Minimum wage laws are inherently self-defeating and should be eliminated immediately

Thanks for posting this debate, Pro. Because this debate is my first, I may mess up a few things; please be patient if I do. Also, because I am starting another semester of college in 3 days, I may not be able to keep up with this debate, which will invoke an inevitable forfeit. If that happens, I apologize beforehand. "Additionally, empirical studies have shown mixed results" This is true. The large consensus of empirical studies have produced little to no effects on employment levels that correlate with moderate rises in the minimum wage. 1)"The market attempts to establish equilibrium or market clearing prices, that is, prices which allocate resources towards their most urgent uses and maximize social benefit." I disagree, but because my disagreement is off topic, I'll be brief. Social benefit is not always maximized by an unfettered market because market equilibrium drives toward what is most profitable, not socially beneficial - the two are not mutually inclusive. For example, fossil fuels are very arguably non-conducive to long term outcomes that can be considered socially beneficial, but because it is profitable, they are perpetually utilized by the market, which goes to show that market equilibrium isn't always best for society. 2)"When prices are arbitrarily set above this "equilibrium position" you have surpluses, and when it is arbitrarily set below this position, you have shortages. People tend to purchase less of a product when it is more expensive and vice versa (all other things equal)." This is true in theory, but not in practice. As you correctly stated in your first paragraph, arbitrary price floors on labor have little to no effect on the current surplus of labor. 3)"When you arbitrarily elevate wages above the equilibrium position you must necessarily diminish the (quantity) demand for labor, yielding unemployment. When the productivity of a laborer is not high enough to warrant such a wage then that laborer becomes a burden upon his employer and must be terminated." This isn't necessarily true. Firms must take into account the diminishing marginal utility of labor (overall productivity based on the quantity of labor), which warrants only a specific quantity of workers based on how large a firm can profitably become, which ultimately relies upon economies of scale. Because 99% of all firms are not economies of scale, they cannot infinitely expand, nor hire an unlimited quantity of workers. The majority of firms are already operating at the most efficient and profitable capacity based on their particular economy of scale and its coordination with utility of labor. Ultimately, this means that firms will not hire more workers if the price floor is removed because it will not increase the productivity of that firm much, if at all. Instead, they will keep approximately the same amount of workers on payroll, except at much less cost. The outcome is effectively a lower wage for non-competitive workers (teens, immigrants, etc), and a relatively similar employment level. This may be beneficial to employers, but not for employees, the firm in question, or the overall GDP of the economy. Example:: Firm A produces the most goods at the lowest cost with exactly 15 workers. Any increase or decrease of workers will diminish marginal productivity, along with raising the costs of operation. In effect, hiring any more workers will grant higher costs, regardless of changes in payrolls. 4)"Minimum wage laws hurt those who they are intended to aid (the least productive members of society), namely minorities, young adults, and immigrants." The consensus of empirical data suggests otherwise. The most that could be accepted as true based on current research is a 1-3 percent change in employment levels among teenagers, which is negative. 5)"Thus, minimum wage laws are inherently self-defeating." Minimum wage laws may be meant to help the poor, but not solely teenagers and minorities. The price floor was implemented during the Great Depression, which suffered a period of severe unemployment that largely transcended race, age, or background. Additionally, the minimum wage increases the purchasing power among those receiving it, which arguably helps to alleviate the burden of the cost of living, albeit very slightly. However, the minimum wage is not inherently self-defeating mainly due to the consequences of removing it. With the current economic crisis, there is a large labor surplus, which will naturally drive wages down substantially. Businesses are not going to hire more people based on lower wages, but rather use that to cut back operating costs. This will have an overwhelmingly adverse effect on those who are barely getting by on the current minimum wage, which may fall to $3 an hour if the price floor is retracted. In other words, the current existence of the minimum wage is effective at helping to maintain a decent standard of living for the most vulnerable members of society, which isn't self-defeating at all. "Furthermore, the macroeconomic and social ramifications are severe: unemployment lowers total national output/income, lowers tax revenues, it creates a demand for costly social services which must be financed through government debt, which, in turn, leads to debt monetization and inflation. And finally, teenagers, that are trapped in urban areas, who attend poor public schools with unmotivated teachers, are unable to find work and therefore turn to the streets. This leads to a perpetual and self-reinforcing cycle of violence and criminality." Because unemployment levels are not effected by the minimum wage, the economy's GDP or productive capability will not endure much drag, if any at all. Also, contrary to your first sentence in this paragraph; if the minimum wage is removed and wages go into free fall, people will have to use more social services to get by because the cost of living is only rising. The subsequent rise in demand for these services will lead to less tax revenue and additional government expenditures. Lastly, I feel that teenagers in urban areas turn to the streets mainly due to the low purchasing power of the minimum wage as it is - of course in conjunction with limited employment opportunities. Because of this, many teens feel it is easier to just sell drugs, which brings in pretty good money compared to a job at McDonalds... Thanks again for the debate, Pro. I hope that the content of my reply is consistent with your goals of keeping this debate limited to logical consistency, rather than a list of endless and contradictory empirical studies.