Raising the minimum wage would help get America out of its recession.

I would like to start by saying that my logic isn't flawed, on the contrary, yours is. There is a certain analytical threshold - and I'm afraid that you are way over it. I am first going to start by responding to their last speech. ____________________ My opponent began by saying that raising the minimum wage would immediately increase unemployment. This has been *historically proven* to not happen. While my opponent insists otherwise, he cannot compete with studies that have taken place. My opponent might know a lot about the economy - but he isn't qualified enough to compete with studies and authors who spend their life studying things like this. Now, I will proceed to respond to my opponent's arguments in the same manner that he responded to mine in. A) My opponent has not responded to my main argument. My opponent contends that raising the minimum wage will cause inflation. Yet, he ignored my point. The current inflation is so high right now that the minimum wage hasn't kept up with it. HISTORICALLY, the minimum wage is normally proportionate to inflation. But not anymore. Raising the minimum wage would NOT cause inflation because it would simply be catching up to where it will be. But my next argument, that was conceded, is what will win me this debate. B) My opponent contends that the entire industry will raise their prices. This argument has crossed the line. It's absolutely absurd. Say the local grocery store raises their prices. My opponent contends that then, Kroger, will raise their prices too. This flawed economical assumption is another reason that I will win the debate. Luckily, these small businesses realize this. So they will find other ways to lower the cost, as my opponent pointed out, by cutting expenditures. 1) Again, there is a threshold for analytical arguments. Historically, twelve million jobs have been created by raising the minimum wage. Don't listen to my opponent's arguments that are merely 'assumptions', instead, look at what has happened in the past. I will now quote my first source. "Numerous economic studies, including those by David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton University, have shown that increasing the minimum wage has no negative effect on employment." (1) I would like to ask you, the voter, to believe an economist at Princeton over my opponent. 2) My opponent contends that people will loose their jobs, so people will not have economic security. Again, please trust Princeton economists over my opponent. This point is null, too, because studies, again, by Princeton economists, have shown that there has been no job loss. 3) I apologize for forgetting to source this. This is from my second source down at the bottom. Do not ignore this argument - my opponent had plenty of room to both respond to this and tell you that I forgot to source it. 4) For this point, please refer back to my previous arguments on how there will be no inflation. 5) My opponent contends here that what they make is the same as they had made before (unless they loose their job, which, again, again, Princeton economists have proven to be false). 6) This argument isn't really relevant, I was just putting it out there. Even though my opponent thinks he can win this argument by making analytical arguments, that is not the case. Refer back to my third source at the bottom. "Research has shown that the decline in the real value of the minimum wage from 1979 to 1988 was responsible for approximately 24 percent of the increase in wage inequality experienced by men and about 32 percent of the increase in wage inequality for women." My opponent also says that this is due to other factors. That is irrelevant. It still causes the gap to widen, even if it is not the only thing. 7) Since I have won before with my previous arguments that there will be no more inflation than there is in the status quo, I win this argument too. This argument cannot be looked over. My opponent contends that that extra amount isn't worth much because of the increased cost of living. If they somehow win that there will be inflation, it is NOT POSSIBLE for it to rise so high so that 2,000-3,000 dollars is worth nothing. This extra money for these workers is what we need for the economy right now - they can then buy items from companies, who then make money and can then hire more workers. It's a chain reaction. 8) This is not Bill Clinton speaking. This is a report done by his economists, who are more qualified than my opponent and his analytical arguments. It is irrelevant whether this is statistics from a recession - 2,000 dollars is 2,000 dollars. Even if they win that there will be inflation, I will win that this 2,000 dollars for tens of millions of people will stimulate the economy and help us get out of the recession. The last part of my opponent's argument confuses me. My opponent says that "it is likely that the reasons for the decreased unemployment were not an increased minimum wage, as Clinton insisted." I do not see anywhere in this article where it says that. He, and his economic experts, are arguing against you. Not for you. 9) Since I, again, win that there will be no inflation, I will turn this argument and argue that since the minimum wage will be increased, and millions of jobs will be created, there will be MORE technology created so that we can advance. ""Me: that there has NEVER been jobs lost when the minimum wage increases. (4)" Opponent : My opponent again sources Bill Clinton's talking points. I have already discussed the irrelevance of this source" My opponent forgets that this is from Princeton economists. His arguments are all irrelevant because Princeton economists know more than him. My opponent contends that "raising the minimum wage leads to price inflation and does not 'decrease' inflation at all; it causes an increase in unemployment (leading to more people in poverty); and harms the economy." Since I have already won that this will not lead to inflation, and I have won that it creates millions of jobs, I win that it helps the economy, which is what wins me this debate round. Now, I am going to go over my arguments, and then reach my conclusion. The main argument I am going to go over again is the inflation argument. It seems like there has been some confusion about this with my opponent. --- How does inflation occur? I will list the relevant reasons. --- 1) A type of inflation known as stagflation occurs when an economy faces high unemployment rate and economic stagnation. (4) 2) There is a possibility of inflation when the business houses and industries increase the price of their goods and services in order to increase their profit margins. This type of inflation is known as pricing power inflation or administered price inflation. In this type of inflation, the business houses have the power of pricing their respective goods and services. (4) I have proven number one to be untrue. Raising the minimum wage creates millions of jobs. I have also proven number two untrue. Businesses will not raise their prices because they realize they can't, and also workers will work harder so that the businesses will make more money. This was conceded by my opponent. Also, examine my argument that inflation is high right now, and if the minimum wage catches up, it will not increase inflation. Conclusion My opponent believes that he is more qualified than my authors, Princeton economists, and economic advisers to the President. Do not let him win any of his analytical, historically untrue, arguments. Raising the minimum wage leads to A) Tens of millions of jobs B) More money for those people to spend elsewhere, stimulating the economy Thank you for this wonderful debate. Vote pro. (1) http://www.policyalmanac.org... (2) http://www.njpp.org... (3) http://www.policyalmanac.org... (4