Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

CA.1: A living wage varies between communities, so a nationwide raise is not practical or effective.Although my opponent claimed that "different lifestyles and external factors" prevent lawmakers from implementing a wage floor that is just, he neglected to address the fact that these are aggravating factors rather than a cause for rejecting this concept.CA.2A: Studies have shown that a raise in pay correlates to improved health. In my initial argument, I clearly identify multiple benefits that correlate directly to wage increases, not a lift out of poverty. Although my opponent states that a statistic from The New American to support the position that the majority of Americans do not work, the source is a conservative publication which "forthrightly acknowledges an editorial point of view" and cannot be considered a reliable source [1]. An unbiased academic report concludes that "the majority of the American poor do work" [2]. While my opponent attempts to invalidate my argument that a living wage results in improved health by claiming that raising the minimum wage would cause employers to cut back on benefits, I have already shown this to be false. State healthcare spending decreases as a result of a wage hike, meaning that more individuals are covered by their employer insurance [3]. Overall, my opponent failed to disprove my contention that a raise in pay results in improved health as he did not provide any evidence that disproved a reduced rate in premature death [4], hypertension [5], and increased rating in overall health [6]. CA.2B: Children of low-wage workers would be benefited.This argument remains untouched, and thus, still stands. I clearly proved that the parents experience health benefits, which my opponents states is necessary for the children to be benefited as well. CA.3A: Wage increases have minimal to no negative effect.My opponent did not sufficiently negate this contention and still stands. Additionally, the evidence my opponent provided to negate this is inherently biased, as the statistic he cites comes from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that promotes a "pro-business, socially conservative agenda" and cannot be considered unbiased [7]. CA.5: The current minimum wage is extremely low when indexed to worker productivity.This argument also remains unrefuted, as my opponent claims that "increased wages will encourage mechanical and robotic replacements" but fails to provide any (unbiased) evidence supporting this statement. RA.1: A fair living wage is indeterminableI already addressed this. RA.2: A living wage won't create jobs.There are two major flaws with my opponents argument. First, the argument hinges on the idea that a relatively small job reduction justifies not increasing the minimum wage. Second, the research used to support this idea is biased and unfounded. My opponent argues that studies have shown that a raise in the minimum wage increases unemployment and cites the CBO and a quote from a CBS News article. Although the CBO is a reputable source, the full description explains that "some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated" and that "most ... would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold" [8]. So not only does the CBO report actually refute my opponents claim that raising the minimum wage doesn't reduce poverty, it also is a prediction rather than an empirical research study. The second source my opponent uses is a CBS News article. Again, this source has a few credibility problems. In fact, this news article is based on the CBO report that my opponent also cited, meaning that the data from the article actually originated in the CBO report. Also, because the article is based on the CBO report, it also negates my opponents contention that a raise in the minimum wage doesn't reduce poverty, as "it lifts hundreds of thousands of others out of poverty" [9]. Both sources have another contradiction: the CBO report considered a raise to $9.00/hour which would only cost an estimated 100,000 jobs [9]. RA.3: Inflation is an inevitable consequence.My opponent failed to provide convincing evidence that this is the case. One of the two sources provided is an article written by a freelance blogger with no professional economic experience or credentials [10], the other a paper which details the lack of research available on the effects of wage increases on prices [11]. An individual with no background in economics can hardly be considered a reliable source, and the second source cited states that "there is so little empirical evidence on price effects" and that "a comprehensive survey on the minimum wage price effects is not available in the literature" [11]. Conclusion: Overall, I have provided extensive research and empirical studies supporting my contentions in addition to effectively negating my opponents contentions. So yes, just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate! [1] http://www.thenewamerican.com...[2] http://bit.ly...[3] http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu...[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[5] http://www.epi.org...[6] http://www.humanimpact.org...[7] http://www.nytimes.com...[8] https://www.cbo.gov...[9] http://www.cbsnews.com...[10] http://inflationdata.com...[11] http://www.utexas.edu...