The U.S should abolish the Minimum Wage

To summarize my opponent’s last round, the unemployment effects of the MW are his only contention. Since unemployment is his only argument, needs to prove that the MW has significant unemployment effects. To win this debate, I need to prove that the MW is not responsible for significant unemployment effects. My opponent, in turn, would also need to rebut my arguments in R1 regarding productivity, consumption, and inequality.TheoryAs per my opponent’s explanation of the three models he has introduced in his arguments, it appears that the neoclassical and keynesian models hold great disagreement with MW policy, while the monopsony model, which my opponent claims economists do not accept, does not. Even if we assumed that this was true, my opponent can’t claim that because economists reject an economic model in general, that there can’t be the odd issue that economists would accept its position on. In this case, my opponent is saying that because the monopsony economic model is rejected by economists, that it is wrong on ALL issues.It wouldn’t be very productive to address the specifics of each economic model my opponent brought up, but I’d just like to remind the voters that this argument is purely theoretical. It makes the assumption that companies are not at all willing to accept reduced profits, especially when it still benefits them more to keep all their employees instead of saving by laying them off. For example, if John employs 2 minimum-wage workers who work effectively, and the MW rises by a few dollars. If it is still beneficial to John to keep all his employees than it would be to lay one off, then he would most likely keep both employees. I know this is a hypothetical, but its purpose is strictly to rebut the false dilemma that my opponent has introduced: that there is either no minimum wage where the most people are employed, or there is a MW where much fewer people are employed. The point is to try and find a balance, where there is a MW and a maximum number of people are employed.Empirical EvidenceHere my opponent bases his unemployment argument on the “Brown consensus”, which he states is the most generally accepted theory against the MW. While he says this, however, he attempts to dismiss contradicting theories such as the one formed from the famous Card & Krueger study, which is still viewed as a relevant and powerful study by award-winning economists like Paul Krugman. [1] Additionally, Krugman also mentions that “There’s just no evidence that raising the minimum wage costs jobs, at least when the starting point is as low as it is in modern America.”This study was not mentioned in my arguments, however since my opponent has brought it up, I should be able to discuss its contents. In essence, the study was conducted at the border between two neighboring states: New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The study found that when New Jersey raised their MW while Pennsylvania did not, there was no negative effect on employment. In fact, the study had found that employment increased in the state where the MW was increased. [2]Since this is a conflict of sources, my opponent would need to explain why he thinks the consensus regarding the MW is centred around his study, especially when famous economists like Paul Krugman have changed their opinions on the MW due to the Card-Krueger study, as Krugman mentions in a fairly recent article (2015) in source #1.Voting with their feetFor some reason my opponent is analogizing countries with the MW policy to oppressive countries like Communist China. The analogy does not work. The fact is that there are many stronger factors that play into the migration of people from one nation to the other. Surely today you, or most people would agree that living in the US is better than living in Hong Kong, despite the fact that there is a MW in America. Why? Maybe due to unrelated factors such as poor air quality.The fact that I have not seen any economist cite, or even comment on the study my opponent has referred to brings into question the reliability/validity of the study. It’s not possible to go over the entire study and analyze it for any issues in the short time frame provided by the debate, but if the evidence was conclusive in the debate, then there would at the very least be a few economists who refer to it on this issue. Since this has not occurred, the study can’t be used to jump to the conclusion that the MW is bad.I am not going to address my opponent’s last argument regarding the harms of unemployment in too much detail, since we both agree that unemployment is bad. The question is whether or not the MW causes this unemployment, which is the direction this debate has headed. Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com...