Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

CA.1: A fair living wage is indeterminable. My opponent claims that my argument here has “fundamental flaws” and argues that a nationwide wage is not practical. However, this is not what I have advocated for. The argument did, however, pertain to local wages as well. Different people still have different lifestyles and external factors which prevent lawmakers to instigate a wage that is just. Regardless, raising the wage itself is inherently detrimental, contrary to my opponent’s beliefs. While I understand that the government already controls business to some degree, regulating wages on a federal, state, or local level, at a wage which is too high is the government stepping over their boundaries. Professor of political theory Joseph Reisert explains, “Government-mandated wages represent an arbitrary and unjust interference with the liberty of business-owners and people who are looking for work.” [1] He also explains that the nature of a living wage is positive to cause inflation, reduce employment, and there will be less hires. Moreover, safety of workers and community have no direct correlation to wage increase. CA.2: A living wage won’t create jobs. My opponent claims there is no threat to employment. This is empirically false, as backed up by a plethora of research. This includes the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office [2], two-thirds of 100 researchers [3], among others. American entrepreneur Neal Asbury reveals, “the findings of economic theory and empirical research regarding the minimum wage over the past 70 years, [reveal] that minimum wage increases tend to reduce employment.” [4] Economist David S. Goldfarb continues this argument by saying, “Economists… accumulate statistical evidence on the effects [of a living wage]. Much of the research has indicated that increases in the minimum wage have adverse effects on the employment opportunities of low-skilled workers.” [5] In fact, 85 percent of the most credible studies point to negative employment effects, and the studies that focused on the least-skilled groups most likely to be adversely affected by minimum wages, the evidence for disemployment effects were especially strong. [6] The congressional Joint Economic Committee found that a living wage would also result in the following: Encouraging employers to cut worker training; Increasing the likelihood and duration of unemployment for low-wage workers, particularly during economic downturns; Increasing job turnover; Discouraging part-time work and reducing school attendance; Driving workers into uncovered jobs, thus reducing wages in those sectors; Encouraging employers to cut back on fringe benefits; Encouraging employers to install labor-saving devices; Increasing inflationary pressure; Increasing teenage crime rates as a result of higher unemployment; and Encouraging employers to hire illegal aliens. [7] As is evident, the general consensus of economists, researchers, et cetera is that a living wage will have a generally and relatively consistent negative effect on employment, among other concerns.Regarding the Seattle evidence, my opponent also neglects to mention a few things from this source. Washington Restaurant Association’s CEO Anthony Anton explains, “With the minimum wage spike, however, he says that if restaurant owners made no changes, the labor cost in quick service restaurants would rise to 42 percent and in full service restaurants to 47 percent. “Everyone is looking at the model right now, asking how do we do math?” he says. “Every operator I’m talking to is in panic mode…” [8] Moreover, my opponent cites part of the article as saying, “none of our local departing/transitioning restaurateurs who announced their plans last month have mentioned this as an issue.” Directly following that statement, the article states, “another major factor affecting restaurant futures in our city is the impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour.” This recognizes that the wage hike is a potential threat. However, the point is, the article is not specifically favoring one side or another, but simply presenting facts.CA.3: Inflation is an inevitable consequence.My opponent had NO attacks to this point, so it still stands. Furthermore, “the result of an increased minimum wage is either higher inflation or higher unemployment thus increasing the minimum wage will most likely increase the overall ‘misery’ of the country.” [9] Also, “If a minimum wage is partly or fully passed through to consumers in the form of higher prices, it will hurt the poor because they disproportionately suffer from price inflation.” [12]RA.1:This has already been covered, I will move on.RA.2: Studies have shown that a pay raise correlates to improved health.My opponent explains that people above poverty generally have better health. However, the missing link in regards to the living wage and health, is reduction of poverty. Because a living wage can’t solve for poverty, we won’t see the health benefits. The Mises Institute explains, “The rise in prices and taxes that results from raising the minimum wage both diminishes the gains of the monopolists and serves to create new and additional poor people, while worsening the poverty of those who become unemployed.” [10] Furthermore, a majority of poor Americans don’t work (63.5%), so these aren’t making wages in the first place. [11]Moreover, health benefits often come with jobs already. Raising the minimum wage will, as explained earlier, encourage employers to cut back on benefits, such as health insurance. [7] In a report published by multiple economists, they further expand on this point, showing how employers might absolve health benefits from their employees. “In other words, the more a worker is required to contribute to health insurance costs the less likely she is to have coverage through her living wage employer.” [13]RA.3: Children of low-wage workers would benefit.The children won’t be benefited in any health-related way if their parents are not. Moreover, teens will be detrimented as adults will. Similarly, teen employment will be harmed. “High minimum wage rates lead to unemployment for teens… Economic research has shown time and again that increasing the minimum wage destroys jobs for low-skilled workers while doing little to address poverty.” [14]RA.4: Wage increases have minimal to no negative effect.This argument has already been refuted on grounds of unemployment, poverty, and on (unrefuted) inflation. Still, small businesses would inexplicably be harmed. The American Legislative Exchange Council explains, “Most minimum wage earners work for small businesses… roughly half of the minimum wage workforce is employed at businesses with fewer than 100 employees, and 40 percent work at businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Small businesses face a very competitive market and often push profits as low as they can go to stay open. Minimum wage earners employed by large corporations would also be affected, because these corporations are under tremendous pressure from shareholders to keep costs low.” [15] In short, both small and large corporations would be pressured and even harmed by a living wage.RA.5: The current minimum wage is extremely low when indexed to worker productivity.Workers can be encouraged without a wage raise, because the current wage isn’t too low. Also, workers can be motivated by knowing that increased wages will encourage mechanical and robotic replacements for jobs and new hires. ALEC notes, “It is cost-effective for an employer to respond to higher labor costs by substituting technology for employees.” [15]Conclusion:I have refuted each of my opponents points, and defended my own, while my opponent dropped the inflation argument.We find primarily pragmatic and moral negative effects for a living wage. A just government should NOT require that employers pay that wage.Sources: [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] https://www.cbo.gov... [3] http://www.cbsnews.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] Robert S. Goldfarb, "The Policy Content of Quantitative Minimum Wage Research," Proceedings of the Industrial Relations Research Association, 27th Annual Meeting, San Francisco, December 28–29, 1974. [6] http://www.cepr.net... [7] http://web.archive.org... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] https://mises.org... [11] http://tinyurl.com... [12] http://www.utexas.edu... [13] http://www.irle.ucla.edu... [14] https://www.epionline.org... [15] http://www.alec.org...