in lost production, income, and consumption will lead to greater federal debt, meaning higher interest and spending. Pro simply doesn't respond to my arguments. In fact, the cost alone would greatly push millions into welfare over time, costing the USFG billions in increased welfare.Conclusion:I've shown through out the debate that minimum wage simply doesn't correlate with poverty, and raising it would actually INCREASE poverty, joblessness, and DECREASE labor and productivity. This all leads to higher debt, welfare, and spending.The cost to people will outweigh all of Pro's supposed benefits. Especially since I've shown that the demographics disprove Pro's "benefits" and arguments. The harms of raising minimum wage will cost the Government more money, without saving any. Pro had to prove it "WOULD" save money, not that it "MIGHT" save money... Especially if the best he can show is a 57% positive correlation with job loss v job gain (and even that number isn't accurate.)Raising minimum wage will, at most, not decrease Government spending. It is likely to greatly increase USFG spending.