Raising the minimum wage

I understand I have a limited amount of characters, so as this is my last chance to prove my point I am going to keep my rebuttal as short as possible and may not be able to rebuttal every single point but will do my best. By keeping my rebuttal short, I will be able to provide you with a conclusion and the evidence that PRO has called on me to provide. In Pro's opening statements he says that I admit my first two statements contradict, however let me make it clear that they only contradict where they must co-exist, and like I stated, I was not suggesting they co-exist, I was instead suggesting the one of them (either inflation or job loss) would happen should minimum wage be increased. I believe that Pro does understand that, however I wanted to make it clear to the audience. Moving on, Pro states that the price increases which he admitted would happen are negligible. But if you refer back to my definition of inflation in round 2, you will notice that it does not say that any amount of price increase is required for inflation to happen, all it requires is a general price increase no matter how much. However, lets consider the minimum wage increase is what Pro suggests (from $7.25 to $10.10 or a $2.85 increase) which by all means is not a modest increase. (I understand Pro said he new that in the last round, however in the first round he stated $10.10 WAS a modest increase, therefore making him contradict himself. That in fact is why I had assumed he wasn't using the federal wage because an increase to $10.10 from $7.25 is not a modest increase as he had suggested it was. ) Now back to my point, considering the minimum wage increase is from $7.25 to $10.10 in order to balance out for the fact that they are now paying their employees more they must raise the prices by more of a significant amount than what Pro is suggesting. Now that I have clarified that whether on a large scale or not inflation would to happen (given unemployment does not0 it is important for me to make clear the problem with inflation- it devalues the dollar in comparison to other currencies. I would now like to give an example of why this is bad, I could go on a larger scale ( trade with foreign nations) but because of my limits in characters, I find it simpler to give you an example based on one person in a single foreign nation. Say inflation occurs to such an extent that the dollar is only worth approximately 6.5 pesos instead of approximately 13. Say someone in Mexico is selling a doll for 13 pesos. Before inflation you could by it with $1, now after inflation (keep in mind prices would not go up in Mexico because they would not be affected by the same inflation as us because the minimum wage increase only affects those in the U.S.) you must pay $2 to by a doll. Trade on a large scale with foreign nations is affected in the same manner. Now, I am not suggesting such a drastic devaluation in the dollar WOULD happen. Depending on how much the minimum wage increases it may be less drastic, however inflation does result in the devaluation of money as stated in the definition. And no matter how much the dollar is devalued, that little amount WILL add up over time having a negative effect on our economy and trade (though it may not be seen for a long time). In regards to Pro's challenge against my statement that most humans look out for their best interest over others, unfortunately I have no concrete proof of that, so I challenge you personally, as the observer of this debate, to answer the call to proof through yourself. Would you take a cut in your own earnings so that you would not have to lay off your employees, or would you look after your own interests first? Pro again suggests that increase in minimum wage increases worker productivity. But he fails to prove this. Incentive is what increases productivity. Not what has already been given. Ask yourself which is more productive: A donkey dragging a plow who has been given a carrot to eat, or a donkey dragging a plow with a carrot being held in front of him but not yet given to him. I understand this is hypothetical but these conclusions are reached using logic just as you reach the answer to a math problem using logic. But for those who require evidence, despair not, it is coming. Unfortunately at this time I must cut my rebuttal short so that I can provide the evidence Pro has been asking for, I do believe however I have rebuttal the most important points. Now for evidence. First of all, evidence has already been provided that inflation will happen, as I stated in the last round, through the research that Pro has brought up (as you will note in the last round I brought up a couple of quotes he used that suggested that prices will indeed rise). And yes while Pro has stated that if the minimum wage increase amount is modest then prices won't rise by much- they will still rise which will still cause inflation which by definition will cause devaluation of the dollar, and even if it's only a fraction of an amount, that devaluation will add up on a large scale (just like 1 penny doesn't seem like much unless you put every penny you have in a jar for years and one day realize you have a few hundred dollars), causing a negative effect. In conclusion, Pro has proved for me that minimum wage increase does cause inflation by proving that it does cause companies to raise their prices- which I have proved by definition is what causes inflation. So the question is not whether inflation is caused by minimum wage increase, but how significant, and as I stated, even the smallest amount of inflation becomes significant over time and accumulation. Now as I stated, inflation can be avoided by the alternative- unemployment, and upon research, I have find evidence that contradicts Pro's belief that more often then not it is inflation that happens as supposed to unemployment. An article on forbes.com reads: "In a comprehensive, 182-page summary of the research on this subject from the last two decades, economists David Neumark (UC-Irvine) and William Wascher (Federal Reserve Board) determined that 85 percent of the best research points to a loss of jobs following a minimum wage increase." But whether we can agree on the fact that minimum wage increase causes unemployment more often then inflation, we can conclude that it has happened in instances in the past. (Note I do suggest that inflation and unemployment HAVE both been results in the past, but not co-existing so as not to be able to contradict each other, but rather in separate instances whether it be in the economies of separate states having different minimum wages or whether it be in different time periods in the history of the U.S.). According to CNN.com in 2009 the minimum wage increased from $6.55 an hour to $7.25. According to infoplease.com the unemployment rate went up by .3% the following year, this could be deemed a coincidence, but other research will show that the unemployment rate tends to go up with inflation in more then just a few instances. For example, looking at it from a different angle, in Hawaii, the unemployment rate is 4.4% and in Oregon it is 6.9% according to bls.gov. And minimum wage is lower in Hawaii then in Oregon by $1.85 according to ncsl.org. Further examination of the charts on these sites will show that states with higher unemployment rates than others also tend to have higher minimum wages proving that higher minimum wages cause higher unemployment rates. The last thing I would like to do is prove that contrary to what pro says, minimum wage would not be higher today if it had kept up with inflation according to research from forbes.com: "..the argument that, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage would already be above $9 an hour. But inflation rates can both rise and fall, which means a minimum wage that truly kept up with inflation since its inception in 1938 would only be $4.12 today"not the current $7.25." *Sources to be listed in comments.