The minimum wage increases teenage and minority unemployment

Apologies about the acceptance rule and for my reply taking so long. I want to start with a few points of rebuttal. On your first point about teenage unemployment the employer will still hire someone because he needs someone to complete the work. What happens with the minimum wage means that he will now hire someone whose skills are at the level that the minimum wage requires. This brings back in my point about competition and why it is such a good thing because these teens see that they are only going to be employed if their skills are at that standard then they are either going to just not bother because they think they can get money easier else where in which case it is not the minimum wage doing the damage it is an underlying problem in society or they will work harder to improve their skills and get the job. This is good for two reasons the first one being the employers themselves are now almost guaranteed to have a reasonable standard in their work force which can only benefit an employer and the teens that put in the extra effort in order to get the job are rewarded accordingly. On your second point about minority unemployment I see a flaw in this argument. Let us take a look at who falls under the category of "minority". Their are women, homosexuals, disabled people and basically anyone who is not a straight white male with no health problems. That is a lot of people. Yes their will be many of those people whose skills are not worth the minimum wage but their will also be many straight white males whose skills are not worth the minimum wage. Let's now look at some of the problems I think you would have with these minorities. Firstly let me take anyone who is of a different sexuality to heterosexual out because no matter what anyone else says this is not something that would limit your physical or mental abilities making them no different to the "majority". The biggest "minority" are women and I agree being a woman that I am perhaps not as strong as my male counterparts and even without the minimum wage I would not be hired for certain jobs which is why we get jobs that are strongly linked with one or the other sex. However if I was to manage to get one of these jobs I would be looked on as cheap labour and even if I was able to complete the job as well as my male colleagues I would not be paid as much because I am discriminated against by stigma. The minimum wage means that there is more of a focus on potential employees skills rather than who they are reducing this stigma and leveling the playing field for men and women. It also brings in the point I made earlier about protecting those minorities in work where they would usually be discriminated against in their pay. The next minority I want to look at is disabled people. This breaks done in to many categories but I will just look at a few. Those who so mentally disabled that they are physically unable to work to any standard I will discount because I don't think the minimum wage will affect this group of people that much but I will say that this also brings in the point that any figures produced in a study of disability unemployment will be affected by this group not being discounted from the study making these figures tedious in this debate as they are not affected by a minimum wage. On to those who are only affected mentally to the extent that they can do some work who are very much affected by the minimum wage. They are affected by it so much for the simple reason that the jobs that they are able to do are usually not jobs that require that much mental activity but are still necessary to employers. This is where it becomes so important for these people to have a minimum wage due to this tendency for these vulnerable people to be used as cheap labour which is more damaging for these minorities because it sends out a message that minorities are not worth an equal pay even if the individual can carry out the work to the same level as any other colleague. This adds to a stigma within society that marginalizes people and puts a focus on what you cannot do not what you can do. For those who suffer a physical disability that means they cannot do certain physical activities say if they are in a wheelchair they are not likely to work in a warehouse but this does not mean that they cannot work in another profession like teaching. It may not seem like the best example to use however it shows the strength of a stigma and the effects it can have on people. If there was no minimum wage in place to protect show that people with disabilities have to be treated equally makes us realise as a society that we cannot discriminate against anyone in there pay because in today's society it is immoral do this. This means that the person in the wheelchair who wants be a teacher is more likely going to be considered because society sees that even though they are not able to walk they still have the same capabilities where their brains are concerned. It is dangerous to only consider minorities in one category as so many people fit into the category of minority and they have very individual "problems". Being a teenager in University my personal experience is that it is harder to find a job with minimum wage but when your rights to a fair wage are protected then when you do get a job it is worth while loosing valuable revision time if you are getting paid a fair amount. What we tend to see with the types of jobs that students and teens apply for is that there is a very high turnover because generally people at this point are not looking for a career they are looking for a bit of extra cash. So the jobs that are typically for teens tend to be in be constantly seeking out new workers meaning that there is always demand for workers. Outsourcing jobs may be a problem but it highlights the problem that minimum wage solves. They cannot find cheap labour in their own country because the government has deemed it immoral to pay people practically nothing when large companies (because it is large companies that will outsource) can usually afford to pay people an honest wage but would chose not to so that those at the top of the food chain can line their pockets even more and it is this unethical behaviour that I believe that government has a duty to protect it's people from and minimum wage is they way to do this. Not every company and employer is going to outsource to other countries like China therefore not every single job will be lost like you seem to think. On your points of rebuttal I don't think that a job is a right rather people have a right to be protected from discrimination in that job. On your last point of rebuttal let me explain something for you. The state's duty of care is not a law, and never once did I say it was, it is simply the definition of a state which claims to be in a democracy. This is called the role of the state. As humans we have the right not to be killed that is why the state protects us from harms either from home or abroad. As humans we also have the right not to be discriminated against which is why we have the minimum wage. The role of the state is not a law it is the definition of fundamental principles and therefore very important in this debate so please to not dismiss it in such a fashion. Citizens are responsible for upholding their side of the social contract which if you are a human you are born into. This social contract is what gives us these positive and negative rights which the state is put in place to enforce. It is not a "nanny state" it is a democracy. I know that I am lacking in substantial evidence however I feel it is more important to make my points clear and then back them up with evidence rather than make the evidence my point so I will be adding evidence in the next rounds.