Minimum Wage

C1: And logic might assume that people act logically, or things act the way we expect them to. For example, logic (when applied to economics) often presumes Homo economicus, but H. economicus is hardly accepted as a universally accurate description of human behavior in economics.[1][2]Yes, that could be the case with my studies. But unlike my opponent’s graph, my scientific studies control for other variables; they aren’t simply a graph of the minimum wage overlaid with a graph of unemployment. I do not deny the correlation. I question the causation.C2: I didn’t say that competition was either an end in and of itself or created to serve the people, I said that competition was either an end in and of itself or should serve the people.If competition is not an end in and of itself, then why should we allow it to run unbridled? The question must be asked: If something does not favor the overall welfare, then why should we keep it? This question is especially urgent when it hurts the overall welfare (as ‘eh, habit’ is a valid answer to keeping something useless around). We are faced with two possibilities, it seems. Either competition is always good, or there are times when it is not. Saying anything is always good requires a great deal of evidence; my opponent has not presented such evidence. How do we know that inhibiting competition reduces economic growth, innovation, employment, et cetera? Of course it does in some cases, but how many cases? Perhaps there are instances where cooperation is superior to competition.I assert that the only thing that is always good is good itself. Anything else will have some exceptions. In the realm of public policy, we must determine what these exceptions are, and how severe they are, then balance the exceptions against the rest. At this point we must determine how to eliminate or mitigate the exceptions while keeping the points at which the concept, process, or thing is good—if we do not determine that it must be simply thrown out as it is too flawed to be worthwhile.That’s the point of regulations—to eliminate or mitigate the exceptions. Only a fool regulates for the sake of regulating; I am fairly confident that someones saying, “Let’s make a new regulation for the heck of it!” has almost never happened. The question is whether or not we should allow competition between peanut butter makers that have rat feces in their product and those that do not. I say we should not; that any benefits are far outweighed by the negative effects of ingesting rat feces.My opponent asks how the line would be drawn. My answer is this: The common good. I consider regulation to be a way to protect the public good; if a regulation does not do this than it is useless and may be discarded; if a regulation hurts the public good it must be discarded.Yes, of course there would be loopholes. But if they are genuinely loopholes, we should be able to amend our regulations, instead of simply drafting new ones. It will be somewhat like a game of Whack-A-Mole, but I think it is a necessary game of Whack-A-Mole.P1: Again, my opponent has failed to show that the minimum wage actually does cause unemployment. Friedman was absolutely right when he said that we must examine what a law or measure produces--and I propose we do just that. Examine the real-world effects. I have done this. My opponent has not.In the study I cited, I cannot find mention of benefits and/or compensation. I do find mention, though, of the argument, based in surveys of CEOs, that firms do not always maximize profit, and do not price wages according to productivity.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.eco-action.org...