Minimum wage

most people who make the minimum wage don't choose to. they have no choice. at that point it becomes exploitation of the masses of unskilled labor, the effectively unlimited pool of labor we have. even if they get their foot in the door for awhile, they might just increase their wages a dollar or two or something, for the people who are not able to branch off and become engineers etc. the minimum wage then does more than protect the exact wage itself... it protects the whole territory of low end wages. the person who makes 3 dollars an hour makes two dollars more.... or if it seven dollars they make two dollars more than that. con says ive made the point that minimum wage does harm cause it causes businesses to pay that, all of them, and nothing mroe. the point though, is that each business could choose to pay more, but they dont have to, so they don't. the minimum wage then doesn't cause them to pay less, it causes them to pay more. they pay 7 instead of 3, for example. con asks why we don't raise it to fifty. because it kills jobs too much. i never said it didn't. even the current minimum wage kills jobs. it's just we've taken a cost benefit analysis and decided most can afford 7 without too much job loss. your rhetorical point might work better with somebody who wants 15 dollars an hour. all i'm arging is that we have the wage, and the currrent wage seems pretty decent con says the government has not right to dictate value of labor. the problem though, is if they don't, the businesses will exploit the effectively unlimited supply of unskilled labor we have. they would make people work for beans, because they can. exploit, take advantage of, however you want to say it. you might not like the word "exploit" but it's without a doubt taking advantage of them. how could you possibly say it isn't? con asks where the proof is that employors would pay beans without a minium wage. as i said before, just look at history. they always pay the minimum wage, and not much more. in the eighties they paid 3 cause they had to, in the 90s they paid five, and so on. i also find problematic con's equivocation of regulations and the minimum wage. they are not the same. regulations can be burdensome, but that doesn't mean we can't have a common sense minimum wage. true, the wage is a sort of regulation, but it is one, and it is the right thing to do. i also find problematic con's use of a random website's claim that we could double everyone's income without regulatios such that teh average person would make 100000 dollars a year. these sorts of claims makes it hard to take con seriously. con says i haven't shown that the wage does more good than harm. but i have. we've done a cost benefit analysis and shown that most, by far most, can afford to pay 7, instead of 3, for example. that means millions of people are making more monety than they otherwise would, and they are not being taken advantage of. the costs of a few jobs lost is mroe negligble cause the standard structure of society still exists.. tehre's still mcdonalds, and walmart, and every other basic business. they just are forced to pay something more meaningful. if anything, con hasn't shown how the minimum wage does more harm than good. and no, just pointing out that some theoretical jobs are lost doesn't cut it. we still have a standard society that works fine, people are just paid somehting decent.