Why would one wish to spend a mountain of effort with one (of thousands) of hypotheticals to "prove" something? One can just as easily change numbers on sales volume, rent, margin, other costs of doing business etc. to "prove" that a "typical" restaurant owner is as rich as Bill Gates or as poor as St. Francis of Assisi? Now, it happens that the hypothetical offered by Selvin K. was illustrative of a possible business - an owner whose "salary" is very modest 52K a year, and an implied price adjustment of upto 16 percent over 5 years (which was a number I came to using the simplified 1/3rd of labor cost rule) BUT these are just one of hundreds or thousands of possibilities.Well, yeah, it's a simplified scenario.
By all means, come up with your own and present it.
What we do know, however is that:
a) 2/3rds of restaurant ventures fail. In other words, the majority don't make survivable profit or lose money (sometimes an owner's entire savings).
b) Whatever the inflation rate in the industry, the hypothetical price increase from min. wage is added on top of that (which causes more business customer loss) or it is taken out of profit (which is likely to be small given the failure rate).
c) All costs are an every year, month, and day issue. If an owner has to pay an average increase in min wage salary of 8-10 percent more per year, its a cost added to rising food, rent, utility, and maintenance costs.
d) In general, shop-keepers don't just absorb it. Its a highly competitive industry and most use alternate strategies to stay afloat: eg, cut food quality, restrict benefits, cut air conditioning, cancel benefit increases, delay or restrict future raises, cut hours, reduce employees, etc.
You don't need a 'scenario', you need a reality check with the everyday challenges of the some who survive, and who do not survive.