An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment

My opponent opens this round by saying that a time frame is a "red herring". That position could not be more incorrect. If we aren't allowed to take long-term benefit into account, the entire debate has no merit because no effect is either infinite or instantaneous. I could just as easily say that a minimum wage increase has no effect on employment the day it is signed, and therefore has no impact. The word that is important here is "Overall", as it was used both in PRO's initial argument and very much factored into my response. My opponent then goes on to make the extraordinary claim that even "if the minimum wage is raised ten percent, it temporarily stunts future growth anyway." So let me get this straight: Long term benefits to employment caused by a higher standard of living (driven by higher minimum wage) don't count because we aren't allowed to take the long term as having any relevance... yet future growth is "stunted." (A position my opponent does not back up with any sort of explanation.) To summarize, PRO would have you acknowledge future harms that he does not justify in any way, yet ignores future benefits because they're "a red herring". Additionally, my opponent's source on this matter is a book, in which he supplies no reference or page number. In future rounds I will in good faith trust my opponent about what books he selects say, but he should at least indicate exactly what that is. (Yes, he links to it later, but again, without knowing what section or quote he finds relevant to his point, it's rather difficult to use here) Rebuttal 1: My Source To say that my source claimed "All" recent research was breaking the same way is a Straw man argument. The source I site is clearly only referring to all the studies it was choosing to use as examples, NOT all research being done. His entire argument is predicated upon this slight, which is either a serious confusion on his part, OR a deliberate and misleading statement to ignore what the studies themselves say. But that really isn't surprising. When I read through Neumark (who seems to be the ONLY source my opponent cites in relation to the first half of his arguments...even his use of Gary Becker is only what Gary Becker says about Neumark's writing) I notice that Neumark himself seems to largely address examples grounded in state-level minimum wage. As PRO seeks to assess the effects of federal minimum wage, I find this discrepancy to be troubling at best. Finally, Neumark is clearly rebutting two very specific studies, which are not the ones I cited in my sources. Even if he were refuting these, it's unrealistic to expect a study to somehow address a rebuttal that was made in response to the study itself. (PRO:These new studies themselves are weak and fail to control for the factors they wish to control for. The information cited here is totally misinformed about the academic rebuttal to the studies cited.) Studies are not "misinformed" simply because they occur in the past. That's just how linear time works. Rebuttal 2: Productivity My opponent chastises me for being the one to bring productivity up, yet it is he who mentioned productivity in his opening argument, saying that the impact higher minimum wages have on productivity is a negative one. I neatly refute this, illustrating perfectly how this could not be. It is irrelevant to HIS argument, not mine. For clarity: "First, the price of the output (or workers) rises, and therefore the demand for new workers falls. This leads to a reduction in ---->production<----- and hiring, which then leads to decreased employment." These are my opponent's words. He is obliged to devour them now. Rebuttal 3: Numbers I understood that your numbers were hypothetical, obviously, but my point was that they were not an accurate example. By accurate I don't mean specific to exact real-world numbers, but rather that the scale of them was way off. When we're talking about arguments of minimum wages, we aren't talking about the difference of a 10 and 20 dollar worker, we're talking about the difference between a 35-cent worker and a 7 dollar one. This is important because it's a much clearer wrong in the latter case, the former case serves to insinuate a certain greed on the part of workers who are "not worth that much". But I digress. Another great mendacity to the examples you give is that they exist both in a vacuum. Sometimes, minimum wage is say, 15% below the poverty line relative to inflation and the costs of consumer goods. But at the same time, in that economy, profits may be at historic highs, giving companies more wiggle-room on whether or not they choose to let people go in response to having to pay more. On the other hand, if times are tight, and minimum wage is actually enough to put workers at say, 20% ABOVE the poverty line, and profits are already low, it is a virtual certainty that they might be let go in the wake of an increase. While it arguable that the Federal Minimum Wages going up might be a catalyst in the latter situation, it is clearly the greater economic environment which has the far greater impact. A catalyst and a cause are not the same thing, though it is easy to confuse the two. Rebuttal 5: Minorities Again, a straw man argument. I did not say nor imply you suggested that the minimum wage is racist. I said that employers who are already doing a poor job of employing unskilled labor from minority populations, and then, clearly, choosing to fire those individuals first when an excuse (not a cause mind you, an excuse) like a heightened minimum wage comes around ARE. And while I know it is not what you are saying, I would add that I find the notion that employers can simply hold minority population's jobs hostage to decry changes in the law they don't like disgusting. Conclusion: The largest point I have made, whether or not the overall impact of increased minimum wage is good for employment, has gone largely un-addressed. While my opponent characterizes this argument as being a red herring, he does nothing to indicate just what the long-term harms of minimum-wage hikes are, nor what their impact is in the long term. I would ask that rather than simply citing the same un-detailed study over and over again, PRO should cite a specific federal minimum wage increase, and then track what its impacts have been through the years or decades he deems relevant. I would submit that any attempt to do so will not end well for PRO. Until they do, my argument stands.