The minimum wage is a good law

"I find this "ethical" argument to be based on a fallacy. The basis of this argument is that "the employer-employee contract involves no force by either party." I'm arguing that the force isn't necessarily initiated by either party, but by an outside force. This force is often the health of the economy. A minimum wage protects the common laborer from having to work for an unreasonably low amount just because the employer can get away with it." I find this odd, because in any given interaction there are outside factors. If me and my friends want to go for a drive around town, we have to account for the weather, the road conditions, other drivers and pedestrians. In an employer employee situation, the economy may be good or it may be bad, that doesn't change the fact that it is a voluntary contract between consenting adults. David also points out that the minimum wage protects low skilled workers from having to get payed what he deems an unreasonably low amount. But if it's a bad economy, if the price of hiring somebody is greater than what that person is worth the the business then he or she will not be hired. Rather than protect people, this hinders them from finding employment. "This entire argument forgets a major factor with wages. People need a certain amount of money to survive. The cost of living varies from place to place in cities throughout the world. It costs more to live in London, UK than it does to live in Des Moines, USA. It costs roughly $40,000 per year to live in my city, a suburb of the District of Columbia. The national US minimum wage pays roughly 15,000. This means that somebody working two full time minimum wage jobs would only make 75% of what is required. People shouldn't have to pack up and move just because they are low-skilled workers." I would like to emphasize on that last statement. People should be allowed to attempt to live wherever they wish, however that doesn't translate into them being entitled to a certain wage. People should live wherever is best for them. If they can't afford to live in new york or the District of columbia, then they should move. I apologize if that is politically incorrect, but that doesn't seem controversial to me. Don't live where you can't afford it. "If a company cannot afford to pay their workers a reasonable amount, then it doesn't deserve to survive." I believe I may have stated that while larger companies may not go under due to the minimum wage, they may not find it worth it to them to keep on certain low skilled workers. But smaller businesses like the family owned grocery store that I mentioned in the previous argument will be the ones to suffer. "As I have previously stated, an outside force may, and has, coerced people to take employment opportunities that they don't necessarily want. This happens every time that there is a recession in the economy. Yes, the one who is working may realize that what he getting is money so that his family doesn't starve, but he shouldn't be working with the primary motive of keeping himself and his family fed. That should be a side effect of working." In response to the first sentence, sometimes we all have to do things that we don't necessarily want to do. It's called life. As much as I dislike that phrase, it's true, and it doesn't make you entitled to a particular wage. Also, just to be clear when I was talking about a theoretical minimum wage of $15.00/hr, I was just using it as an example. I could have picked any number. Final round next! I'm enjoying this.