The Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

Sorry if my response is too quick. I already had my part typed out. 1)Minimum wage augments workers' wallets AND increases employment David Card and Alan Krueger ran a study in 1992 that compared two states, NJ and Pennsylvania, after the former increased its minimum wage and the latter remained the same. Thus study showed that, contrary to common belief, EMPLOYMENT increased in NJ. "Basic economic theory would have implied that relative employment should have decreased in New Jersey. Card and Krueger surveyed employers before the April 1992 New Jersey increase, and again in November-December 1992, asking managers for data on the full-time equivalent staff level of their restaurants both times. Based on data from the employers' responses, the authors concluded that the increase in the minimum wage increased employment in the New Jersey restaurants" [1] Reviews: [2] "The Card-Krueger work is essentially correct: the minimum wage at levels observed in the United States has had little or no effect on employment. At the minimum, the book has changed the burden of proof in debates over the minimum, from those who stressed the potential distributional benefits of the minimum to those who stress the potential employment losses."--Richard B. Freeman, Journal of Economic Perspectives; more reviews at the site given. 2)The alternative to minimum wage would allow sweatshops, ergo we would be annihilating the livelihood of the working class. In China, (strongest economy with sweatshops) the worker earns an average of $0.44 in the working hour in USD. The highest pay average is in Costa Rica at $2.38 and the lowest is Bangladesh at $0.13 [3]. Only China comes close to matching the US economy, but guess what the problem is? All the made in China exports are low quality because they are not motivated to put any effort into their work. Proponents of minimum wage say it increases minimum wage workers' work ethic and boosts their morals, while forcing them to work more and harder as their employers try to make up the high cost of payroll by increasing productivity (among other effects). {SEE- Arguments in favor of minimum wage law [5][6][7]} 3) As the minimum wage drives up prices, low-income families pay proportionately more than high-income families for the goods they buy. If no employment losses follow a minimum wage increase, employers are likely to pass along their higher labor costs as higher prices for the goods they produce. The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year. [4] Arguments in favor of Minimum Wage Laws [5][6][7] Supporters of the minimum wage claim it has these effects: -Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society and raises average. -Motivates and encourages employees to work harder (unlike welfare programs and other transfer payments). -Stimulates consumption, by putting more money in the hands of low-income people who spend their entire paychecks. -Increases the work ethic of those who earn very little, as employers demand more return from the higher cost of hiring these employees. -Decreases the cost of government social welfare programs by increasing incomes for the lowest-paid. -Encourages the automation of industry. MY SOURCES [1] Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage David Card & Alan B. Krueger [2] http://press.princeton.edu... [3] http://www.independent.org... [4] http://www.ppic.org... [5]http://www.epi.org... [6] Richard B. Freeman (1994). Minimum Wages – Again!. International Journal of Manpower [7] Bernard Semmel, Imperialism and Social Reform: English Social-Imperial Thought 1895-1914 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1960), p. 71, p. 73 __________________________________________________________________________________ Refutation __________________________________________________________________________________ "In considering supply and demand, we can see a very simple problem with a minimum wage, namely that raising the price of labor will lead to less quantity demanded." This is empirically disproven. The price of all labor goes up, yes, the price of products will go up. But this neglects that with higher prices for labor, higher wages are necessarily being handed out. See my first argument. "raising the minimum wage" would not lead to a reduction of employment. Rather, in a study I also showed in my first argument, it increases employment. I have provided the study; now, the burden of proof for this argument returns to my opponent. Read the reviews. The issue of low wage jobs being the first step up the ladder is ridiculous. My opponent basically argues that, if we take one cashier's job @ $7.25 an hour and divide it among 7 cashiers @ $1.03 an hour, those 7 cashiers will all move up the ladder. Rather, I would argue that this decreases their work ethic because their jobs are being divided among other people, AND the employer won't need to move anyone up the ladder until another higher worker retires or dies. With such low hopes, those cashiers would quit before they enjoyed corporate status. Then my opponent refers to the FLSA and exempt v. non-exempt workers. This may seem like a silly argument to make, but when I clicked "ctrl+F" and typed in "non" and clicked "enter", I didn't find "non" ever followed by exempt. Either my opponent has to explicitly quote his argument or find a better source, meanwhile I'd say this argument is invalid because my opponent pulls conclusions from works that don't provide for his claim. Continuing with what the FLSA does NOT do, my opponent points out several potentially harmful problems. Let's look at it this way- I have knives in the kitchen, and I CAN murder my brothers, mother, and father. Also, my parents CAN hide them, but they don't. Just because it's there, doesn't mean I WILL seize the opportunity to make my life and my family's life miserable. Seeing that the US economy is the strongest and most resilient in the world and consumes more than any country on the planet [8], I'd say my opponent has to provide tangible evidence to prove that his A) through E) problems mentioned really did anything to affect the united states. Just like they say, "TITS OR GTFO!" [9] to my opponent: impacts, or drop the argument (sorry for the obscene comparison, I just thought it was funny). CONCLUSION _______________________________________________________ My opponent has the burden of proof for two different aspects of this debate. First, he must prove empirically/tangibly that minimum wage has negatively impacted the US. Second, he must show that, on balance, minimum wage is worse in the status quo than is lack of it. If my opponent disagrees that these are his burdens, I urge an explanation. Given I have addressed the bulwark of my opponents argument, I will send the debating over to him and look forward to an interesting response. Thank you for your time. Vote Con =) REFUTATION SOURCES _______________________________________________________________________ [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.urbandictionary.com...