The Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

I'll begin with the signposting, and I request my opponent pick it up in round 4. -CONTENT- 1) Intro a. Observations and Judging criterion 2) Defense of Con arguments a. Card-Krueger b. Sweatshops dichotomy c. Minimum wage/Consumption increase (California evidence) d. Arguments in favor of Min Wage Laws 3) Rebuttals of Pro arguments a. Low v. High skilled competition b. Price theory c. "Rungs on the Ladder" d. FLSA 4) Conclusion a. Summary ______________________________ 1) Intro a. Observations and Judging criterion. Looking back to the top of the round, "The debate shall proceed from the standpoint that both Pro and Con wish to maximize the consumption of lower wage earners. " So, when judging all arguments, being "right" doesn't necessarily win you a vote. Rather, you have to link the argument back to the value or purpose of this debate which was just quoted. Furthermore, given that the status quo is minimum wage and my opponent wishes to abolish it, it is his burden to prove that abolishing minimum wage would be beneficial in achieving the stated purpose of this debate, because he is the one who is the reformist/activist in the debate. Finally, when my opponent says I make "new arguments," note that last round was my first legit 2) Defense of Con arguments a. Card-Krueger To the reputable Card-Krueger evidence, my opponent responds "[it] merely looks at employment in two states, and only in the restaurant industry. .. it assumes ceteris paribus conditions and makes no attempt to control for other factors. " The problems with his response are two-fold: First, the majority of Pro's arguments assume ceteris paribus conditions. Here are quotes from round 2 and 3, respectively. "Because of diminishing returns, each additional hour of labor input from a worker is worth less, ceteris paribus, than the one before it. Therefore, each hour worked, ceteris paribus, will mean the mean labor value of the worker goes down. " And "an employer, faced with the decision of hiring a relatively more skilled worker whose labor he values at $8.00/hr or the hiring of a relatively less skilled worker whose labor he values at $4.00/hr will, ceteris paribus, choose the skilled worker if. .. " So because of this, my opponent either must drop both my argument and his, or allow both of them to carry through the round. Second, he says the study is too narrow, but again, he has the burden of proof, and if I provide any evidence to disprove him the weight of the round shifts to his side, and he has more work to do; not I. b. Sweatshops dichotomy My opponent misconstrues the argument. He thinks that I'm saying the ONLY alternative would be sweatshops; rather, what I am saying is that it would open up the window for sweatshops because a lack of minimum wage law gives the discretion to the employer. I don't see any problem with this argument; so, I urge my opponent to explain why society in which no minimum wage laws are in place would NOT have sweatshops (Look to round 2 for the countries mentioned) c. California evidence The point of the card was to show that, simply because they are paying more, they are consuming more. It is definitionally true, and don't find any need to defend this argument. It can move through to round 4. d. Arguments in favor of MWL's In round 2, I listed several arguments that all had their own sources, and they were commonly made arguments in defense of them. I'll repaste them seeing as they weren't responded to. -Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society and raises average. -Motivates and encourages employees to work harder -Stimulates consumption, by putting more money in the hands of low-income people who spend their entire paychecks. -Increases the work ethic of those who earn very little, as employers demand more return from the higher cost of hiring these employees. -Decreases the cost of government social welfare programs by increasing incomes for the lowest-paid. -Encourages the automation of industry. 3) Rebuttals of Pro arguments a. Low v. High skilled competition He reiterates in his round 3 argument that "an employer, faced with the decision of hiring a relatively more skilled worker whose labor he values at $8.00/hr or the hiring of a relatively less skilled worker whose labor he values at $4.00/hr will, ceteris paribus, choose the skilled worker if a minimum wage prevents the less skilled worker from offering his labor for $4.00/hr. " I agree; he will choose the more skilled worker. That plays to my advantage. This necessarily increases consumption proportionally from a worker in the market earning $4.00/hr to a worker earning minimum wage. Second, the assumption of ceteris paribus means that he excludes the possibility of only one worker applying for the job, and, seeing the current state of employment, businesses around the market would benefit if more people had larger paychecks to spend on their products. Here, . http://www.visualeconomics.com... we see that the average consumer is just around 14 grand short of spending his entire income BEFORE TAX on his expenditures. So, the larger the paycheck, the more air there is that is going to be pumped into the economic balloon, causing the already present air to circulate and shocking the economy back to life. b. Price theory Basically, my opponent wants to talk about supply and demand in the labor market. He presents Kirzner's Market Theory to defend his case; there are several market theories to consider and, of course, he chose the one that suits him best. To it, I'll present a counter theory and it will be more than sufficient to negate both arguments, or extend both arguments. "The departure of labour markets from the serendipitous fiction of orthodox economic theory makes institutions like minimum wage necessary and right. Labour markets are inherently distorted. Minimum wage is a necessary institution for us to progress to a higher-income economy, just society, and mature democracy," write Yao and Jan. . http://greglopez.wordpress.com... Presenting a theory that promotes the debater's position is not debate, so an eye for an eye. c. "Rungs on the Ladder" gocrew provides a series of questions. Here are my answers. No- I didn't say there are no steps between entry level job and corporate status. But who is going to be promoted? I already presented the work ethic problem which he rejected; hiring 1 cashier at $7.00/hour becomes 7 cashiers at $1.00/hour easily at the discretion of an employee (see sweatshop argument, largely missed by my opponent) so, given the low wage and divided work, no one is going to be working hard enough to try to earn anything; on top of that, the employer is content keeping everyone where they are if he is getting x productivity with the minimum level of y wages handed out. The business will only expand when it needs to, because by nature, the top of the ladder is after its own profit. Regarding the 19th century issue; industrial revolution. Expansion was inevitable. d. FLSA I'm still having problems seeing why my opponent is spending so much time on the argument. Regardless, he has to not just prove the problems with minimum wage, but defend the system that will arise with the lack of it. Again, he has the burden of proof. 4) Conclusion a. Summary My opponent still is not providing any tangible issues to look at today that are direct result of minimum wage. He has the burden of proof, so it's required of him if he wishes to win the round. Moreover, his arguments I have all addressed, but in his arguments he didn't address all of mine. It is up to judges to dete