The US should establish Progressive Wage Laws

Baseline Argument One: Why a flat wage increase doesn't workI'll sort of be playing devils advocate here, but I honestly feel that many of these concerns remain unaddressed by the status quo reform. Here are a couple key points to remember, when questioning yourself, if a set wage will work. (1) Raising the minimum wage, in economic theory, seeks to increase the wallets of the lower class, so they will have more money to put back into the economy. This sounds great, but perhaps a greatest flaw, is also the most evident. As wages increase, so do the prices of big macs, groceries, and basic goods and services. This is detrimental to the economy as a whole, as companies rely on low prices to make a profit. By increasing the wage, the lower class has to actually spend more on the services and goods they need. Negating the base purpose. Both sides of the spectrum try to play a inflation ploy on this topic. A theory that the overall price of the dollar will just increase as a result. This is only true though, if other areas in the private sector increase contingently with minimum wage markets. Several huge problems with this argument though. Sadly, I have to give this argument to the right, simply by realist perspective. [1]Inflation increases the power of the 1%, and if people are right (which I don't think they are), will go against half of the goals the left is pushing for. (2) Of course I have to make the small business argument. A major concern with setting a flat increase, is that it will strangle the life out of places with narrow profit margins. I never heard a half convincing argument disproving this.I often hear "Only a third of minimum wage employees are employed by small business" from my fellow liberals. I'm sorry though, but it is simply a fallacious argumnent. That third is still immensely important to the economy, and their survival is neccesary. The truth is, that many companies have extremely narrow margins for profit. [2]Some restaurants, after paying their employees their hourly dues, are left with barely 10$ an hour themselves. I want the audience to pay specific attention to this graph, and ask themselves, how many more would go out of business? http://www.restaurantowner.com...If this doesn't make since yet, basically we our asking are small time diner, to distribute 15$ among employees evenly. How much do tiny diners make? Probably not much over a 100$. The point is, that flat wages will outright kill the oppurtunity of growthamong small business, if not destroying it entirely. [3](3) Quite a simple argument actually. As small business is forced to pay more, they can afford less employees. A few weak studies have been cited against this, mainly being growth in employment among big business. Base equation.... http://tunnelwall.blogspot.com...This argument is even weaker then point two though. Of course big business keeps hiring. Thats always been a trend, regardless of minimum wage. Unfortunately though, the small private sector is firing. Small business is needed to outweigh the pains that having a corporate monopoly will bring. [4] Baseline Argument Two: How Progressive Wages Solve the Issues A progressive wage, is actually designed to avoid most of the issues we have with the status quo reform. Where we can actually stimulate the lower class, while decentiving price increases from "To big to fail corporations". My reasoning is here, but note, that each point is connected to baseline one....(1) A theory exists that has been floating around prestigious colleges for a while now.The belief that the government can create an artificial deficit that will actually help the economy. In fact, the theory has already been proven.Have you ever been to a small town video store, and found that the products there are also found in big chains? And if so, have you noticed that the prices at the small town store are marked up much higher then the chain video store? This is because of a huge capital deficit existing between corporations and mom and pop shops. Look at this chart. As big business profits rise, small businesses remain flat. http://www.businessweek.com...Small business can not realistically compete with chains, unless they mark up prices signifigantly. By placing an artificial deficit, we can easily turn the tables. By having small time business paying 10$ wages, and big business paying 14$ wages, we create the reverse effect. Now, big business can't raise their prices, or else small business will become much cheaper in prices. In simple terms, we would be evening and stabalizing the price of our cheetos nation wide, creating greater economic equality, and providing a solution to status quo reform rebuttal one. [5](2/3) The immediately evident reason for progressive wage laws. By keeping rates low for small business, then we can keep them thriving, and big business paying proper dues. Since this should be clear already, I wont dive much deeper. Just ask yourselves, which of these is better...- A high deficit between the rich and poor?- A 3$ deficit between the lower classes?If you choose option 2, then your getting the picture behind progressive wages. http://www.chicagotribune.com...Rebuttals Note: I will leave some rebuttals for next round, as space is low. These are not being dropped. Also, Con has brought up two paragraphs about the employee third factor. He misunderstood what it meant, so these points will be disregarded. This is not an excuse for any slanted voting. The number of employees actually decrease the payable wage. On a very basic level, companies are interested in reducing their bottom line. They don't want to pay more in costs than their competitors, and as such, will do what they can in order to reduce their tax burdens. This has led to any number of accounting schemes that shift their tax burden into, say, capital gains in order to avoid paying the majority of their usual taxes.Me and Whiteflame came into some confusion over PM about the capital factor. We clarified it in the comments. It includes capital gains, assets, and everything besides tied up stock. Just putting this here, so people aren't confused. I apologize for not being more specific. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now, I feel it neccesary to sum up most of his arguments with this. His entire argument, relies on the belief that a increase in minimum wage, will outweigh the bottom line of investments. I find this argument incredibly weak, as no such proof does exist. This lacks proof and I don't see the logic.Contrary to the opinion of my opponent, you can not simply start tying money into investments as easily as he makes it seem. Investments cost money, are risky, and require upkeep. He was vague on everything from capital gains to outsourcing. These are not simply realistic, and I hope he realies that most minimum wage employees aren't outsourced. I doubt we have ever outsourced a car wash of burger king employee to libya, but who knows. The jist of it is that all these problems exist evidently under the status quo reform. My reform just protects small business in the process. Thanks for the debate Con! [1] http://www.businessweek.com...[2] http://www.baynews9.com...[3] http://nypost.com...[4] http://www.businessweek.com...[5] http://www-siepr.stanford.edu...