Minimum Wage

I shall address my opponent's arguments before extending my own:Eventually, these goods would almost entirely dissapear from stores, as producers would not produce goods that could not sell. Meaning many low skilled workers will not be able to sell their labor at all.This creates an decrease in employment, as this is what happens when workers cannot find work. This decrease in employment is a major drag on total utility and production in society. Governments have a duty to reduce poverty and so to raise the standard of living of all households. There is an absolute minimum quality of life, below which families should not fall. A minimum wage that had no effect on employment would be unnecessary, especially as the wage rate is not necessarily the main consideration of employers when hiring workers. I shall say this again, "I will refer to an October 1999 report from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) who gave qualified support to the National Minimum Wage. Key points from their study included that "Not much evidence of a significant impact on employment or unemployment" and "No noticeable blip upwards in average earnings"."[1]With regards to the problem of price changes of cheap goods, this is false. These price changes are so small they are negligible. With the incredibly cheap products, most of the things made are created by automatons. Let me give an example: LEGO. LEGO is done ENTIRELY by automatons in the manufacture process.[2] The price rise of cheap objects is negligible. On top of that, I will now address the moral issue of lack of minimum wage:"All this means that in the vast majority of cases, the Nike presence is the very foundation of the community's well-being. That means that if we close the Sweatshop™, the community's economy, and any other benefits provided by our services, will be destroyed. So again, the people have no choice but to work at Nike for the wages that we determine!"Or, to paraphrase, people, once large businesses are set up in areas without adequate governmental protection, people are paid terribly and treated inhumanely. We have to recognise that people live outside the 1st world countries, and in places like India, many are exploited for cheap labour, and is still done. Areas without minimum wage are crippled by big business, and an essential to any liberal community, one that is promoting the freedom of individuals, should back a minimum wage.rebuttals to rebuttals:"A minimmum wage only keeps low skilled workers that would be willing to enter the labour force out of the labour force, as it keeps low skilled workers from getting work in the first place". I do not understand this point, can I have some clarity on it? Are you saying that minimum wage keeps people from getting paid less? Or that it stops people who would work below the minimum wage getting a job because there is no market? If the latter, I would definitely like an elaboration on this.The government has an obligation to maintain a minimum standard of livingI can see how this could be a conflict of ethos, but I think we can make this argument into a syllogism (I am British):(P1) The government wishes to maintain a high standard of living(P2) The government has put this in their manifesto.(L1) Therefore, the government has an obligation to fulfil this mandate.(P3) National Minimum Wage has been established as a way of doing this.(C1) The Government has an obligation to enact a national minimum wage.(Now, I will argue this ignoring Section 19 point 6 of the coaliton manifesto[3])Part 19 on Jobs specifically states:" The Government believes that we need to encourageresponsibilityandfairnessinthe welfaresystem.Thatmeansprovidinghelpfor thosewhocannotwork,trainingandtargeted supportforthoselookingforwork,but sanctionsforthosewhoturndownreasonable ofersofworkortraining." [4] Also, the conservative manifesto states:"To ﬁght social injustice and help the most disadvantaged by building a strong society. The test of a strong and just society is how it looks after the least advantaged – but this duty is not reserved for the state alone. It is a shared responsibility: we are all in this together. " [5] This means, very clearly, Premise 1 and 2 is true. Now, a government also clearly has an obligation to do what it says it will do. To not do so is lying, and when a government does not do this, huge backlashes go against them[6]Now, does National Minimum wage raise unemployment?[7][8][9][10][11][12] (and yes, I am quote mining slightly, purely to illustrate my point) "To sum up, the evidence for the UK presented in this paper indicates that the effect ofthe introduction of the minimum wage on the probability of employment isinsignificantly different from zero for all four demographic groups and in all threedatasets used." - Source 12, conclusion. (University of Warwick, Mark B Stewart). It is undeniable that minimum wage does not lower unemployment; Source 9 expresses why it raises employment, talking specifically amount monopsony (Why Does an Increase in the Minimum Wage not Cause Unemployment? is the title of the essay. http://econ.economicshelp.org...)Therefore, it is clear that we should raise minimum wage.My opponent says that state benefits would cost with a minimum wage. The opposite is true, as the minimum wage increases unemployment and unemployment increases the cost of state benefits.This is the major point of my opponent's argument, and it is wrong, unfortantely. Classical theory assumes labour markets are competitive, but, in practice workers often face employers with buying power. This means firms are able to pay workers less than the market wage. Therefore, when a government artificially raises wages, firms can actually afford to pay them. It is argued minimum wage legislation is similar to anti trust regulation.I hope my opponent has learnt something from this. I await a response. I also want my opponent specifically to reconcile how the minimum wage increases unemployment, especially regarding the econ.economicshelp essay.Myself, first argument. So what, I am a narcissist? http://www.youtube.com... to around 6:50 (these are rough figures)http://www.toolness.com...;(It is a Horatian Satire website to provoke thought on low wages and sweatshops specifically to show how companies make themselves essential to a community without legislation. http://www.direct.gov.uk...; Ibid, Section 19http://www.conservatives.com...http://www.guardian.co.uk..., right at number 1, Nick Clegg. He abandoned his voters in 2010 as he sold his party to be in the coalition; he raised the tuition fees.(http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...http://www.official-documents.gov.uk...http://econ.economicshelp.org...http://cep.lse.ac.uk...http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk...http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk...) - Regarding employment/minimum wage relation.(Ibid means refer to previous source)