Abolishing the minimum wage will not reduce unemployment

My opponent claims that if it was true that abolishing minimum wage would reduce wages overall, then this would have happened already, and he brings the example of the jobs that get more than the minimum wage. But this does not counter my argument. While increased scarcity in some positions will keep them sufficiently high, most other jobs will be affected by the large and increasing supply of workers which will drive their cost lower and lower. The jobs that are currently on the minimum wage due to law preventing them from going lower will drop while the rest will be affected similarly. "The primary effect of eliminating the minimum wage is employing workers who would otherwise be completely unemployable, as their production level is lower than the cost of employing them under a minimum wage." You cannot judge the production of a worker before employing them, but this is exactly what would happen on jobs which have the lowest wage. The Salary of the job has nothing to do with how much production a worker will be asked to contribute and much more with how easily replaceable the worker is. As for the point that Economics is not Zero sum. It actually is. For one to gain, one must lose. For one to get a position, someone else must not. This drives a race to the bottom for the most desperate of workers. Con then attacks the whole definition of employment and asserts his own. But by this definition, it's better with a system in which people work 12 or 16 hours per day to earn the base necessities for life, as this would somehow make the economy have more "employment". This makes very little sense. If we are to redefine employment, it would far better serve to call someone who can work enough to achieve at least the normal necessities of life as "employed". Not to mention that the whole argument here does not counter my point, that more people would be forced to work more hours, thereby increasing supply and thus reducing the wages even more. Con claims that a wage drop has nothing to do with lowering the minimum wage but in fact it does. It is a sister point, in the sense that lowering wages does not reduce unemployment and rising labour supply lowers wages. Con argues that Real Wages are the only thing that matter and I have countered my own argument. Not at all, my argument is that the minimum wage does not affect unemployment for the worse. Not to mention that in depression periods, a lot of economic effects start working backwards. Con then argues that less potential wages would give the incentive for entrepreneurs to create new enterprises. That is basically the argument that unless the capitalist can make more money with his money (requiring that workers make less money with their work), then he will decline to use it and thus keep back the economy. Putting aside for a bit what "growing the economy" means, the idea that the capitalist can somehow hold society hostage by withholding the wealth he has produced through society is something which is not immediately clear why it is a desirable situation. At least for me. But what the Con says is in fact true, without sufficient exploitation of the workers, many will not wish to invest in an economy. Whether that is good or not is arguable, as someone could point to the Chinese or Indian economy and point out how nicely it grows since the workers are willing to work for scraps. But someone would also point out that nasty aspects of this "growing economy" and the dehumanization it forces on people. In fact, there is a misunderstanding of how worker vs employer power works. Con assumes that the employer needs to "convince" the workers to come out from wherever they are. This is the classic fallacy of conflating unemployment with "leisure time" where the worker who is not working is having somehow a good time. This falls flat on it face outside of economic textbooks. Workers have a far higher drive to find work than the employer has to find workers. This is exactly why wages always race to the bottom and why lowered wages increase unemployment. The workers sitting at home doing nothing, does not need any more coaxing that his rumbling belly and his starving children. He will get whatever he can get a job, even a job that paying less than subsistence. The classic example of the teenager is in fact exactly the wrong example to have. It is commonly brought up that the minimum wages prevent teenagers from finding some extra money jobs, but the truth is that a teenager, who does not need to work, is unlikely to go and get a job that pays 2$ an hour anyway. He most likely has better things to do. The teenagers who would consider such a wage, are in the same situation as the adults who would consider it as well, that is, in a very bad social situation where it's either getting whatever they can, or dying from starvation. "Only abstract thought can effectively reproduce the other-things-equal assumption." I do not know why you brought this up, but this argument is false. Abstract though cannot effectively reproduce science. This is why we have the scientific method. The fact that economists find it impossible to follow it, does not make their current methodology just as good. In fact, even though it may be harder to use empiricism in economics, it is not impossible and it is something that needs to be attempted, rather than washing ones hands, declaring it impossible and sticking with imagined abstract thoughts and a priori axioms. As luck would have it, it is through such research that it has been found that increasing the minimum wage does not lead to higher unemployment (http://books.google.com...) "If more people are added to the category of those who I can employ at a profit rather than a loss, other things equal, I will employ more of them." Sure, but the individual actions of on employer will not change the fact that more people will be seeking work and less people will be able to sustain their way of life with lowering wages. And finally let me put a new argument. Keeping the wages of workers "artificially" high in fact can increase employment, rather than the opposite. This is because the workers are also the consumers. The more money they receive through wages, the more money they have to spend on commodities. This in turn allows more sales and thus more reason for businesses to open or expanded to fulfil the increased demand. Therefore, higher employment.