Raising the minimum wage

Let me begin by noting, however, that the voters should disregard what he claims he has listed in the comment section, per DDO protocol, as those are outside the parameters of this debate. Voters should take this into account whilst awarding comment points. I'll begin with R2: He contends that an increase in the minimum wage will not increase worker productivity, comparing workers to children. This is not only an insulting comparison and a non sequitur, but an unsubstantiated assertion. A piece from the Harvard Business Review proves that raising the minimum wage not only reduces employee turnover, thus saving businesses money, but increases productivity. Cascio argues that "Costco"s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs" (1). Also, 1,000 business owners and executives have signed a statement in favor of raising the minimum wage: "[H]igher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation" (2). CON contends that, if a worker wants to be paid more, he will be more productive. However, this is patently false because, as I have already demonstrated, the minimum wage, if adjusted for productivity, would be $21.72 per hour (3). I have already argued that MPL is not the sole determinant of wages because if it were wages would already be higher. In fact, CEO pay relative to pay of the average worker is up to 380 times from 42 times in 1980 (4). Has CEO productivity changed drastically from this period? We can see this disparity in the following chart: And this graph shows us the declining real value of the minimum wage: CON"s statement regarding an increase in the minimum wage, but not the minimum wage itself, creating inflation is obfuscation. He concedes my point that the minimum wage, ipso facto, will not cause out-of-control inflation, and there is already evidence in my opening piece regarding an increase, but he merely states, "I meant an increase, not the policy itself." Again, the study refers to the impact of employers to minimum wage hikes. Let me provide again the last line I quoted: "This suggests that firms respond to minimum wage increases not by reducing production and employment, but by raising prices." CON has misconstrued what my source has said. Note that he has no evidence to balance against this. He claims that I have conceded on inflation, but this is a flat-out distortion. Prices would rise literally by pennies, and plenty of polling suggests that the public ia fully willing to pay this very slight increase (5). If you would like to call this "inflation," so be it, but this is mild by all standards and hardly worthy of a case against a MW hike. Again, if prices were to rise, this means that we"re dealing with a net increase in demand, so CON"s case on employment, again, falls. On the employment front, again, the EPI looked at this and wrote the following (6): "[R]aising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016 would provide an additional $35 billion in wages over the phase-in period to directly and indirectly affected workers, who are likely to then spend that additional income. This projected rise in consumer spending would provide a modest boost to U.S. GDP, even after accounting for the increased labor cost to businesses and the potential for small price increases for consumers...we would expect..[this]..would generate a net increase in economic activity of $22.1 billion over the phase-in period. This additional GDP would support roughly 85,000 new jobs." Then we have a seminal meta-regression analysis looking at 64 studies on the minimum wage, showing that the most precise studies agree that the minimum wage does not hinder job growth. They argue that, as soon as public selection bias is removed from the equation, any negative correlation between minimum wage increases and job growth dissipates (7): Finally, we have a letter from 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Laureates, urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 and index it to inflation, arguing that it would improve the job market, increase the wages of about 28 million workers, and stimulate the economy (8). CON keeps twisting himself into a pretzel to argue against the inflation-unemployment piece. I have already noted that prices will increase, but very slightly. His numbers were not the least bit realistic, as I have demonstrated that (1) price increases will be slight and (2) employers will supply more after demand rises"per the law of supply. CON has not adequately addressed this point. He claims that the price will go up and accused me of dodging economic laws: this is false, as I have already shown that the increase in prices will be incredibly small, and he has provided no evidence to counter this. CON claims that my sources prove his point, but he is flat-out wrong. Not only did the Berkeley study show us that we could increase the minimum wage to $13 an hour with negligible economic effects, but it also shows how employers respond to minimum wage increases and how this policy affects the economy. CON cannot oppose a policy in its inception, and then concede that, down the road, it works. He has provided no evidence for his claim and has not properly refuted my points. Onto Round 3: CON claims I contradicted myself on a modest increase, but this isn't the case: I said that I wasn't defining a 10 cent hike as my working definition of "modest." He again makes the claim about "inflation," but this is flat-out wrong, and he has nothing to balance against my asserion that prices increases, while existent, are miniscule. CON is also wrong on devaluation of the dollar; not only can he not prove that we would devalue the dollar by any measurable amount, but devaluaing the dollar is actually BENEFICIAL to the U.S. economy because it boosts exports, which increases G.D.P. (9). Note that this is an extreme scenario that CON cannot even prove occurs, but even if it did, he cannot connect this to a negative impact on the economy or directly attribute it to the minimum wage. On human nature, he drops the research I provided in Round 1 -- and even evidence in this round -- as to how employers actually responded to minimum wage increases, which is why many of them support minimum wage hikes. His claims on productivity are baseless, and I've provided plenty of evidence in this round, even directly from employers, that a minimum wage increase DOES increase worker productivity, reduce turnover, etc. Pro's analysis on "inflation," which he supposedly got from my studies which tell us that inflation is virtually nonexistant, never mind not a probem in the slightest, is essentially a slippery slope fallacy that propels a self-reinforcing effect of devaluation. Has he proven this? Of course not. If the minimum wage were so high that, by CON's standards, it could cause inflation -- let's, say, $50 an hour -- an reasonable person would oppose it. In fact, that would lead to job losses and cause DEFLATION. I'm not advocating that, and CON provides no evidence at all for his claim. I'm out of characters so I cannot respond to the rest of his arguments regarding employment, but our voters need only to look at the evidence: I've provided several meta studies proving CON's claim factually inaccurate, whllst he has just now provided unsourced arguments. Sources (1)http://tinyurl.com... (2)http://tinyurl.com... (3)http://tinyurl.com... (4)http://tinyurl.com... (5)http://tinyurl.com... (6)http://tinyurl.com... (7)http://tinyurl.com... (8)http://tinyurl.com... (9)http://tinyurl.com...