On the compulsory minimum wage

First, I would like to address my opponent's sourcing abuse. My opponent has posted over 4000 characters worth of sources in the comment section. I would like to ask that he doesn't do that in future rounds. Even disregarding this, his sources are abusive and unreliable: My opponent's source [2] makes no reference to unions as he claims. My opponent's source [3] claims a much lesser punishment for union members than he claims it does. My opponent's source [6] does not say as he claims; rather, it only details 2 industries and how the antitrust laws affect them. My opponent's source [7a] is an entire lengthy book. He sources it, but does not tell me what paragraph, page etc. , he is referring to. His source [7b] requires $36.00 to read. Going on: My opponent's source [9] does not say as he claims; rather, it supports my first contention. His [10] concerns the general population, not those making less than necessary to subsist, as he claims. His [11] makes no reference to the minimum wage, as he implies. [12] also does not say what he claims it does. His source [13] uses unfounded statistics and also does not claim what my opponent says it does. Source [16] is perhaps worse as a source than Answers. com. Source [17] does not address what he claims it does. Further, the "Truck System" has been illegal for over 500 years [1]. And still continued: Source [18] doesn't work. Source [20] (or at least the free-to-view portion of it) does not say what my opponent claims it does and actually refutes his contention). Source [26] refers to monopsony, not my opponent's claim, and even begins by stating that monopsony is "very rare". Source [27] does not refer to wages, but of improper lay-off methods. It does not address what my opponent claims that it does. Second, my opponent introduces a new contention at the end of his 3rd argument. Further, the right to add this contention was not reserved in his opening round. Third, I would like to point out that my opponent has dropped my 4th contention. The PRO case: 1. Bargaining power Most of my opponent's claims here are unwarranted, as shown above. Besides that: My opponent is wrong in explaining why lower-paid workers usually do not unionize. During the Industrial Revolution, low-paid workers with no skills were actually some of the FIRST to unionize [2]. My opponent's case also confuses cause and effect. It is not that unions don't protect low-wage workers; it is that unions increase the wages of workers to the point where they are no longer low-wage. Currently, unions are weaker for a large number of reasons [3]. Perhaps the greatest of these reasons is "government substitution", which means that the government is now completing the purposes of the trade union [4] [5]. With the fall of the compulsory minimum wage, the influence of labour unions will increase as there will be a greater need for them to protect the worker, whereas now there is no such need. My opponent's source [4] is currently irrelevant as unemployment benefits and insurance are sufficient to subsist unemployed workers in the short term between jobs [6]. Antitrust laws do promote competition for labour by preventing employer-side labour monopsonies [7]. Oligopsony in the unskilled labour fields naturally evens itself out also, because the lower wages in a field become, the higher the number of willing employers [8]. Just as there is no static employee base, there is no static employer base either. In this way, oligopsony naturally eliminates itself from a free market. Along with this, the growth of the power of labour monopolies (trade unions) would naturally increase wages and benefits for unskilled workers, just as they did in the Industrial Revolution. Again, my opponent's sources do not truly even back his claims. 2. Cost of Living All of my opponent's sources here do not verify his claims (see above). My opponent's arguments of employee desperation are also negated because of the bargaining power contention. Regarding the natural minimum wage, it is justified by Adam Smith, just as I had sourced. In the comments section, my opponent tried to rebut that source by claiming that the natural minimum wage is eliminated with the accumulation of stock and land. My opponent had clearly just skimmed the beginning of my source. The natural minimum wage is not dissolved with the accumulation of stock and private land [9]. The existence of the natural minimum wage makes the compulsory minimum wage unnecessary for this purpose. 3. Civil Unrest Again, none of my opponent's claims here are truly warranted. 4. Discrimination Because this contention is entirely new, disregard it. 5. Poverty My opponent has not warranted how the minimum wage prevents poverty. Again, it creates unemployment (my opponent has conceded this), which causes individuals to be worse off than before. Now, for the CON case: 1. Aggravating the Business Cycle My opponent does not address my case. His only point against it is that an ever-changing workforce makes unemployment non-deflationary, which is false logic. The Deflationary Spiral [10] and the Phillip's Curve [11] [12] both support my case. 2. The Minimum Wage Trilemma (1) My opponent concedes that the minimum wage has no effect in this situation. (2) My opponent again argues that it is better to have people unemployed than employed on a low-paying job. I believe anyone can see the fallacy here. Long term unemployment is a major cause of poverty [13]. (3) My opponent does not address my point; instead, he goes off on a large tangent. 3. Economist Consensus My opponent claims that my sources actually endorse his case. He does not warrant this claim. Even my 2nd Round [15] doesn't make any mention of what he says it does. For these reasons, my opponent's claims about my sources should be disregarded. 4. Unemployment My opponent does not address my unemployment contention directly at all. Therefore, he concedes it. My opponent concedes that the minimum wage contributes to unemployment and eliminates jobs of poor and unskilled workers, who will then have to compete with more skilled workers for higher paying jobs. These individuals are most likely to end up with long term unemployment and the result of long term unemployment is poverty. As my opponent has claimed, poverty causes health and criminal concerns. So, you must negate. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://chavez.cde.ca.gov... [3] . http://economics.about.com... [4] . http://www.springerlink.com... [5] . http://www.questia.com... [6] . http://www.nelp.org... [7] . http://legalcatch.wordpress.com... [8] The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X [9] The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter VIII [10] . http://www.investorwords.com... [11] . http://library.thinkquest.org... [12] . http://www.econlib.org... [13] . http://www.econlib.org...