Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending

Thanks for the response. I (Codename_x, Con) will first begin with a few rebuttals for Con's case, then give some of my own arguments.Rebuttal A : "Burden of Prove"Con has stated that I have not upheld the burden of proof. Con has also stated that the resolution is "How does minimum wage impact poverty." Quite obviously, con has not read my resolution, it being, "If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease." The impact of minimum wage on poverty is not the same as the impact of minimum wage on government spending. I have supported the burden of proof.As a result, many of Con's arguments do not help to disprove the resolution, "If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease," but instead support Con's, "How does Minimum Wage impact poverty."Rebuttal B: "Demographics of Minimum Wage""Only 2% of workers in the US is on Minimum Wage." ~ConJust five states in the United States do not have their own minimum wage; these states being Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee (1). These states only have to comply with the federal minimum wage, the remaining 45 states, have their own minimum wage, all higher than the federal one (2). So, only workers from these five states are able to receive federal minimum wage, without it being unlawful. This source only counts people earning exactly minimum wage, it does not count people earning only a few cents above it. These people earning only a few cents above minimum wage would still be impacted with a realalistic minimum wage change (3).Most of Con's argument (Demographics of Minimum Wage) is explaining how many minimum wage earners are not below the "poverty line". However, this fails to disprove the resolution, as none of this explains how minimum wage would not decrease USFG spending.Rebuttal C: "Effects of Minimum Wage""However, a number of studies claim they increase disemployment, leading to more unemployment costs, welfare, and food stamps." ~ConThere have been 19 minimum wage amendments since 1961 (4). Each of these dates I will give you, the minimum wage was increased: in 1964, 1965, 1967, 1976, 1996, and 1997 unemployment went down the year after the minimum wage increase. In 1961, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1975, 1976, 1981, 1991, 1996, 1997, and 2009, unemployment decreased over a period of 4 years (4)(5). So in 11 out of the 19 amendments to increase minimum wage, there was actually an employment increase, further decreasing the amount of money spent on welfare and foodstamps. Increased minimum wage does not decrease employment.Rebuttal D: "Less USFG Income = More Debt"Raising the minimum wage would in fact not hurt the productivity of companies. About 66% of low-wage earners are employed by large corporations (9). The National Employment Law Project produced a paper that proved, there would be no significant decline in the productivity, or hiring of companies employing low-wage workers if the minimum wage was to be increased (9). "Increasing the US Debt by just $50 bn a year" ~ConThis is not sourced, and there is no data to back up this claim. The National Employment Law Project's, Big Businesses, Corporate Profits, and the Minimum Wage disproves this theory. Argument A: Social Security, Unemployment & Labor *Copy and pasted from first argument:There is $36,614,800,000 of US government money going to WORKING people who receive food stamps, and $73,864,000,000 of USFG money goes to WORKING welfare recipients. So raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" could save the USFG up to $110 billion!Different welfare programs for Walmart workers alone costed the USFG an estimated $6 billion (12)! The average income of a sales Associate working at Walmart is $8.81, so these workers would be affected by a minimum wage change (15). Walmart employs about 1.4 million people in the US, about 1.15% of all of America's workers (13) (14). Overall, the United States would save money if the minimum wage was to be increased.Thank you readers for reading. I would also like to wish anyone reading this a happy New Years (if you are not reading this before New Years that is).Con, I await your response. Sources:(1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tinyurl.com... (3) http://tinyurl.com... (4) http://tinyurl.com... (5) http://tinyurl.com... (6) http://tinyurl.com... (7) http://tinyurl.com... (8) http://tinyurl.com... (9) http://tinyurl.com... (10) http://tinyurl.com... (11) http://tinyurl.com... (12) http://tinyurl.com... (13) http://tinyurl.com... (14) http://tinyurl.com... (15) http://tinyurl.com...