Minimum Wage

My opponent made a number of different points. I will try to address them all here. Does the State Have a Duty to Reduce Poverty Through the Minimum Wage? This is a question of both morality and practicality. I believe that, in both cases, the answer is no. The state does not have a duty to try to reduce poverty. First, we must realize that the state enforces all of its rules violently. Since we are talking about the minimum wage, let us again recognize what the minimum wage is. The minimum wage is the State saying that workers cannot agree sell their labor below a certain point, set by the state, or they and the wage payer who agrees to pay them this wage will be thrown into jail. If they resist jail, they will eventually be shot and killed. By definition, a minimum wage is enforced violently. So, I certainly don't agree that the government has a "duty" to reduce poverty. Because, the only way the government can reduce poverty is through violence. Now, practically speaking, the minimum wage does not reduce poverty. The reason for this is that the minimum wage has the effect of raising unemployment, which increases poverty. This is a point I will get more into in later points. The Minimum Wage Increases UnemploymentIn my last argument, I used a hypothetical story to illustrate how a minimum wage would increase unemployment, by creating a surplus in labor: "So, let me offer up a hypothetical story. Let's say that a minimum price were to be set on all goods. This price could be $7.25 (which happens to be the minimum wage in America). Now, this would not affect some goods, like computers, cars, and houses, which are priced well above $7.25. However, this would affect other goods like candy, small toys, and certain foods, that are priced well below $7.25. Now, these goods would have a substantial surplus at first, as not many people would buy things that are typically priced below $7.25 for $7.25. Eventually, these goods would almost entirely dissapear from stores, as producers would not produce goods that could not sell. Now, think about this in the context of labor. If workers cannot sell their labor below a certain price, a lot of firms will not buy their labor at all. If a worker's labor is worth $2, then a firm will not buy their labor for $7.25. This means that there will be a major surplus on the labor market, as many low skilled workers will not be able to sell their labor at all. "My point here was that the minimum wage is like creating a minimum price for all goods. This would create a surplus of cheap goods, as consumers don't want to buy cheap things for $7.25, which is what the American minimum wage is. The labor market, as I explained, is just like any other market, so a minimum wage is a minimum price on labor. Therefore, it would have the same effects. That is, creating a surplus for low wage workers which would increase unemployment. This is a pretty simple and logical matter. My opponent does not really offer a response to this. He does go off about "machines" and "labor exploitation" in the third world. He does not explain how either of these things relate to the minimum wage affect on employment. My opponent's main response is his citing of an essay claiming that the minimum wage does not increase unemployment. This essay's main point is that the UK raised the minimum wage and unemployment did not increase. This is hardly enough evidence to base a conclusion on. The economy is affected by numerous complex factors, the minimum wage is only one of these factors. This essay does not offer much of support for its conclusion in the first place. One point it makes is that firms could afford to pay their workers more. This is an irrelevant point. Most workers could also afford to work for less, but they don't. The wage is what the worker agrees to sell his or her labor to the firm for. That is all. Now, if a worker is working for $7 an hour, and the minimum wage is raised to $7.25 an hour, it is likely that this work will simply see a slight pay raise. However, a worker working for $3 an hour would probably get laid off. Furthermore, even slight increases in the minimum wage lead to less hiring by firms. Economics is all about the "margin". A 0.10$ increase in the minimum wage won't increase unemployment much in the short term, but it will lead to slightly less hirings in the long run. However, a $2 increase in the minimum wage would have a noticable short term impact and a fairly severe long term impact on employment. ConclusionI thank my opponent for this debate. I would also note that the fact that I have not used any sources does not give my opponent the victory in sources. I have used logic over empirics in this debate, as I feel that logic alone can show how bad a policy the minimum wage is. Therefore, no sources have been necessary. My opponent has responded to a number of my points by simply citing studies. I ask that, in the final round, my opponent also looks at the logical arguments of this question. I also believe that I have won this debate. I have shown that the minimum wage does not increase standard of living or reduce poverty, as it actually does the opposite by increasing unemployment. To add to that, I have also shown that the minimum wage increases unemployment. I have shown that the state does not have a moral obligation to reduce poverty through the minimum wage. Part of this is because the minimum wage actually increases poverty, but also because the minimum wage is enforced violently, by definition. Saying that the state has a moral duty to reduce poverty through the minimum wage is like saying that the state has a moral duty to violently enforce a policy that actually ends up increasing poverty. Finally, my opponent ddid forfeit a round. Unless he had a good reason for this, this should give me conduct. The resolution has been negated, as I have shown how harmful the minimum wage is.