I most certainly am paying attention; And I don't have nor represent a 'side'; I am simply pointing out that this one specific fucking stupid astonishingly persistent claim made by YOU (NB - not your 'side', just YOU) is utter horseshit.
Any business making a finite profit can support a finite increase in the minimum wage using those profits. This is not a hypothetical claim; it's simple arithmetic.
For any given level of profit, 'P', an increase in minimum wages can be funded from that profit without rendering the business unprofitable, if P>WN, where W is the increase in the minimum wage, and N is the number of minimum wage employees.
So for a company with ten minimum wage employees to be able to fund a $1/hour increase in Minimum Wage while remaining profitable, that company need only make $10/hour (~$20,000 per annum) or more in profit. Last time I checked, the following were both true:
\(10 < \infty\)
and
\(20,000 < \infty\)
Given a finite W and a finite N, P need never be infinite for this relationship to be satisfied. For large W or N, P also needs to be large; But for modest values of WN, P can also be modest.
Infinite P can only be required for the strawman condition where the term WN is infinite.
Your 'side' is clearly made up of arithmetic dunces and morons.