Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

Starting on his value:1. My value comes first. There's no reason why we ought to even have capitalism without some other kind of justification, the kind of justification my framework provides.2. If we value capitalism and helping businesses, you still affirm. Cross-apply my Brenner evidence which is talking about how a living wage increases worker productivity. This outweighs his analytical argument saying that workers won't work as hard since you prefer my evidence to his word.3. F*ck capitalism. We need to be fighting the corporate machine, not giving money to it. They can certainly afford to pay their workers better. White[1]: "The average CEO of an S&P 500 company makes $12.3 million a year on average. They can afford it. The 1% is able to make that kind of money by only paying workers an average of $34,645 per year, despite escalating productivity. Corporations are using the excuse of the recession to slash pay, attack pensions, and ratchet down their health care contributions. You’ve heard the rhetoric: “We all have to tighten our belts.” But in the last year, we saw 100 new billionaires added to the Forbes Billionaires List. ..." Then, onto his standard of ensuring quality of life.This flows aff so hard. Living wage improves the quality of life of the suburban poor. Berube[2]: "As so many jobs today are located in suburbs, especially lower-wage sectors like retail and hospitality, suburban residents are increasingly likely to experience working poverty. So it stands to reason that measures to boost their wages, like ... living wage campaigns, could be important tools for addressing the economic hardships facing suburban workers and communities." And without a living wage, this forces 60% of the working poor to rely on welfare to attempt to make ends meet. Walsh[3]: "Americans notoriously hate welfare, unless it’s called something else and/or benefits us personally. We think it’s for slackers and moochers and people who won’t pull their weight. So we’re not sure how to handle the fact that a quarter of people who have jobs today make so little money that they also receive some form of public assistance, or ... that 60 percent of able-bodied adult food-stamp recipients are employed. ... 52 percent of fast-food workers’ families receive ... Medicaid, food stamps ... to the tune of $7 billion annually, ..." And, studies show that in areas without a living wage petty crimes are higher. Implimenting living wage is shown to decrease crime. Fernandez, et al.[4]: "In this paper, we evaluate the unintended consequences of living-wage policies on crime. ... First ... we are the first to study the impact of living wages on related deviant behaviors. Second ... we are able to explicitly mitigate the potential endogeneity bias of living-wage ordinances using a variety of empirical approaches. We find robust evidence that living-wage ordinances lead to modest reductions in expected robbery, burglary, larceny, and MVT rates ..." And, you can cross-apply the Varela evidence I read in my case as how implimenting the living wage will lower rates of HIV infections which went completely uncontested.And, implimenting a living wage will close up the income gap between minorities and the rest of America. Right now they lack this access. Berg[5]: “The numbers themselves are staggering, but we look at these outcomes as deeper systemic problems,” ... race and ethnicity, as well as gender, play a huge role in income inequality. ... “Forty-seven percent of all workers earn a living wage greater than or equal to the living wage for two working adults and two children, but only 33 percent of workers of color were able to provide the income needed for that family type,” ... “Fewer people of color, Latinos and females have access to a living wage." And, his claims that a living wage will reduce jobs is bull. Multiple economic studies show that implimenting higher wages won't actually affect jobs. Boushey '14[6]: "Careful studies of the economics literature find that increases in the minimum wage have little to no effect on employment. Economists ... found that the increase in the minimum wage did not reduce employment. ... Research by ... the University of North Carolina ... and ... Berkeley ... found that minimum wage did not have a significant effect on employment." This responds to virtually all of the contentional complaints as well, and because of this not only am I fulfilling my own framework, but I also fulfill his framework by affirming. So it doesn't really matter which framework you look at it because I'm winning both of them. But let's go to specific contention responses:First, off of his living wage is indeterminable argument:This doesn't even mean that the living wage is indeterminable. It just means that the cost of living in Montana is probably gonna be different than in California, which is common sense. Different places cost different amounts to live there.Then, off of his inflation argument.The card literally doesn't have any kind of warrant to it. He's trying to show you that a living wage causes inflation with a piece of evidence that barely, if at all, shows correlation. Even if you buy that the card shows correlation, which it really doesn't, correlation still isn't the same thing as causation. And off of his second contention:There's really not a whole lot to respond to here because there's literally zero warrant to any of this other than it's just his say so. Not to mention that I have carded evidence and empirics that disprove this contention already. Then, on his response to why the living wage isn't moral:There's zero warrant to this as well. Moreover, prefer my evidence that directly contradicts this. Then, off of his argument where living wage doesn't benefit the economy:His two pieces of evidence don't actually have any kind of warrant to them. The Neumark card says that there were some kind of affect on the HOUSING MARKET, and then tries to establish a link between that and labor markets somehow by just saying that "they're closely related" without actually establishing how or if this "relationship" actually is true in this case. The Hart card says even less than that, it's just his bland assertion on a tangent without any kind of evidence to back up his assertion. His only argument against my Covert evidence is that it's from the EPI and they're liberally biased, but that's not actually responding to the statistics at all: I can be liberally biased in my analysis, but if I say 1+1=2, that doesn't suddenly mean that 1+1 may not equal 2. Moreover, he ignores the Luce evidence I read right above it which explains the exact same implications, so I have non-biased sources saying the exact same thing.Then, off of his argument where he says living wage overburdens tax payers:All his States News Service card actually says is that implimenting a living wage COULD POTENTIALLY mean higher municipal taxes. But a) this doesn't show how this is always the case, refer back to my card at the top of this round talking about how top CEOs can certainly afford to be paying the increased wages without having to rely on tax support, and b) he's not even warranting how these new taxes would "overburden" the public if they were to happen. And social security is important because it's what provides for the elderly in retirement. Without it, they'll have to continue to work and take jobs from those who aren't retired and are unemployed, meaning that because I'm protecting social services I'm allowing the opportunity for the unemployed to find jobs that otherwise would've been taken.Then, off of his argument that living wage doesn't solve for poverty1. He's making the same correlation = causation argument. He seems to be forgetting that we were also in a massive recession in '09.2. Refer back to the truck-loads of evidence I read off already how a living wage won't actually cut jobs.3. His analysis here ignores the working poor: those who have jobs yet can't make enough to support themselves, which is what literally all my evidence talks about. Extend this out because it's a direct counter-example to this. Implimenting a living wage will lift the working poor out of poverty, which is something he doesn't respond to. And, off of the EITC argument:1. He's not actually showing how EITC actually solves the issues that he claims living wage has. His card doesn't have any kind of warrant for this, only that people who would see a pay increase from a living wage is small which doesn't have anything to do with the point he was trying to make.2. He provides literally no reason why I can't impliment this along-side a living wage. This is damning to his argument here because without some kind of uniqueness argument as to why living wage and EITC are mutually exclusive, there's no reason why I can't impliment this as well in the affirmative world. [1] - Sarah White, Seattle Contingent for The Socialist Alternative, February 17, 2014, “Why We Fight for a $15 an Hour Minimum Wage,” The Socialist Alternative,[2] - Alan Berube, senior fellow and deputy director at the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, November 8, 2013, “The Living Wage in SeaTac: Confronting Suburban Poverty?,” The Brookings Institute,[3] - Joan Walsh, Salon's editor at large, December 15, 2013, “Poverty nation: How America created a low-wage work swamp,” Salon.com,[4] - Jose Fernandez, et al., Department of Economics, University of Louisville, July 2014, “The Impact of Living-Wage Ordinances on Urban Crime,” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Volume 53, Issue 3, p.[5] - Lauren Berg, Staff Writer, November 23, 2014, “Study shows families lack a ‘living wage’," Daily Progress,[6] - Heather Boushey, Executive Director and Chief Economist, Washington Center for Equitable Growth, March 12, 2014, Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on “From Poverty to Opportunity: How A Fair Minimum Wage will Help Families Succeed”, Equitable Growth