Minimum Wage Laws Harm the Poor

It seems to me that my opponent is still confusing the issue. The question of whether an increase in the minimum wage would help the poor is very different from the question of whether or not the poor would be better off if there were no minimum wage in the first place. My opponent appears to be arguing an issue that is not the topic of this debate. Aside from this false premise though, my opponent"s numbers are seriously flawed. First, his math is wrong, because he calculates the increase in income before accounting for a decrease in employment. Even using my opponent"s numbers, the total gain should come out to $25 million per hour, not $26 million. (Because 500,000 should be subtracted from 15.5 million before it is multiplied by two. 15.5-.5= 15 15*2=30 30-5=25) Also, the $30 million number does not account for inflation. According to studies I have cited previously, every 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to an approximately 4% increase in price level. Increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour is a $2.85 or 39.3% increase which will lead to a roughly 15.7% increase in price level. This means that the real benefit to poor workers, even using my opponent"s numbers is only $21.075 million per hour. But the real problem with my opponent"s argument is not mathematical errors, but that his numbers are wrong. My opponent says "Let's assume that the people with the 10% lowest wages will have their wages increased by $2/hr on average." The problem is that there is no reason to make this assumption. Barely more than 1% of workers earn the federal minimum wage. There is no evidence to suggest that the number of workers earning close to the minimum wage would bring the total number anywhere near 10%. The CBO report is NOT reliable, it is just the best source we have. While the CBO report does estimate that approximately 10.7% of workers work for less than $10.10 per hour, it fails to account for raises that would have occurred if the minimum wage had not been raised. (The CBO report actually acknowledges this flaw in a note on page 24) This is a very significant flaw to the CBO"s estimates, as TWO THIRDS OF MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS RECEIVE A WAGE WITHIN ONE YEAR. [1] (This is because most minimum wage jobs are learning wage positions) The subject of poverty rates, that my opponent references are misleading. This is because "poverty" in the United States is defined by an arbitrarily chosen "poverty line", which includes many people who are not very poor. 80% of people below this poverty line have air conditioning. The average "poor" person in the United States has more living space than the average European. Not the average poor European, the AVERAGE European. The point is that there is a large range in wealth among the people described as "poor". [2] Minimum wage laws have the effect of aiding the wealthier (higher skilled) poor, but hurting the truly poor, who have very few marketable skills. Rebuttals Breaking the limbs of poor people should not be construed as charitable, even if they happen to receive insurance money as a result of it. Similarly, raising the minimum wage should not be construed as a boon to the poor, even if it results in more welfare benefits for some people. If the goal is to increase welfare payments, welfare should be increased, not the minimum wage. Conclusion My opponent greatly exaggerates the benefits, but essentially, he is correct that an increase in the minimum could help the poor. However, this is irrelevant to the question of whether having a minimum wage law in the first place is beneficial to the poor. Due to increases in unemployment and price level, minimum wage laws harm the poor. Small increases are different because when minimum wage laws are in place, they create a malformed labor system. Thank you, please vote pro. [1]http://www.heritage.org... [2] http://townhall.com...