The Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

My opponent attempts to pass all burden of proof to me. It is my goal to show the minimum wage does not increase or reduces the consumption of low wage earners; it is his goal to show that it does increase it. Given the debate parameters, it follows that we support abolition if it be proved detrimental but continuance if it be proved beneficial. We both have an equal burden of proof. I. Responses II. Review of Debate III. Final Argument I. _2a). This plainly displays an unfamiliarity with this sort of analysis. I said, IN THE ABSTRACT, that IF all else were equal, THEN certain things follow. The "reputable" Card-Krueger study assumes ceteris paribus conditions IN A REAL LIFE SITUATION. I drop neither of my arguments and note that my opponent has done nothing to address them, instead assuming that a real life scenario can be altered at will as if it were an abstract example (or that neither can, but in that case he needs to concede his cited study is flawed). We also note that he has done nothing to defend the study. It is narrow and its methodology is poor. It also is contradicted by citations I provided which my opponent has ignored. Which studies does he consider more sound and why? b). My opponent stated "we would be annihilating the livelihood of the working class". He did not say ‘could' or ‘might'. It was a false dichotomy. Discretion in employment is retained by both parties; my opponent wrongly claims it resides only with the employer. He sees no problem with his argument, yet I have already given him two and he ignored them. I shall reprint them: "How does he explain the rise in workers' wages in the 19th century in America, long before the minimum wage was enacted? And how can a minimum wage prevent the "annihilat(ion) [of] the livelihood of the working class" in America when only 0.2% of its workers earn the minimum wage?" Wages steadily increased before the minimum wage; even today next to no one earns the minimum wage. How does a minimum wage of (X) explain the vast majority of workers earning (> X)? c). He showed nothing more than that the families were paying more for goods. In other words, he kicked the ball in his own goal. d). "I'll repaste them seeing as they weren't responded to." Is this meant to be taken seriously? Points 1, 3 and 5 are simply restating what we are debating; points 2 and 4 were points I originally made and they don't help his argument, they help mine (see the second paragraph of Pro, section 4 in Round 3; also, see the third paragraph in the same section for a series of questions he ignored); point 6, if he wants to advocate it, is a concession that I am right and he is wrong… another own goal. Does he understand what the "automation of industry" entails? 3a). "I agree; he will choose the more skilled worker. That plays to my advantage." The lower wage worker, you agree, does not get hired. This does not help his consumption. Has my opponent forgotten which side he is on? This is three own goals he scored for me. b). My opponent still has not told us what he thinks of supply and demand. His citation is not a counter to my Kirzner citation. Furthermore, the cited study COMES OUT AGAINST THE MINIMUM WAGE… he linked to a blog article disagreeing with the work. Yao and Jan did not write what he quoted, Lee Hwok Aun did. This is an absolute failure on his part. I'll ask it plainly: does he accept that greater supply drives down price while greater demand drives it up? If he does, how does he explain minimum wage increasing employment, as he contends? If not, he should explain why he believes the entire economics profession is wrong. c). Promotions happen. Someone who has working experience has an advantage over someone who does not. My opponent continues to divide $7 salaries among seven workers for a reason that remains obscure. Does he disagree with either of my first two sentences? If he does, an explanation is required. If he does not, he must concede the point. d). Because my opponent was unable to do a cogent search in the citation provided. II._ It is abundantly clear that my opponent is inexperienced with economics and does not entirely understand my arguments. I do not say this with any more malice than would be in Brian Boitano's suggestion that I am untrained in figure skating. I have explained my position on the Law of Supply and Demand(Pro, Round 2, Paragraph 2); he has not. I have explained what we would expect, prima facie, to occur under a minimum wage law based on my understanding of this(Pro, Rd 2, Pa 3); he cannot. I have examined, in the light of economic incentives, what employers can do in the face of a minimum wage law (Pro, Rd 2, Pa's 6-10); my opponent has not demonstrated any sort of thought along the lines of economic incentives. I have cited around two-score sources backing up my contentions and predictions; his scant citations include a methodologically flawed study (Con, Rd 2, Part 1… Pro, Rd 3, Pa's 4-6) and a blog article of a study which he got exactly backwards (Con, Rd 3, Pt 3b… Pro, Rd 5, Pt I-3b). Also, he failed to respond to a further problem with the study even if it weren't flawed (Pro, Rd 3, Pa 5, last sentence). He fails to see the difference between assumptions made in the abstract and assumptions made in a real life scenario (Con, Rd 3, Pt 2a). He has made arguments which unambiguously support my position (Con, Rd 2, Pt 3; Con, Rd 2, Pt 3, 5th dash point) and another which I argue also supports my position (Con, Rd 2, Pt 3, 2nd and 4th dash points… Pro Rd 3, Pt 4, first two Pa's) and yet has made no attempt to refute this or show how it does indeed help him. He asserts that the minimum wage keeps the working class out of abject poverty (Con, Rd 2, Pt 2), but fails in a meager attempt to demonstrate how (Pro, Rd 5, Pt I.-2b, Pa 2)and fails to respond to two key issues which show that this contention must be false (Pro, Rd 3, third to last Pa). Finally, he states that raising the minimum wage makes workers more productive (an argument I had made for those not laid off, but cast in a different light) but failed to respond to my questions designed to get at the logical conclusion of that statement: "Does he believe that this trend of higher productivity with higher wages can go on forever, or is there a point where productivity maxes out? If there is no max, would my opponent agree to a minimum wage of $3,000,000,000.00/hr? If there is a max, does my opponent believe that all workers, in all industries in all states, are equally distant from it, such that a uniform minimum wage will throw no one over the productivity max?" III._I think it is clear my opponent, far from making his case, has in his best of moments only cobbled together certain elements of a case. I have used theory, fact and study to make a lucid interpretation, one which, as I cited in Round 3, is in keeping with what the majority of economists profess. In this light I will quote the LIBERAL economist Paul Samuelson: "What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2.00 per hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?" (Paul Samuelson, Economics, 9th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), pp. 393–394.) Finally, I raise one last issue. Given that we both agree that raising the minimum wage raises the cost, and therefore the price, of consumer goods, and given that an increase in price will meet a decrease in quantity demanded, must it not be true that, even if a minimum wage did not lead to layoffs – only price increases – the affected industries must shrink and therefore… lay off employees? There are many reasons to oppose a minimum wage. I would oppose it even if it did accomplish its goals. The point of this debate is to determine whether it even meets that standard. I have shown it does not.