The Government Should Eliminate the Minimum Wage

Thanks to my opponent for an enjoyable debate. BOP My opponent concedes his considerable BOP. Thank you!Economic Theories I touched on Austrian economics in particular because it is pseudo-science in this case. I do not reject the classical part of my opponents case, which I refuted elsewhere. That does not mean his statistics are valid: how is it possible that my opponent rejects stats and suddenly uses them at his convenience? This is a flaw in logic. Either his and my stats are legit, or they're both not. My opponent goes off on a straw man talking about chaos theory. I understand that the model and stats are not an exact science, all I wanted was for the mainstream theories to be utilized, and I have yet to see a case in which my opponent refuted my original premise here. Thus, my opponent concedes to the fact that Austrian economics is a pseudo-science. SourcesI don't have to prove all think-tanks are biased because that is not what I claimed. I simply claimed the tanks he uses were. The research is designed to see what it wants to see (Austrian economics) not what we actually observe in the economy, which is why I took issue with his sources. His studies he uses are not reliable and anyone can open one up. In fact I showed how easy it was with my Ron Paul example. As for Wiki, ....global warming? Really? I already showed it has a service to correct its self, and that I was only using it because it had more than one source in it. PS, majority of climatologists agree that global warming is in fact real .. so no, wiki isn't showing a bias, it's showing the truth to be brutally blunt. [http://www.usnews.com...] I only asked for a Meta-analysis with a t-score of 95%, to which my opponent has yet to produce. Which is why I believe my Meta-analysis stands (see round 2), it shows that it is statistically significant, and that other publications failed to be representative of the economy. And in this case, my opponent is simply moving the goal posts on me. He rejects my Meta-analysis and demands more, but I don't have to give more, I already have shown a general consensus on the issue. It was his turn, to which he never sent one back showing the opposite. Finally, in this round audience I would like to note, on his criticism against C&K studies he cites the Employment Policies Institute, a well known conservative think tank openly bias about free-markets, and crushing the minimum wage. They're actually paid off by restaurants to peddle this information to make it look crippling to restaurants when in fact it is not. Although I hate MSNBC (biased true) they did do a nice peace on how bad that think tank is (see video for additional info) And while they did use telephone data, there is no difference getting numbers over the phone, over talking in person. In fact his papers critique claims "they didn't look at payroll records", however that doesn't indicate if MW caused a job loss. What if an employee was simply fired? Payroll records' numbers would not be able to differentiate those terminated for silliness versus those terminated due to minimum wage increases. Finally, how many restaurants did that paper call? Mine called 410 restaurants, and did it in 2 "waves" to confirm the data on random dates with the same places. They were the same [http://davidcard.berkeley.edu... pg 774-775]. In short, there was nothing wrong with the study. The critique is simply misleading. Broken Window FallacyFirst of all my opponent never challenged the fact that only 6% of the workforce makes MW wages. Thus claiming hiking the wages will harm the rich is simply wrong, not a lot of people make MW in the first place, so this harm would be very small and it comes from businesses not the wealthy's salaries. Second of all, they might invest, but they also simply save like crazy. That money being saved is "dead" money. It does nothing but accumulate interest. If you have everything you want, why are you going to needlessly spend your money? MW does not take this potential away because the number of people on MW is so small, and because it hits businesses not wealthy individuals. Finally, let's suppose someone who isn't rich, in the worst case scenario (to illustrate the absurdity of the broken window) MW forces redistribution. Say my opponent makes 300k a year. The government steps in and takes away 2/3rds of it, and distributes it to all the poor. My opponent might not like losing his money, but he still has 100k/year to live on. A pretty good living. Whereas the poor would have a better quality of life, the rich continue theirs. This whole thing is absurd, and again in economics the window only works based on the position of the individual relative to the economic situation he is in. The poor now have the potential to spend, the rich simply save. Which is what my opponent is overlooking. Thought experiment. Say a loaf of bread was 1$. Would a rich man buying a Ferrari for 1 million make more economic activity than 1 million people buying a loaf of bread? My opponent wants you to believe with the window fallacy this is true, but it simply isn't when we make the analogy more pragmatic. Clearly the one million people make more economic activity. Potential unused by the wealthy is given to the poor to utilize, which is what the broken window cannot account for. Thought Experiments The MW does in fact allow for internships. " The National Association of Colleges and Employers found that 55 percent of the class of 2012 had an internship or co-op during their time in college. Almost half of those — 47 percent — were unpaid." -- http://www.washingtonpost.com... while some are illegal, NOT ALL are illegal. They still continue today. My opponent never answered my question. A signal of a won debate. He simply cannot tell us how many jobs would be created because he does not know. However, I provided proof that increasing MW causes about .5-.8% increase in jobs. In short, if we abolish the MW, and not know how many jobs will be made we undermine minorities and women, while implementing a reckless policy. At least increasing MW we know will create jobs, so why get rid of it? Labour Force Participation My opponent concedes his study is flawed. Labour Force Participation does increase with increases in MW according to the OECD. Unemployment Effects Because of the structure of the debate, and my opponent was nice enough to ask, I will not refute. I shall however direct to the previous rounds (t-score statements) for those interested. Look for statistical significance, as I had mentioned for reliable studies. If it does not have one, be sceptical. And my thought experiments too. ConclusionMW does not kill jobs. Only 6% of the workforce actually makes MW. My opponent never challenges this, nor does he challenge that losing it would undermine minorities and women. I showed that MW increase employment, income mobility, and reduces other issues within society. Now perhaps you think it might be lower, that might be fair, or perhaps you think it might be higher, sure. But my opponent has massive BOP to abolishing the MW entirely, and I do not think he met it satisfactorily do you? We still have no idea how many jobs would be created under his plan. But we do with mine. Audience, I ask that you consider giving me:sources (as noted earlier)arguments (we have no idea how many jobs he creates)and finally, conduct (previous rounds) Thank you for the lovely debate. So long! I wish my opponent the best of luck in his future!!