On the authoritative minimum wage.

Thank you, Con, for the apology and prompt reply. - - - Con writes that the minimum wage is the ultimate cause of outsourcing. I disagree. Reasons for outsourcing include, but are not limited to: staying focused in its core areas to drive business growth and operational efficiencies; the organization can improve importance and reliability; accelerate business transformation, etc. To assume that outsourcing occurs BECAUSE of the imposed minimum wage is incorrect. Moreover, even without an established MW, it would be cheaper for production and labor costs to outsource jobs, thereby making this contention absolutely irrelevant. Additionally, Con writes, "She also claims that the recession is a reason to be PRO minimum wage, despite its harmful effects on employment," and yet he makes no mention of what those 'harmful effects' might be. Any negative effects he could be referring to are things I have already refuted in R1. He also says that I listed "undocumented workers are an argument to be PRO minimum wage, when in fact, they are not." Again, Con makes this assertion and yet offers nothing to back it up. My argument is that without an established MW, an employer could simply hire an undocumented worker to work for less money than a tax paying citizen. Con has yet to refute this notion that is rooted entirely in common sense. Re: Contentions 1A) Inflation --> Con states that an increased cost of labor will lead to price inflation. Well first, the value of the item is determined largely in part by the market. How much the consumers are willing to spend on a particular product is paramount in determining cost. Second, what is the point of low priced items when people aren't making enough money to buy them? If consumers stop buying goods and services, it is only another factor that leads to price inflation, so you're screwed either way. Again, nobody is suggesting that you over-pay low skilled employees for their dime a dozen labor. Instead, what advocates for a minimum wage want is an established base pay that would barely help impoverished citizens get by. Those making minimum wage still live WAY below the poverty level. Finally on this issue, who is to say that the value of one's labor would be LESS than the minimum wage? Say the minimum wage was set to $5, but (by some miracle) it was determined that the value of the labor was actually worth $6. The employer would then have to pay $6, and in that case, wouldn't more expensive labor lead to price inflation by your logic? 1B) Abuse of the Labor Market --> Con says that my argument regarding abuse of the labor market is rooted in a logical fallacy; however, I see no "fallacy" here. Either my opponent is misusing the term, or he has failed to make an adequate point. He says that workers are paid less when there is a greater supply (of laborers) than demand. That's true. He also notes that in a recession (when unemployment rates are high), or in a situation where there are many immigrants who are willing to work for very low pay, there ARE, in fact, a greater number of workers (supply) than demand. Therefore, employers have the power to abuse the workforce by offering low wages and getting away with it, because there will always be people willing to work. In other words, I have used my opponent's own logic and argument against him. My opponent also notes that cheaper labor = business expansion. In other words, new employment opportunities and an increase in the value of labor. This is not necessarily true if the supply of workers still exceeds the demand. Plus, all this does is increase a gap in the standard of living: the rich get richer while the poor get poorer (because more business = greater profit for those at the top; their wealth increases and so do the value of goods - because they can afford to buy more - which decreases the value of labor for consumers who can't keep up and afford things). 2) Fear Mongering for Laborers --> Con suggests that employees would not bid their labor down without the existence of a minimum wage. Using common sense alone, we can see that this is blatantly false. If there is 1 job available and 5 people willing to work for it, an employee is going to lower their wage standard for a competitive edge at getting the job. We see this happen every single day in instances where the minimum wage is not even a factor. For example, someone right out of college might be willing to work the same job as someone 20 years their senior, but for $20,000 less (salary) a year. Thus we have the Human Resource issue in the labor field of management letting go of more experienced employees for the sake at keeping costs (labor) down. All this does is deplete the value of the job, and put people out of work. 3A) Con writes, "eliminating the minimum wage will not destroy any more jobs than it creates. In fact, it will create jobs formerly outlawed." I have no idea what you are talking about here, Con, so please expand on this issue... 3B) Demand --> Con says, "My opponent claims that price inflation occurs when there is less demand." Not usually, but sometimes, yes, it does. Low demand means less consumer spending. How else will a company make up for their losses without increasing the price? And even if they didn't, they'd suffer a loss which would leave them less money to invest (expand business) and less money to pay their employees. Without an established minimum wage, a company could decide to drastically reduce employee compensation and therefore hurt a vast amount of people simply because their business/product took a plunge. That leaves the market entirely responsible for wage compensation which is unfair. It's too risky for an employee, and doesn't offer them any basic protection from getting screwed by their employer. 3C) Considering the logic I used in Point B (explaining the rise in the cost of goods), it's understandable as to why my Point C stands. I said that a country that could offer the same goods for a lower cost would prosper and take business away. Con didn't refute this at all and instead called it "silly" even though it makes perfect sense. 4) First off, I didn't repeat myself with any of my points; my opponent apparently did not read carefully enough. That said, I have already refuted why making small business more "practical" i.e. manipulating cheap labor is not necessarily good for the economy. His only argument revolves around the fact that cheaper labor = more jobs. This is not necessarily true! A business may choose to invest in their products and development rather than expansion. 5A) Con concedes that higher wages would help the economy, but then says that a minimum wage would only cut jobs. Please see R1, Contention 1A for where I have already proven this logic incorrect. Moreover, Con states, "My opponent claims that some Fiscal Policy Institute has defended the minimum wage. However, there are many such institutes and her source is unverified." I don't know what Con wants here -- I mentioned a direct quote AND linked a verifiable source. 5B) I never said that Jared Bernstein was nonpartisan, nor is that entirely relevant. All Con's link did was praise my very own source. 5C) David Card and Alan Krueger studied minimum wage in NJ; They found little or no impact on employment. Additionally, economist Robert Solow, an MIT Nobel Laureate, wrote in a New York Times article that the "main thing about the research is that the evidence of the job loss is weak, and the fact that the evidence is weak suggests the impact on jobs is small" [1]. In other words, there ARE many economists who support the minimum wage and entirely disagree with and disprove Con's points. Conclusion: Con says, "A minimum wage is illogical from the arguments above stated and from the still unrefuted truth in the first round." Please shed light upon that "unrefuted truth," Con. Sources: [1] http://www.policyalmanac.org...