Abolishing the minimum wage will not reduce unemployment

You state that removing the minimum wage will lead to some kind of race to the bottom, which has not occurred without it. This would require minimum wage earners to be a significant phenomena no? No confusion necessary. I have stated that hiring is based on expectations on what will be produced. " As for judging the production, one does not reward a position by what they think the person can produce, but rather by what they expect the position will produce." Is a straw man. (Incidentally, specific rewards can be altered after the fact when it becomes clearer just how much is produced. Wise employers, when not prevented by state-sponsored unions, contract to tie pay to performance). The "position's" expectations as opposed to the individuals are irrelevant. Individual ability determines what sort of position they will pursue. Football teams produce entertainment, a good like any other, measurable in how much fans spend on games, how many watch advertisements, purchase memoribilia. They run according to the same economic laws as anyone else. Human labor producing "surplus value" is DEPENDENT upon the fact of human exchange. Without human exchange there can be no division of labor, without division of labor we remain in the stone age. Since the "distribution of wage positions" is decided based on what will likely cause labor to produce the most value at the least cost, my opponent concedes that it is not zero sum in stating that labor producing more capital is an exception to the zero sum "rule." My opponent presents a straw man in stating that I hold it is better for more hours to be worked in exchange for the same number of commodities. I stated the more hours part. Obviously this tends to imply more commodities. By definition, the passing of laws is not voluntary. More people being permitted to work is not equally voluntary as laws forbidding people from working (which is what minimum wage laws are in effect-- they banish the lowest tier from consideration for employment). The invisible hand is a worker's judgment as to which course of action will get him the most value. Calling it a "weapon" is a misnomer. It does not follow from the fact that an employer benefits from society to call profits a "fruit of society." It is a fruit of cooperation between employer and employee. It will not be "withheld" when an employer does not act, it will simply not exist unless both parties consent. There will be nothing to withhold. Everyone has ideas, but very few of them have ideas that work. Ideas are not homogenous. Neither is labour. The statement that the employer and others like them are the fount of the modern world is not an "assumption," it is based on the fact that if they weren't, the products of such a world would be purchased more cheaply from someone else. The employer commits a special form of labour in producing ideas that do work. Wealth does not automatically pass through progeny. Inheritance is an expenditure for affections, it can be withdrawn when those affections are no longer wanted or found insufficient (frankly I advise the wealthy to stop wanting it. Stating that there is no difference between employer and employee other than "who owns the wealth" is nonsensical. Wealth does not spring forth from the head of Zeus. The employer had to do something that the employee did not in order to get that wealth (If it is inherited, the one who originally held the wealth did, it is they who are relevant. Heirs are essentially just another form of employee, a rather worthless one I'd say, but I am not every employer, others may have different psychological needs to continue their acts of production). Again, my R1 source, which has no motive to mislead since it would be inspected and debunked if it had, stated that over half of minimum wage earners are under 23, i.e. entry level. "Over half" is highly relevant. The scientific method does not produce results in economics that go against the free market, because it produces no results. It has never been used. I provided my reasoning for dismissing the study you linked, it did not include "It disagrees with me." Stating "This can be seen by Con's quick dismissal of the study on minimum wage I have provided not because it is wrong, but because it conflicts with what he already believes." is a disgusting mix of ad hominem and straw man. When empirical studies do not follow the scientific method (It's steps can be found here: http://www.sciencebuddies.org... Note that no experiment occurred in the source linked by my opponent.). No "empirical study" has ever lived up to the scientific method in economics, none ever can. If you wish to abandon the trail that seems to have begun around your R2 response of discussing side issues, I suppose that's all right :). " Finally, my argument on wages actually increasing employment still stands." No, it does not. You have not addressed my rebuttal to it I so far attached. Perhaps I should clarify-- Artificial increases in the money supply cannot be sustained. They must eventually contract. This causes recessions, which cause unemployment essentially proportional to the employment of the boom, plus frictional costs which also reduce employment for some time, which leads to an average loss of employment over the period. If we follow my opponent's argument that employers actually as a primary effect pay workers more when minimum wages occur (instead of just cutting out on workers they would otherwise pay less than it), this means that overall and specifically for the course of the next recession, since more has to be borrowed in one sense or another to fund the increased payment, unemployment would be reduced by not having the minimum wage. If we don't, then unemployment is reduced by not having the minimum wage across multiple time spans. It should also be noted that minimum wages still are not automatically paid by employers. Since a higher minimum wage means employers must have higher standards for their employees to justify it, this means fewer hires occur initially, and thus fewer wages are paid, and thus the purchasing power increase which is supposed by your argument to cause further employment never occurs overall. The sole standards of conduct for anyone's reference on DDO can be found here (the strong contractual ones): http://www.debate.org... and here (advisory ones): http://www.debate.org...