"Nope, that's not supported by the evidence."

Yea it actually is. You again failed to read the MIT study. Peer reviewed already (https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2070427/cla-peer-review-of-citywide-minimum-wage-studies.pdf)

Labor is already cheaper elsewhere, this is just you making more assumptions.

People are still manufacturing in the US and are able to called the products "US made" without losing a lot of money depending on their margins. With higher minimum wage that option will be much less. FACT.

It's literally in your link that you refuse to read.

It's an example showing you who. Not a question. What I'm saying is that it only helps very small percentage of people who are at the bottom.

Also in the link.

Yea, it also shows -17 billion loss for many others. Again you failed to read and understand the study which I provided.

Different problem with different solutions. You could list shit any solution doesn't do, that doesn't mean you ignore what it does do.

What solution. People are out of jobs, so uh, find jobs. That's the solution? Welfare? Thats a solution. By the way that's in the link too. Higher welfare and negative impact for federal govenment and the already huge deficit we have. In the link too but you fail to see it I guess.

You're going to ignore all the other studies and the CBO, which you linked, in favor of a self published study that came out last year and as such may not have much in the way of peer review or duplication? I'd read it but you can't be bothered to read your own links. Your bolded quote also doesn't seem to be found in the text, so I'm going to assume you went looking for one site that agreed with you that linked a study that contradicts most of the established research on the subject. You need peer review and duplication for this to be of any value, you also clearly haven't read it because it does not purport to be the final say on the matter just a different possible angle to study the issue from, it even acknowledges the problems with their data sources but tries to compensate for it. And that's just from scanning a few sections. This is a very weak basis for saying every other study is wrong and you should feel bad it's the best you can do.

Haha. You don't understand it and I know you didn't read it. My bold quote is paraphrased from the study. The one you failed to read or you would understand it. Everything I put is in the links from facts and stats and studies. Not my problem you fail to comprehend basic language. But hey, would the NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH know about economics, especially some guys from MIT too. Bunch of idiots who just made stuff up and didn't have pages of references...oh wait. Again, already on the main site where it is from. You fail ONCE more to read it. Then again a quick google search shows many reviews of it with no objections. The facts are there plain as day and the math adds up. You just don't want to admit to something that shows how you are wrong. How narrow minded.

So I was right, you're not looking for the truth just grasping at straws to try to defend your shitty and wrong opinion. This is exactly like those assholes who pointed to the very few scientists who said global warming isn't real and ignored all the significant long term studies and scientific consensus to the contrary. Finding one study that runs counter to all the long term research in the area, basis it's conclusion on shaky metrics that few people would consider 'the standard' for measuring this stuff, and is self published really really doesn't counter all the peer reviewed long term studies. You need to learn how the scientific method works.

It wouldn't matter how many studies you are shown. You're like one of those religious nuts who you can show evidence to contradict but their faith grows stronger in spite of it.

but if we raise minimum wage then the customers will make more and be able to pay more.

That only makes sense if all your customers are getting that benefit of the raise. Except right now, only 4.7 percent of people are working minimum wage. Everyone else isn't. So only that 4.7 percent (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm) would see that benefit and it would cost everyone else more money for the same goods. Their pay isn't increasing if they are already making over the minimum wage. Get it?

And since labor is only a part of costs the increase in costs would be less than the extra money they'd make and with fewer people in poverty, which is the standard used by many social programs rather than just unemployment, we could increase funds to the actually unemployed. But I keep saying this, the studies keep backing it up, but you keep ignoring it. Oh well.

Labor costs wouldn't be the only increase in cost. You'd see a hike in the price of goods. Many of these goods would be sold or used by other businesses. How do you not see that? It would be a rise in labor costs and costs of supplies to make those goods. You see that is where you fail again to see the big picture. It isn't just labor costs that rise, it is costs everywhere and for everyone. The only people seeing benefits are the 4.7 percent getting the raise. Everyone sees crazy high costs for items that weren't normally that high before. The studies show just the opposite. I already posted links to them and you completely failed to understand them. They support what I'm saying.

Again, the world doesn't revolve around just these small group of 4.7 percent. You also completely left out the article showing that the price would rise to the levels that of NYC. https://www.aei.org/publication/a-national-minimum-wage-is-a-bad-fit-for-low-cost-communities/

Raising minimum wage helps more than just people making it and an extra 25-50 cents per hour so you can say your workers aren't technically minimum wage doesn't actually solve the problem.

You should read more about it because it says they make a dollar or more over it. You failed again to read.

Or we could just redirect the funding from all those people climbing out of poverty to do a better job of helping those affected, and again CBO says 0.3% less employment @$10.10, I think we can handle it.

Wishful thinking. So all the people coming out of poverty are going to get social jobs now? Doubt it. Dream land isn't reality. And like you said earlier , "That's not supported by the evidence". Except the study I showed you where it was worse than that. You know, real evidence from collection over time and real numbers not guesses. Plus, right below that (and it is just funny how you left this out) it says, "As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger" "...a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers". This means it could be very little or a million. But like you said, what is a mere 1 million loss jobs. Except in the study I showed, it grows worse over time. So yea, wrong again.

By linking two conservative think tanks trying to push an agenda and misinterpreting data from other sources? Not really, this is how you keep your head firmly lodged in your own ass.

I'm sorry but the study from MIT NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH isn't a conservative think tank. You only complaint is that you can't find the peer reviews even though a quick google search shows there are. Plus you might want to look up the requirements for having a paper in those official archives. But hey, that would require some work wouldn't it. Surely that MIT associate professor knows jack shit and all his 46 references , citations, and facts, figures, and stats are just all made up and you are right. Must be it.