On the compulsory minimum wage

1. Sourcing Abuse I wasn't aware that data collection was abusive. Source (2) shows that minimum wage jobs are primarily related to the service industry field. Very few service jobs in the US are unionized. Source (3) shows how unions were busted. My opponent can not claim that union busting does not involve employee termination. Source (6) illustrates how lightly some industries are treated. I read most of source (7a), as it is only samples from the book, and not the book in its entirety. My opponent can make time to do the same. (7b) is an authority cite to establish the expertise and recognition of (7a)'s author. It does not need to be read. According to source (9), "On the bright side, increasing minimum wage is probably the right thing to do. ‘Until the law was passed, the minimum wage hadn't been increased in almost 10 years, so everybody was getting a real bargain,' Seiver explains. ‘It was abnormally low. Now, we're just pulling it back to the right levels. '" So the minimum wage arguably wasn't even adjusted properly. Source (10): "Among non-union workers who make less than $40,000 annually, 16% would like to belong to a union. " I don't know what my opponent believes was implied, but (11) serves as an excellent example of how unionizing leads to civil unrest and is not a more desirable end than other forms of placation. Remember, civil unrest causes crime, unemployment is just one source of civil unrest. Please see paragraph four of (12). My source (13) is weak, perhaps, but no weaker than my opponent's (18) in terms of citing figures. Source (16) could be better, so I will supplement it. [n16] Source (17) illustrates the type of arrangements that develop from limitless lower wage bartering between employers and employees. If my opponent doesn't believe it, he should try working. And still continued: Source (18) was cut off by character limits. [n18] Presently opponent's (14) does not work. Source (20) was only cited to introduce Becker's concept. [n20] Source (26) admittedly is less on point than an article on oligopsony would be, though the general idea remains the same: when more replacements are available than there are positions, positions need not pay what the replacements need to live. Source (27) is merely an example of employers lacking common sense. Any argumentation made in the 3rd argument was simply an extension of the existing argument in response to my opponent's claims, not a new and unrelated concern. I do not need to reserve the right to defend against my opponent's claims in adversity to my original contentions. In fact, he was lucky I was nice enough to reserve anything at all, as there is no bar to me making new contentions otherwise. I melded my response to my opponent's 4th contention into my third response to his argument, to save space. Re: Economic Consensus/Unemployment The PRO case: 1. Bargaining power I have shown that this is warranted. Besides that: I am not wrong in explaining why lower-paid workers do not unionize now. The Industrial Revolution is about as relevant as my opponent's homework syllabus is a reliable citation source (see opponent's last (2)). Regardless of why unions are weak, their weakness remains independent of minimum wage laws and unlikely to change because of the repeal of the minimum wage (my opponent's last source (3) makes it seem less likely). Therefore, unions will not protect low wage workers. Opponent's last (4) and (5) are excerpts of publications that do not seem related to my opponent's arguments. My opponent cites nothing to support greater support for unions occurring with the elimination of the minimum wage. Source (4) is relevant as unemployment benefits are not paid by defunct businesses or in cases of employee termination. I would love to know how many low wage employees actually can afford insurance of any kind, though I have an idea. [n4] My opponent assumes that more employers magically appear when labor becomes cheaper. Not so. Employer bases actually are very static, as they ordinarily use every tool in their disposal to prevent entry into the market. No one would think to do the same thing to employees, outside of a union. Additionally, my prior sources show that labor unions have been losing, not gaining, strength. 2. Cost of Living The natural minimum wage is merely proven to exist in a state of nature under my opponent's source. It is not proven to exist as a valid alternative assuming the same economic policies we otherwise have currently. Smith was careful to limit his determinations to a consideration of the way things are in the aggregate. My opponent did not do this. 3. Civil Unrest My claims here are directly warranted even if Con is right about unionizing. Employee unionizing is a process that directly results in civil unrest. 4. Discrimination This contention is a natural outgrowth of my resolution clarification that we needed to consider the system as it exists without alteration of discrimination laws. There is no surprise in this contention. Where my opponent brings up a contention that will not work in the real world because of those factors I mentioned in the very first round, I must address it. My opponent may feel free to respond in the next round, now that he realizes he needs to. 5. Poverty The jobs its elimination would create would necessarily pay below the minimum wage. The minimum wage is based on a determination of what a person needs to just skate by, and can be adjusted up or down by inflation/deflation. So my opponent has claimed that he supports the creation of jobs that would not pay enough to live off of. I'm right to say that out of work employees would be better off on welfare. The Con case: 1. Aggravating the Business Cycle I do not claim that an ever changing workforce makes employment non-deflationary. I claim that an ever-replenishing workforce makes employment non-deflationary. I will have to go into detail on this in the next round, as work prevents me from responding in detail this week. 2. The Minimum Wage Trilemma (2) My opponent's goal is people working. My goal is to deal with a more direct concern: people revolting. If we could augment low wages with welfare, we could eliminate the minimum wage (provided the welfare brought wages up to the cost of living). But we can't change the welfare system, as per the resolution, so we can't eliminate the minimum wage. (3) My opponent fails to address my ‘large tangent. ' 3. Economist Consensus I believe it was opponent's 14, not 15, which I originally intended to cite. Strangely, it no longer works. There was an article from the economist that basically concluded that the minimum wage was okay. It now appears to be missing. 4. Unemployment … I mentioned in part 3 of my counter-argument against my opponent's argument. [n16] . http://books.google.com... [n18] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [n20] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [n4] . http://www.kotatv.com...