The US should establish Progressive Wage Laws

1) Inflation To start, raising prices reduces the amount of business they get from customers, based on a basic model of supply and demand. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, just that it's unlikely to be large. Studies that evaluate the actual impact of hikes on prices see a maximum of 2.16%, with most companies increasing prices by below 0.4%.[1] Small businesses can afford to pass on the costs without closing. But if you're buying this point, then Pro is biting it harder than I am. It's causing more inflation among larger companies, which have products that distribute to a much larger customer base and therefore affect a broader population. And since they are often the only game in town, they have little to lose by raising prices in some parts of the country, meaning they're much more likely to pass on those costs to the consumer. He's also biting the harm to small businesses. It's possible that, on the four factors, some small businesses will be forced to pay higher amounts in minimum wage, and they won't have the finances to defend themselves in court or to engage in duplicitous accounting practices. Since Pro is already planning on increasing the minimum wage to the same height I am, and since some small businesses may be forced to pay more, Pro is uniquely increasing the chance of their closure. This also affects their employment. Though I would say that there's a lot of disagreement among economists on this,[2] Pro is biting the harms harder than I am for the same reasons as inflation. 2) Artificial deficit This is really his core argument, and what he has to win in order to win this debate. The rest of his points are nonunique, and actually harm his own case, so unless he wins this, his case has more harms than mine. And on this, he's simply not doing enough to explain how it will work. Pro admits from the outset that this is a theory, and an untested one at that. He does, however, say that it's proven. He then proceeds to showcase that proof by making an anecdotal claim about video stores, which isn't evidence, and then showing a chart. Take a look at that link. It's not talking about profits rising or falling. The y-axis isn't "profits." It's sales expectations. It shows what CEOs think will happen to their company's growth during a given time period. The link even explains what it means: "public companies are built for growth, while many small businesses are more interested in sustaining their current business than growing." I don't get how this supports Pro's point, since it just shows that financial crises affect the sales expectations of large companies. It seems like what Pro is getting at here is that big businesses throw their weight around, bringing down prices in order to out compete local businesses. He says that a progressive wage will solve for this. Two problems. 1) There's no reason to believe that a progressive wage will solve when a progressive tax hasn't. That's status quo. If Pro is right, we would expect that the progressive taxation system also brings about the same ends. 2) There's no reason to believe that the costs of paying more to minimum wage workers will be borne out as Pro suggests. They will always prefer their competitive advantage, which ensures that they can move in anywhere and get profits even with local competition, and thus distribute costs elsewhere, supercharging Pro's harms scenarios. Pro has a Chicago Tribune link about Sam Zell saying that the top 1% of Americans work hard. It has no basis in this debate. I don't know how the Stanford paper relevant to the debate. It talks about federal deficit and debt, which leads me to believe that he's conflating income gaps, which can be a result of monetary deficits on the part of the poor, with the government having too revenue to cover its financial obligations. It most certainly doesn't support his claim that "we would be evening and stabalizing [sic] the price of our cheetos nationwide." If anything, prices will increase. In fact, that seems to be the basis for this point " Pro's assumption of increased parity between small and large business prices seems to be based on large businesses being forced to increase their prices as a result of this policy. This may create some change in competition between them, but with the cost of the entire country experiencing inflated prices. I'm not sure what he's getting at with his false comparison between a higher deficit between the rich and poor (the gap between them improves under both our policies), and a $3 deficit between lower classes. I'm at a loss for why creating income parity between minimum wage workers is beneficial. Onto rebuttals. Pro doesn't spend much time here, and that is to his detriment. I did have the employee third factor wrong (this was a result of some vagueness on the issue). However, this point is still not well defined. It essentially says that, as long as a business is hiring more people, they'll have to pay lower minimum wages. Pro doesn't say anything companies doing this hiring within the U.S., so this can still mean outsourcing jobs to other nations that don't have this minimum wage in order to inflate employment numbers. Pro might clarify this in the next round, but as it stands, it's not specific to U.S. employees. Even if it is, it's not specific to the type of employment. Simply hiring on a bunch of interns at lower levels of pay or no pay at all should satisfy this. On capital, my response really doesn't change even while his case does. In fact, the harms get worse. Now companies have incentive to tie up extra funds in stock, making it all the harder to access, in order to reduce their wages by as much as possible. He says this isn't going to happen because "Investments cost money, are risky, and require upkeep," but considering that these companies will be weighing the certainty of paying higher wages to a large amount of their employees against these uncertain and possibly beneficial risks, I think this is the likelier route, since a) paying all their minimum wage employees more every pay period is more expensive, and b) the structure for investment already exists in these large companies, which means their costs to invest will be minimal. Pro says that my argument is weak. He doesn't really explain why, instead just saying that my argument "relies on the belief that a increase in minimum wage, will outweigh the bottom line of investments." Actually, none of my arguments rely on that. I'm banking on the fact that incentive to avoid increased cost structures will lead to riskier behaviors. I provided several links that support this fact, showing that they do it to reduce their tax burden. Pro hasn't touched one. They will most certainly engage in riskier behaviors if their bottom line is affected so heavily through wages, something that they can alter by changing their practices. Unlike with a minimum wage, the progressive wage can be gamed. Many will choose to send their money overseas, as some do now. Investors may leave, but that hasn't stopped companies from engaging in this behavior to avoid taxation. The capital gains point was just meant to illustrate how companies subvert the system in status quo. It wouldn't affect their wage payouts here, though it is indicative of their reaction. Lastly, Pro says these all exist in status quo. I think he's missing the point. By hugely increasing incentive to engage in these practices, Pro is making them exponentially worse. Whether the harms are the increasing the number lawsuits, higher risk, reduced investments, and nonexistent mergers, these will dramatically increase current harms. Yes, these things happen in status quo, but increasing their incidence is something we should avoid. I was going to add some more to my case, but I'll leave it here. Back to Pro. 1. http://ftp.iza.org... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...