On the compulsory minimum wage

It is understood that my link (14) in Round 2 stopped working mid-debate. I believe [n14] works. It is the same article. RE: Sourcing Abuse I titled the section as abuse when I first clicked on a source and it asked me for $36 and when I saw that my opponent sourced an entire book, rather than a selection. The rest of it was just sourcing criticism. While source (2) shows properties of minimum wage jobs, it shows no information regarding unions, as my opponent had claimed in both Rounds 2 and 3. Source (3) showed a statistic of 20%, which my opponent had implied was much higher. He exaggerates it in his argument and then sources something that says something entirely different. Source (6) still does not claim that only light industries are affected by antitrust laws, as my opponent had claimed. Source (7a) is still entire book that my opponent sourced. He still has not pointed to the selection of the book that he was referring to. Source (7b) does neither what my opponent claims in Round 2 nor Round 3. It makes no mention of that book and does not verify his R2 claim. Source (9) still does not claim what my opponent said it did in R2, and still endorses the minimum wage's harmful effects on the business cycle. Source (10) is still irrelevant to my opponent's original claim because even liberal estimates place the minimum cost of living at much less than $40,000 [1]. My only objection to source (11) was that it made no reference to the minimum wage. Source (12) still doesn't address the psychological effect my opponent implies. My opponent has conceded that his source (13) does not address what he claims. He also concedes that it is weak. I would like to thank my opponent for replacing his source 16 with a valid one. Source (17) is still irrelevant, because the Truck System is illegal (see last round). Source (n18) is simply a saying, and has no weight. Source (n20), Becker's concept, also refutes my opponent's discrimination case, rather than endorsing his claims. My opponent concedes that his source (26) is not on point. Oligopsony and monopsony in labour have a significant difference in their effects (obviously), likelihood [2], and are both only temporary contributors to fluctuations in the business cycle [3]. Source (27) is still irrelevant to the point my opponent implied. PRO: 1. Bargaining power My opponent's case is still not warranted. Besides that: My opponent has not really addressed the "government substitution" argument as to why unions are declining. He only claims that I didn't cite it, which I did. See R2 (4), which directly supports my argument. Government's minimum wage policy has weakened unions and created the oligopsony my opponent thinks the minimum wage is needed to defeat. In the words of Harry Brown: "Government is good at one thing. It knows how to cripple you, hand you a crutch, and then tell you that you couldn't walk without government. " Unemployment benefits are paid by the United States government. My opponent's time-between-jobs argument is still irrelevant because of this. My opponent's argument that cheap labour does not attract new employers is historically false. For example, labour in China is so cheap that a multitude of jobs are created there every year. The oligopsony is coming to an end, however, as evidence by the increasing costs of unskilled labour there [4], contrary to my opponent's economic fallacy. Another example would be India, where industries expand to because of the cheap labour oligopsony [5], resulting in a rise in unskilled labour costs [6]. And again, labour unions are only getting weaker because government bureaucracy is achieving their purpose. 2. Cost of living My opponent has merely repeated himself, this time without sources. I have already refuted this point: the natural minimum wage applies in any capitalist system. 3. Civil Unrest Again, my opponent's argument here is reliant on his first two contentions, which have no legitimate warrant and have been refuted. Also, while Civil Unrest related to Unions can be a legitimate problem, unemployment has also been a significant problem that causes significant unrest, as it has historically [7] [8]. 4. Discrimination Though not required to respond to this contention, I will make a statement: its warrants disprove it. Becker's work, which my opponent sources, claims that those who discriminate will make less because of it [9], which is directly contrary to my opponent's claim. His case here is therefore unwarranted. 5. Poverty My opponent has created another contention in the second-to-last round, which goes against common debate etiquette. However, I shall address it anyways. The welfare costs of the state to supplement an unemployed worker are greater than that to supplement a low-wage worker, and the harmful effects of the former are greater than that of the latter [10]. To the CON case: 1. Aggravating the Business Cycle My opponent here has confused employment with unemployment. At this point, there really is nothing I can do. Anyways, this argument is as good as dropped, because this is the last round, and my opponent did not refute it beforehand. 2. The Minimum Wage Trilemma My opponent has conceded this point entirely. All that remains is to contend his two tangents (which I initially ignored to stay on topic). -The first (2) tangent is based off of the false assumption about the current welfare system. The Welfare program INCLUDES protection of the working poor [11], as well as the unemployment benefits my opponent acknowledges. -The second (3) tangent is an organizational mess; however, the claim that it is reliant on, that cheaper labour does not make the costs of the produce of labour cheaper is fundamentally false [12], especially if the labour cost change is market-wide. 3. Economist Consensus I have located the article from the Economist and have linked to it [n14]. The article claims that the majority of the population believes that the minimum wage is okay, but the bulk of the article says that most economists believe that the general public and even the EPI are wrong. "Where most economists agree is that the higher minimum wage does not do much to relieve poverty. " [n14] The article also claims that the amount of economists that believe the minimum wage has a harmful effect on employment has decreased. This is from the 90% consensus back in 1978 [13], so the majority still agrees that the minimum wage has negative effects. 4. Unemployment My opponent may have made a section about this, but he did not address unemployment in it. Therefore this point is still conceded. Ladies and Gentlemen, the minimum wage eliminates low-paying jobs from the market and intensifies recession. Economists agree that it does not improve the conditions of poor workers, and I have shown why. Under no case is the minimum wage beneficial, so VOTE CON. [n14] . http://tinyurl.com... [1] . http://www.virginia-organizing.org... [2] . http://perso.uclouvain.be... (introduction) [3] . http://www.jstor.org... [4] . http://www.gaebler.com... [5] . http://infotech.indiatimes.com... [6] . http://www.theinquirer.net... [7] . http://www.67riots.rutgers.edu... (which incidentally occurred in a time of a high minimum wage) [8] . http://paper.sznews.com... [9] . http://www.press.uchicago.edu... [10] . http://www.columbia.edu... [11] . http://www.wisegeek.com... [12] The Wealth of Nations, Chapter VI: Of The Component Parts of the Price of Commodities [13] . http://en.wikipedia.org...