The minimum wage should be raised

So my opponent"s first few arguments against my point that I could be arguing about adding a one cent increase to wage and that people wouldn"t deter from hiring such people, is that someone would prefer someone with 7$ to 7.01, and that because the concept of price and demand, it would be true for any amount. But this shows that my opponent doesn"t understand the concept of minimum wage, someone wouldn"t be able to hire someone for 7.00 if the minimum wage is 7.01. The only way this would make sense is if he was arguing that it would deter employers from hiring workers because they would want to put the money into something less expensive, but my opponent did not make that argument, therefore disregard it. And even if we are arguing that it should be raised period, that means that 0.01 still falls into that category. Now let"s look at my opponent"s calculations since my opponent is arguing that if we increased the wage by 0.01, then the increase overall for 2.1 million employees would be 43,680,000. This is obviously not a huge ramification for a company like walmart, if you look at the type of money the company posses, and the owners and investors. Labor is one of their primary liabilities so it"s not at all shocking. . " Then my opponent claims that my point about education and other things doesn"t fall under livable, but that is exactly what I said which my opponent neglects. I"m not saying that these things fall under livable, I"m saying that people deserve more than what is just livable solely for being humans. Also education is not a luxury, by definition it"s the state of great comfort and extravagant living, which education doesn"t ensure. Then my opponent says that if I don"t donate my income then I basically want companies to pay charity on my behalf. But on what grounds does my opponent say this? I do donate, and it"s ridiculous for my opponet to assume that I don"t. "Pro will need to provide a citation of the case in question where a mother who works as a fast food worker while raising a family perished due to the fact that the wage she was being paid was in fact "unlivable". CON used the same standard of judging whether income is livable with the same measurement. Therefore my opponent is a hypocrite for saying that his measurement of livable works while my definition using the same standard doesn"t. Thus I do not need to provide an example since voters will see the hypocrisy my opponent has committed. "I invite Pro to revisit point 3 in my first argument and to at least observe the first 2 pages of the cited source, as these are direct refutations to this claim. " We both cited evidence that contradict each other, therefore we need to say which one is better with reason, or they cancel out. And my opponent didn"t provide any reason, except says to read 2 pages from a site, which is not how someone types a card. You can"t just copy and paste a website and tell someone to read it, you take the evidence out of the website and paste it and give the source. Therefore both evidences are cancelled out. "The minimum wage affects 100% of the labor market. " In that case it does matter because my opponent used the 4% point to make it seem as if the minimum wage increase didn"t matter, but now he just provided information that did make it matter. "If raising the minimum wage created positive economic growth, and we could raise it to whatever we pleased, why stop at $15? Why not $20? Why not $2,000? " Oh please! I did not expect this type of argument but I"ll refute it anyway. To put it simply, my opponent is basically saying that if something is good because of a factor, why not do it indefinitely? Therefore if it"s good to drink water, why not do it indefinitely? The reason for that is because the person would drown. Therefore my opponent did not provide a good argument since water is a necessity for living but yet someone can"t drink it indefinitely.