Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15.

Rebuttals:I'll provide some rebuttals for my opponent's initial speech, per the rules. I'll respond to his attacks on my case in the following round. 1. Benefit EconomyI have a few responses here.> Economic impact is quite demonstrable in its effects, and they are quite negative. His assertion that it will inject money/spending into the GDP is demonstrably false, due to the nature of a wage hike.> When wages rise, so do payrolls. So the money that would be spent would primarily go to paying the extra wages in the first place.> Moreover, raising wages would force employers to raise prices to compensate for lost capital used to fund the higher wages. This passes the brunt onto consumers. Prominent economists Aaronson, MacDonald, and French confirm "prices unambiguously increase in response to a minimum wage change." [1] Unfortunately, a minimum wage won't help the economy when it raises prices. This causes inflation, which is never good for the economy, and also, essentially, negates the wage increase.> When prices rise concurrent with wage hikes, these minimum wage workers are effectively in the same dilemma: prices are too high for them to afford necessities. Instead of poverty reduction, you have poverty facilitation along side the depreciation of currency.> Neither of these things are good. What's more, any economic benefits would be negligible, and heavily outweighed by the detriments to individuals and the diversion from its asserted goal (poverty facilitation).> Economic research confirms the harmful effects on economy. Harasztosi and Lindner affirm "costs of the minimum wage [are] largely passed through to consumers." [2] Employment is a big concern with benefits to the economy, and as I have definitively proven, jobs are indubitably destroyed by a wage hike.> This is definitively true, and demonstrable by a plethora of evidence. Neumark and Wascher, after conflicting evidence was brought forth, revisited the wage debate and concluded there are STILL relevant and signficant disemployment effects. [3]> There are hundreds of thousands of jobs to be lost in multiple individual states, as well -- from only a $10.10 increase. Economic theory suggests a $15 wage hike would compound and extend these negative trends. [4]> The GDP would actually be harmed, per macroeconomics. Because of severe job losses, the proposal could reduce the current US GDP by $42 billion in 2017. [5] [http://tinyurl.com...]> The above is a demonstrative graph representing the previous point. Essentially, because there would be severe elimination of jobs, the GDP would subsequently decline concurrent to these disemployment effects.> Specifically in regards to job loss, here are some statistics. Job losses could total over 2.3 million for a $10.10 proposal nationwide. [6]2. Benefit AmericansAnother area where I have some dispute:> It can be reasonably argued and claimed that if a policy proposal has such dire economic effects, it would not equate to a benefit for Americans. This premise, I believe holds firm and unwavering. Yet, I'll address a few more issues within this specific contention to further reiterate my point.> Perhaps one of the biggest problems the US faces is employment concerns. Particularly, there is young laborers who are finding it quite difficult to find a job. However, the policy implementation for which my opponent advocates does nothing to resolve this paragon issue. In fact, the proposal at hand facilitates LESS employment opportunities for those in the most need of them -- teens and the unskilled workforce.> The concept is quite simple. When a firm is federally mandated to pay a specified wage (which is quite high, in most cases) they would logically hire the individual with the best skill set. This generally entails individuals with a college degree and experience in the field prior to hiring. Generally, neither of these conditions align to teens or the unskilled work force. Essentially, the ones that need the jobs the *most* are going to be excluded from the hirings.> An economic study of dynamic employment effects by Meer and West of Texas A&M addresses this very issue. They note "it [a wage hike] reduces demand for new workers by raising the marginal cost of an employee." [7] Essentially, there is a higher cost for an employee. Consider, for example, the following: two products, of the same type, cost the exact same amount. One is thoroughly tried and durable one, while the other is untested and discernibly faulty.> The choice is simple. It would only be obvious to choose the former. The latter, admittedly, is of less quality for all intents and purposes. The same is true for the labor force. The quality and value of a worker to a firm is essential. > It's simply a matter of productivity. A tried and tested individual is likely to have higher productivity, similar to college graduates generally having better productivity. Economic research confirms "workers with more education tend to have higher productivity, which means they tend to produce more output with the same inputs." [8]> Minority Americans, the ones who REALLY NEED the extra cash, are the ones who suffer the most, unable to find the jobs they need. [10] This doesn't benefit America, as it only widens the gap between the rich and the poor.> Another issue is low-cost communities. The system, as proposed, is a federal wage -- "one-size-fits-all." However, this is untrue. There is no system that fits all areas.> It's plausible that some areas with large corporations and few minorities (though unlikely) would be able to absorb the impacts. But more rural communities (which drive agriculture) would suffer greatly. Even in areas where the cost of living is simply lower, a higher wage would devastate the economy. These small-scale places simply don't have enough capital to put into the wages that would be required. [9]3. Benefit the WorldA final refutation area:> It's rather dubious to assume that, weighing the considerable economic defecits and detriments to America that the world would be benefited by the US implementing such an outrageous wage.> Moreover, if the premises are true that there is such economic downturns and American harms, the economy of the US wouldn't "stay on its feet" and would thus entirely negate this contention, as well as the entire constructive argument.> I would assert that the premises I've shown are true, and that I've reasonably demonstrated that fact; however, it is up to the judges to determine that.> My opponent makes the argument here of the "dollar going up" benefiting the US and the world. However, this is entirely false.> A minimum wage hike would cause inflation. Though I've demonstrated the economics of this both in my constructive case as well as this rebuttal, I will again affirm this point in a more simplistic manner. Inflation, as defined by a paraphrased Investopedia is that when prices rise, the value of currency falls. Specifically "Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising and, consequently, the purchasing power of currency is falling." [11]> This definition renders obvious and direct inflation from a minimum wage hike. Since we've already established that prices will rise, there has to be subsequent inflation. Again, Investopedia simplifies "raising the minimum wage forces business owners to raise the prices of their goods or services, thereby spurring inflation." [12]> Refer to Contention II in my case for more specifics and analysis.Conclusion:There's clearly large concerns, and validated, that a wage hike will be harmful to individuals, society, and the economy. Under the only proposed framework (in which my opponent accepts as he did not contest), judges should value moral and pragmatics regarding the topic. As I have shown it would be immoral to send all of these individuals to unemployment and continued poverty, and have shown that it's largely illogical on economic, politcal, and social grounds to raise wages, we should not. For all of these substantiated and verified reasons, there is no option but to vote CON.Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...