$15 Minimum Wage

(Note that I had to cut a lot from this argument to meet space requirements & so if anything goes unaddressed this is likely the reason) Rebuttals Contention 1 The Con argues that the federal minimum wage should be zero because he believes the federal government is “not intended to be involved in economic affairs…that ought to be left to the states…” He argues this on the basis that the federal government does not understand states affairs & that this would redefine our government in which government would arbitrarily intervene in the economy. There are a number of problems with this argument, the main one being that the Supreme Court already ruled on whether or not the Federal government has the authority to involve itself in these economic affairs, in the 1941 US v. Darby decision, where the court unanimously ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the law which established the minimum wage, was fully constitutional. Because of this, we can see that this contention simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Contention 2 The Con claims minimum wages jobs are not meant to provide a living wage & thus making the minimum wage a living wage is nonsensical. This argument simply ignores the reality of the modern economy, as a majority of minimum wage workers, today rely on this as their primary income, equating to about 60 Million people total who rely on minimum wage for support (this includes workers & their families & children). While the “original intent” may not be what it is today, it is wrong to say that this “original purpose” should still be the basis of the policy in the modern era. Contention 3 The con claims that the ONLY people benefiting from minimum wage increases are in the corporate sector & small business owners are getting the shaft, thus by increasing the minimum wage the government is ensuring corporate dominance of the economy. Contrary to this claim, the overwhelming majority of minimum wage earners in the status quo are not working for small businesses. According to the National Employment Law Project, two-thirds of low-wage workers are working for larger companies, rather than small businesses. This indicates that the impact on small businesses would be very minimal in comparison to the impact on large corporations. Empirical evidence would also indicate that gradually increasing the minimum wage doesn’t hurt small businesses as claimed by the Pro (see source 4 & 5.The con also claims Walmart lobbies for a $15 minimum wage so they can crush small business. While he does cite an article from 2005, in which the Walmart CEO calls for the minimum wage to be increased, however, the CEO never stated why. Moreover, according to an article from the Washington Post, Walmart actually lobbies for a $10.10 minimum wage. Contention 4 In this contention, the con alleges that the increases in the minimum wage would hurt teens the most. The claim he makes is that Black teenagers would be hurt because “they lack work ethic.” This claim is not only offensive but simply unfounded. He blames this on poverty & lack of education, however, I will refer the con to my first contention, which is specifically to address the issue of poverty. He then claims that if we “plug in common sense” we will see how this hurts black teens, however, this is not an argument, it is just an unsubstantiated claim. He provides no evidence to support this contention. Moreover, he never demonstrates a link between harm to black teenagers & increasing the minimum wage, therefore we cannot see how it in any way relates to his overall argument. Defense Contention 1: Poverty According to the con, poverty is inevitable & is a "healthy sign of a market at its work." However, given the goal of the market is to distribute resources in an effective manner, it is clear to see that given the high level of poverty in the US it is clear that this is not a sign that the market is healthy. For starters, if the system is meant to effectively distribute resources, yet the market in a capitalist system results in a massive amount of poverty, this would indicate that the market is failing to distribute resources effectively, as a larger number of people are not getting enough resources. Additionally, poverty will almost always increase in times of economic recession& market downturn. These would indicate that poverty is a, for lack of a better term, a poor indicator of the health of the economy. The con also attacks my citation of the former secretary of labor, economist, & professor, Robert Reich, because, in his view, Reich "shares more socialistic values", & therefore "doesn't account for economic competition". This argument is simply an ad hominem & is not supported by any facts. Regardless of Reich's political values, this does not change the fact that he is a qualified source on this topic. The con gives no evidence to support his conclusions about the former secretary of labor & never actually addresses the claims made by me or by Reich. The con also claims that having varying minimum wages between states "encourages competition" & "draws citizens across state lines". However, there is simply no evidence that people are moving across state lines simply to get a higher minimum wage & thus this claim does not have any bearing. Next, the con claims that the federal minimum wage does not account for state economies. This claim in no way relates to my argument about poverty & is nothing more than a red herring. He cites an article from the LA Times about a woman struggling to make ends meet on the minimum wage. He then says that the woman should "work to build her resume & aim for an above corporate minimum pay job." This solution does not actually work, as for many people including the woman in the article he cites, this is not an option. For starters, life is not as simple as this solution makes it out to be. People do not always have the choice to pursue higher education or find another job to build their resume as they are already struggling to cover basic expenses with the minimum wage job, & quitting that job would mean that they lose their only source of income. Gaining promotions in the workplace meanwhile are not something which is under the control of the applicant & is controlled by their superiors. This is not a solution to poverty for minimum wage workers & ignores economic realities pointed out in the article the con cited. Contention 2: Inflation & Productivity The Con has said he cannot respond to this argument because of the contentions he has made, however, I cannot see how his argument makes it so that he cannot refute this argument. Since he has not response, the argument I made has therefore been conceded. Thus I extend this argument to the next round. Contention 3: Consumer SpendingDue to character constraints, I am unable to do a full response to this argument. Given that it would be unfair to carry this argument into the final round as this would mean the con would not have a chance to respond to my criticisms from this round, I move that this Contention be dropped from the debate and all previous arguments made under this contention struck and any further arguments disregarded. 1. https://www.oyez.org...2. http://www.epi.org...3. http://nelp.3cdn.net...4. http://www.forbes.com...5. http://www.cnbc.com...6. https://www.washingtonpost.com...