Raising the minimum wage hurts the economy

In the order Pro has them:BoP .I'll pass on a source-bomb by proxy. If you've got a study that that you think proves your case, bring it out. Dropping a link to a list of studies gets you nowhere. You might as well link to a google search of "minimum wage bad." If you want to enter source evidence into the debate, you need to explain what it is and how it supports your case. Otherwise we might as well give the whole argument/debate thing a miss and declare wins based on how many sources people can dig up.And while we're on the topic of sources (yes, in the BoP section, I'm aware), any instance of Pro making a claim whose sole support is an unexcerpted link requiring the reader to find the support in the source themselves should be viewed dimly, and when that source is not web-accessible, it should be disregarded entirely. Otherwise debate becomes simply a longwinded version of Pro saying "The resolution is affirmed [X]," Con saying "The resolution is negated [Y]" and the voters deciding on what they already believe as no actual arguments are being offered and the source material can't even be challenged.C1&C2My argument against Pro's contentions was that they depended on finding economic harm to a subgroup of the population, and then using that to make an illegitimate claim of a general economic harm. In order to succeed with his chosen case, Pro needs to succeed in arguing that 1) his chosen subgroups are experiencing harm and 2) that harm is representative of the general economy.Pro's R3 argumentation is lukewarm on 1 and completely fails to accomplish 2. He attempts to make a link through economic theory and brute statistics. However his theory is the idea that when the value of an employee is less than minimum wage they won't be hired. This doesn't support the claim that the overall economy is being harmed. It merely provides a mechanism by which harm could happen. It could equally well be the case that the higher income provided to the workers who were previously under-valued due to weak labor market conditions create a stronger demand thus creating more jobs and helping the economy. Or, It could be the case that employees were largely underpaid due to their weaker bargaining position, and thus Pro's hypothetical worker was really worth $10 dollars but only being paid $5 because of a lack of opportunities. The minimum wage would raise the worker's pay yet still allow the company to gain value.All the hypotheses are possible. However, on their own they can't sustain a claim of what's actually happening in the economy. For that we need to look at the studies, the data, the statistics. As we do that, we must be sure that we do so correctly. This is where we see Pro's claim of a statistical link fall apart. It starts with Pro's argument that my claim of most workers not being teenagers "is not the case, as 27%, a large chunk, are teenagers" and it goes downhill from there. Next up is Pro's attempt to gain relevance for his subgroups through comparison to polling practices. Pro argues that since pollsters can survey a small sample of a population and make inferences of the entire population, that it's fair to consider his subgroup representative of the economy. I embrace the comparison to polling practices, as quality research using polls makes sure that a sample is truly representative selection of the population, rather than a subjectively biased representation of one subgroup [1]. The factors that can cause polling research to be flawed are in play here, making Pro's contentions flawed as well.Pro finishes his support of the affirmative case with the introduction of the fast food industry. Since the fast food industry is reliant on teenagers, Pro reasons, it would be hurt by the minimum wage and lay-off workers. This has the same problems as before. You can argue that the minimum wage hurts the fast food industry, but that's not an argument about the economy in general. In additional, this is an example of relying on an inaccessible source to do the heavy lifting for the argument. On what basis are we supposed to believe it? We can't tell, and should therefore reject the argument.In the most favorable light, Pro's argument has shown that the minimum wage hurts certain populations or business sectors within the economy. It hasn't shown that the economy itself is affected. To the negative case!N1. The minimum wage is historically low.I found Pro's response here unrelated to the arguments I actually made. Rather than address my points, Pro reiterates his theory of harm from the above C1&C2 section.The thrust of my N1 argument here is that the minimum wage has not kept pace with the growth of productivity or GDP.If we focus on what workers are worth, as Pro does continually, then their productivity is surely a measure of the value they bring to their employers. If we scaled the minimum wage to increased productivity, we could raise the minimum wage to around $20 before reaching the same ratio we had in 1967. The story of the GDP is similar, obviously with the economy growing the workers are producing more value, but that value isn't being shared back with them. Coupled with evidence that the upper class sections see rises in fortune while the working class's income falls, the implication is that increasing the share of income to the worker affects the distribution of wealth within the economy, not the health of the economy itself.The challenge to Pro: Show why this isn't the case. A further repetition of the idea that employers won't pay more than an employee is worth, or a statement the resolution is "economic fact" is inadequate. If Pro can't show that this isn't the effect of raising minimum wage, the resolution is negated.N2. Higher minimum wage doesn't cause job loss.I used a study to support this claim that's far superior to any of the sources that Pro has offered and I've explained why. It's a large population, it's over a significant timeframe, it has quality control factors. Pro's counters that he's seen more studies that point the other way and that the study's results would be unrepeatable. The first argument is only valuable in that it gives insight to the basis of Pro's opinions, and the second is sourced from a 1996 political position summary paper that itself reports conclusions from other sources. The study I posted was published in 2011. I somehow doubt that a republican sum-up brief from 15 years earlier casts much doubt on its validity.If the readers would like to entertain a government analysis of the research, I offer the more recent 1999 Economic Report of the President which concludes, "Many studies have examined this issue, and the weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the minimum wage have had very little or no effect onemployment."[2]The republican sum-up is also the source for Pro's claims of job loss in this section. My study is much better than his partisan talking-point sheet. Until he manages to tear my study down or counter it with a better one, my argument stands. The minimum wage doesn't cause job loss.This negates the resolution, even if readers believe any of pro's argumentation from C1&C2 survives.N3. The minimum wage helps the economyDuring the period of my referenced study from 1998 to 2006, the aggregate employment in the 11 states plus D.C. with minimum wages raised above the federal requirement increased 30% more than the 39 states that didn't. I claim causality. Even if you reject this, you can't affirm that raising the minimum wage hurts the economy when the places that do are better off than the places that didn't. The economy is objectively better in those places. Pro counters with unsupported speculation about confounding factors between two states and quotes from an opinion piece. This is not enough to refute the argument.[1] http://www.statcan.gc.ca... (chapter 6)[2] http://www.gpo.gov... (page 112)