Minimum Wage

Initial CaseFirst, we must review what a wage is. Quite simply, a wage is the price at which a worker agrees to sell his or her labor to a firm. Now, in our modern monetary economy, firms typically use money (units of currency) to buy the labor of these workers. So, for all relevant purposes in this debate, a wage is the monetary amount at which a worker agrees to sell his or her labor to a firm. The question then is: where does the minimum wage fit into this equation? Well, quite simply, the minimum wage is the state setting a monetary value below which a worker is not allowed to sell his or her labor. So, if I wanted to work at a gas station for $5 an Hour, but the minimum wage was $7 an Hour, I would not be able to do this. And, like all state laws, the minimum wage is violently enforced. This means that if I were to disobey the law and work for under the $7 an Hour, I would be thrown in jail, using the classic definition of the minimum wage. My opponent cannot dispute that the minimum wage is violently enforced. By definition, the minimum wage must be violently enforced to be a minimum wage. So, to be quite clear, the minimum wage is the state violently forcing workers to sell their labor above a certain monetary amound. Now, we can get into the practical problems with the minimum wage. First, we must remember that a wage is no different from a price. Therefore, a Minimum wage is essentially a minimum price being set on 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. This creates an decrease in employment, as this is what happens when workers cannot find work. This decrease in employment is a major drag on total utility and production in society. The minimum wage is an immoral, illogical, and impractical thing. It forces workers to sell their labor above a certain monetary amount. This is wrong and it leads to less employment. Responding to My Opponents ArgumentsMy opponent claims that the minimum wage motivates people to enter the workforce. He seems to ignore that a wage is, in and of itself, an agreement between a firm and a worker. If a worker did not want to enter the workforce because their wages were too low, they would not enter with or without the minimum wage. A minimum only keeps low skilled workers that would be willing to enter the labor force out of the labor force because they are not allowed to sell their labor below a certain price. Therefore, a minimum wage only keeps people out of the labor force, as it keeps low skilled workers from getting work in the first place. My opponent then claims that government has an obligation to maintain a minimum standard of living. I do not agree with this premise and ask for further explanation in Round 2. My opponent says that state benefits would cost with a minimum wage. The opposite is true, as the minimum wage increases unemployment and unemployment increases the cost of state benefits. ConclusionI look forward to my opponent's response. All of my arguments have been logical so far, so no sources are necessary as of yet.