On the compulsory minimum wage

1. Response to my opponent's observations. "First, I would like to point out that my opponent's third contention is reliant on his second." Actually, my third contention is merely that poverty reduces productivity. The *causal relationship* between the elimination of the minimum wage and poverty is reliant on my second contention, however. "Second, I would like to acknowledge that his debate refers to the existence of a compulsory minimum wage in general; however, I will accept his interpretation of the debate." While it is true that my opponent opened the scope of the debate with a general statement regarding the minimum wage, that statement concluded "in no case can a minimum wage have a positive effect." Therefore, I need only to present a case where the minimum wage has a positive effect to prove my opponent incorrect. My clarification of the resolution is a statement of a case where a minimum wage does have a positive effect. 2. Response to my opponent's counter-argument. (a) Bargaining Power My opponent has argued that the collective bargaining power of unions represents a balance against employer bargaining power that nullifies the need for the minimum wage's protective effect. My opponent is incorrect. In the United States, only 20% of all jobs are protected by a union, [1] and practically none of them are minimum wage paying jobs. [2] It is clear that any consideration of the effectiveness of the protection provided by minimum wage must be made in relation to the jobs the wages of which are affected only by minimum wage laws alone. Unions ordinarily do not exist in the lowest paying segments of the job market because forming a union would lead to an employee's termination, [3] and employees working minimum wage paying jobs rarely have a savings to rely upon to buoy themselves between jobs. [4] Therefore, unions have no deterrent effect against employers' use of bargaining power in relation to such employment. Because an employee who would need a union to mitigate the collective bargaining power of his employer could not survive the attempt (at least, not without welfare), [5] unions are insufficient to mitigate employer bargaining power. Anti-trust laws are also insufficient to distribute wealth amongst enough able competitors to ensure competitive job markets for labor, as I believe my opponent contends. Very few industries are affected by anti-trust, [6] and most low paying industries do not act competitively in the acquisition of labor. [7] Employers can afford to do this as the job market pool of laborers will always exceed the demand for employees at the lowest income level, for those qualified only for such jobs are in competition with those with greater levels of competition across a wider demographic spread. [8] Additionally, income is more important for most such industries, as they produce goods or provide services to the general public that make volume of sales more than sufficient to make the cost of the minimum wage rate of labor an irrelevancy. [9] Therefore, a strong economy matters more than a minimum wage. (b) Cost of Living My opponent suggests that "if workers do not make much more than what is required to subsist, they often unionize." This is not so. [10] Additionally, this process is equivalent to civil unrest, so it creates the very situation I praise the minimum wage for avoiding. [11] Moreover, even if workers are paid below subsistence, they may continue working because, in their minds, some money is better than none. [12] There is no bar to an employer taking advantage of such desperation. [13] Additionally, my opponent argues that the natural minimum wage is equal to twice the subsistence of the employee. My opponent has provided no justification, not even Smith's, for why this must be so. [14] My opponent feels that no person would work for less. I have shown that this is a false assumption, supra. (c) Civil Unrest The argument that the minimum wage creates civil unrest has not been made. My opponent's argument is that were there no minimum wage, there would be more jobs. Yes, there would, but those jobs would be below the minimum wage. There will always be a steady amount of replacement worker/consumers to replace those who could not subsist on such wages, [15] so there is no cause to concern oneself for the health of one's workers. [16] Without such a cause, there is no need to deflate the price of goods. [17] Even if your customer dies, there is always another desperate customer. [18] Additionally, employers may pay social undesirables and the mentally infirm less not because they are incompetent but because of their social distinction. [19] This makes them less able to find employment, which reduces the competition employers would otherwise face in hiring such individuals. [20] While laws do exist to fight discrimination based on sex, gender, age and religion,[21] they do not exist to protect individuals based on sexual orientation, criminal record, social or political unpopularity, political ideology, or speech. [22] Individuals who would be discriminated against for such factors could be easily taken advantage of without a minimum wage, and there are enough such individuals [23] as to merit concern for the effects of their poverty on ultimate productivity. Additionally, poverty results in health problems, [24] which further would burden our health care system. [25] 3. Response to my opponent's argument. (a) The Business Cycle The fact that no population of laborers is static prevents employers from ever really having to provide lowest income laborers with their "natural recompense." [26] Therefore, my opponent's contention that deflation must occur is false. Admittedly, it is common sense for employers to pay their employees an amount above that necessary to subsist upon, as this reduces civil unrest, increases productivity, and ensures the employer the best market the employer could ever realistically expect to operate within an otherwise stable society. Unfortunately, very few employers act with common sense. [27] Note that this would not reduce our nation's wealth, as certainly a few individuals would be very wealthy. It would, however, reduce our nation's security, as the costs spent fighting the resultant upsurge in crime would deplete funds set aside for other measures, such as national defense. [28] (b) The Minimum Wage Trilemma Briefly: (1)Irrelevant. Ipso facto, I need not respond to this at all. (2)Not problematic. Such jobs would likely be abusive and just as conducive to criminality. Employees are better off placated on welfare. (3)Not problematic, for the same reason as point (2). If a job would pay less than what a laborer could survive on, the job could still be economically feasible because of the dynamic consumer market. The savings on labor need not be passed on as deflation. Employers are not compelled to concern themselves with the subsistence of their workers when making a profit. [29] Replacement costs for employees are nearly irrelevant, as lowest wage paying jobs rarely require specialized skill. [30] The actual ‘natural' minimum wage that an employer hiring such laborers would pay assuming ordinary intelligence and self-interest on the part of the employer and no minimum wage law is the lowest value of a bid to conduct such labor and such value as is reasonable to induce an employee to stay [31] less the value of terminating relative to the cost of training a new employee. That amount need not be one of subsistence. (c) Economic Consensus/Unemployment As per my opponent's own sources, a majority of economists do not believe that the minimum wage results in any harm. See opponent's 15. Actually, read my opponent's sources carefully, as they are supportive of my case, outdated, or founded on a logical fallacy, with few exceptions. [32] See my comment Attachment A and any continuation for sources.