The US should establish Progressive Wage Laws

Thanks to Jifpop for an intriguing, if a bit off kilter, debate.Let's start with burdens. Note that Pro left R1 alone, despite barely having touched it in R2. So extend my burdens analysis. It is not enough for him to state that there is some possible for even probable benefit. He must show that it is very plausible, that it's substantial, and that the risk of harms is nil. I'm going to show how he hasn't done any of these things.He starts his response by contending that inflation is a real problem. He's not doing much on this point, but I say grant his response – price inflation is a problem when wages are hiked. Pro is doing more to increase inflation than I am by adding a progressive increase on top of the basic minimum wage. Now he tries to skirt out of this by saying that “the employee third factor is deducted after the wage is set, so its entirely possible for companies to pay below the floor if neccesary [sic].” I encourage every judge to check the previous rounds. There is absolutely no mention of a way to go beneath the $10.10 floor he set in this debate. In his first round, he says that this is the floor, and after multiple PMs, he verified this. Small businesses won't get a deduction. He's included no system to help small businesses, and is thus making it more difficult for them. That's not to mention that Pro dropped my analysis that they will never be able to fight any progressive increase to their wages that may occur.Then we move into artificial deficit. Pro must win this point strongly to take the debate, but it seems he didn't understand my responses. He hasn't made any effort to back up his chart from the previous round, nor any of his other links except the Stanford one, and he's failed to even do that effectively. The Stanford link talks about federal deficits. The article doesn't mention private business anywhere. Thus, he's extrapolating from a system that functions on a completely different level from any business. Nor does this link tell us anything about how establishing an artificial deficit is beneficial.This also creates a new harms scenario. He says, “Deficits are needed for the success of a economy, but they can't be to high or to low.” He never says how the system is somehow going to make these deficits just right. He says it will increase deficits, but increasing deficits to overly high levels is harmful, by his own admission. Pro can't titrate this effectively, especially since many companies already have high deficits. His policy doesn't account for that, meaning that they will suffer under this policy.Pro's response on my point comparing the progressive wage to progressive taxation is patently absurd. He chooses to make mine seem akin to a flat tax. I'll grant that my policy has lower overall wages for minimum wage employees (though I would argue that $10.10 is a sufficient increase [1]), that it doesn't affect company deficits, and that it doesn't hinder constant growth. These are fantastic points for my side. Pro is admitting that his wage law is going to cost companies more – extend that point, as it supercharges the inflation and employment disadvantages that Pro himself made. Pro is admitting that my policy won't affect company deficits, so extend my points about how artificially inflating deficits is uncertain and dangerous. Pro is admitting that I have some gain, however minimal, that results from allowing company growth to continue, something that his own policy stymies.Pro not responsive to my point that they will always prefer their competitive advantage, and therefore pass the costs to other parts of the company (affecting employment and short-term growth) rather than risk their customer base. This stymies their growth, thus reducing available jobs, services, and input to the economy. In other words, they're damned no matter what they do to cover those costs. I didn't argue trickle down, that doesn't play a role in my arguments.I love how Pro characterizes my arguments as “unintentional concessions.” I admitted that changes in the competitive landscape are possible, that's all. Pro still hasn't proven that this is likely or beneficial. Pro even conceded in this round that “The rich have to adjust their prices to match the rates of small business.” Remember in the previous round how he said that local prices were higher than those charged by corporations? His plan outright requires that those lower prices rise to achieve the impacts of his deficit point – altering the dynamic is meant to produce price inflation for corporations in order to make sure local businesses can compete. Is that good? Well, more small businesses may be successful, but that means fewer large business expansions will. They will expand less, which leads to less economic benefit. At best, that's a wash. At worst, that's a huge problem, since these companies tend to be major players in our economic growth. And that's if his plan works out as he wants it to.Pro basically drops my analysis on changes in hiring practices. I can't make heads or tails of his first response, and his second is not only wrong, but ignores my point. Of course companies outsource – in droves.[2] But even if they didn't, he's creating new incentive to outsource that doesn't exist in my plan. Outsourcing allows companies to reduce wages of all their minimum wage employees here by hiring more workers abroad. Only Pro's case creates this incentive. Pro also drops my argument that they will simply hire on a bunch of unpaid interns to the same effect.Pro's response on capital is similarly weak. I'm saying that his case provides incentive to take this increased risk. He drops my point that they are only guaranteed increased costs if they keep that capital on hand. He might “guarantee” that they'll never see that money again, but his own link says its complicated. He drops my point that investing is also completely within their means. Pro still hasn't touched any of my links or arguments from R1, which means he's conceding that companies engage in incredibly risky business practices just to avoid taxation. They will do the same here.Pro similarly remains unresponsive to my argument that there will be increased lawsuits and nonexistent mergers. By dropping these two points alone, he has conceded this debate. These harms are enough to ensure that he never meets his BoP, as he has failed to dissuade anyone from two of the largest harms I've presented. Even if judges buy every single advantage, the certainty that these will accompany them is enough to vote Con.But there's plenty of other reasons. Pro's case and advantages have been incredibly inconsistent. He's against price inflation, but his whole case is predicated on producing it. He's against employment reductions, yet his case incentivizes hiring outside the country at lower wages and hiring unpaid interns rather than actual employees. He's against harming small businesses, but does nothing to protect them from higher wage requirements and ignores the realities of what large businesses have available to avoid them.Let's compare cases. At worst, my case linearly increases incentive to avoid paying minimum wage. Pro's case has the exact same harm, plus providing the added incentive to avoid paying higher wages for all their minimum wage employees. The incentive to engage in risky behavior that harms companies, markets, and employees is demonstrably higher in Pro's world.And remember, Pro's case has never been tried before. It hash no history in any country or evidence of effectiveness. It was Pro's burden to prove that none of that was necessary, and that we could trust the progressive wage to be effective without it. He hasn't done that. The harms are too big, the beneficial impact too small and uncertain. Vote Con.1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...2. http://www.statisticbrain.com...