Minimum Wage should not increase to $15.

R1: Increased Consumption.This claim has already been debunked in My P2: Annual Wages case. Increased Consumption means increased spending. The GDP is merely a measurement of the movement of currency in a nation, aka spending. In R2, I gave evidence that minimum wage increases have never been followed by GDP growth. A case dropped by Con showing that when minimum wage increased [1], GDP growth almost always decreased [2]. For Con's case to be true, we MUST see an increase in GDP growth. History opposes Con's case.Along with historically inconsistency, Con's case also falls short of academic consensus. In a popular study by famous economist J. Sabia, he shows that increases in minimum wage have only led to a negative impact on the GDP, specifically for low-skilled industries [3].Reasons for this being that hikes in minimum wage correlates strongly with unemployment rates among teenagers [4]. The increase in unemployment negates a major source of growth in the economy, and reduces productivity. Another inherent issue with Con's claim is that only a small portion of those postivitely effected by hikes in wages are major contributors to the economy. Over 62% of minimum wage workers work only as a summer job, and provide little to the economy [5]. It should be noted that Con's own source on the $17,500 claim states that this income is greatly outweighed by larger unemployment [6]. It must also be noted that Con's math is wrong. The CBO puts the net gain on income for $10.10 an hour at only $2 bn a year once increases and decreases in income are accounted for [12]. Even at $15 an hour, income would, at most, increase by $5 bn, but an exponentially increasing rate of disemployment would have a much larger decreasing effect, so net gain would be lower.A major contributor to lacking economic growth is that the increase in prices, following basic economic philosophy, reduces demand. This causes less consumption overall. We see this increase in prices across nations with minimum wages above $6.00 an hour. Using minimum wages gathered from OECD [7], and CPI information [8], we find that as minimum wage increases, there is an increase in CPI. Especially in the restaurant field, where a large ratio of employees are mw. The restaurant CPI follows minimum wage to a near perfect degree. We see this supported in academia by Aaronson, French, and MacDonald (2007)[9], where they found unambiguous increases in prices when wages increase. This claim was later supported by studies done in 2015 [10]. Empirically and historically speaking, raising minimum wage does not increase consumption, but instead leads to lower GDP growth. The Heritage Foundation found that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would cost 300,000 jobs a year and reduce the economy by $40 bn annually [11].R2: Higher Productivity.Con's case is disproven by a study by A. Davies showing that productivity does not increase when minimum wage rose [12]. In fact, increases in unemployment negated any increase. CBO estimates as many as 200,000 workers could lose their job if minimum wage increased to $9.00, as could 1,000,000 workers at $10.10 [13]. By such an increase of 5x for only a dollar increase in wages, $15 an hour would lead to mass disemployment. At $10.10 alone, you lose nearly 2 billion hours of productivity. The economic stress would lead to lower productivity on the rest of the workers who must pick up the slack.Many studies support this, including one by Nuemark and Wascher [14] which stated that among low-skilled workers, there was a strong disemployment effect. A study by M. Hicks [15] found that minimum wage hikes in the 2000's led to 550,000 fewer jobs being created. Abowd claimed that french men ages 25 - 30 on minimum wage saw their probability of keeping their job decrease by 4.6 percent for every 1% increase in wages [16].Another hit to productivity was a study by Chaplin, Turner, and Pape [2003] that found that higher minimum wages lead to slight decreases in school enrollment [17]. The long term effect on skill levels will reduce both productivity and the efficiency of productivity over the long term. Backing Chaplin's study was two done by Nuemark and Wascher [18][19]. John Warren and C. Hamrock found the same results in 2008 [20].R3: Corporate Tax Cuts.Con's case lacks an understanding of minimum wage demographics. It assumes increasing minimum wage will lead to the wage increases necessary to decrease welfare funding. This isn't true. In fact, Minimum Wage increases barely touch poverty-stricken workers. I will discuss more in P5: Inefficiency and Alternatives, but will explain a bit here in the name of refutation.Contrary to popular belief, most minimum wage workers are not poor. In fact, a report done by R. Nielsen found that more than 57% of the nation's impoverished were so because they were unemployed [21]. As such, a minimum wage hike will not help them, but will keep them unemployed longer, costing the Government money in the long term. 87% of those who benefited from an increase in wages were not poor, and 56% lived in households earning 2x the poverty level. So the minimum wage increase does little to actually help poverty. Forbes claimed the average Household Income of minimum wage earners was $50,700+ a year [22]. This implies that the average welfare earner was largely unaffected. This is likely because most impoverished with jobs are poor because of family sizes, not individual wages.Many on minimum wage don't receive welfare because, statistically speaking, minimum wage isn't below the poverty line. Those who live on their own, working the annual average work hour (1780)[23], will bring in $12,900 a year. This is over $1,100 above the poverty level. If they were married with another minimum wage worker, they would earn almost $9,900 over [24]. If the second member were a child, the worker would be impoverished, until the EITC (worth $1,000)[25] and the CTC (worth $3,305 for one child)[26] were added, putting the worker almost $1,300 over the poverty line. This being so, poverty has little to do with their wages, and more with work hours and family sizes where the size is well above the wages of the working members.As such, Minimum Wage does little to decrease poverty, and therefore welfare. If anything, the effect on unemployment and cut hours would likely throw more people into poverty. Therefore there is no room for Corporate Tax Cuts. Even then, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 included tax cuts [27], and yet many of the studies I provided that found disemployment and negative GDP impacts included this wage increase, implying tax credits did little for corporations and workers.P1: Corporate Income v Employer Income.To reinforce this case, a study of prices in New Jersey claimed prices increased because of a hike in wages [28]. One restaurant rose prices 14% after a minimum wage hike [29]. Another found a price hike of at least 0.7% for every 10% hike in wages, or 1.6% for limited service establishments [30]. Such establishments would have to raise prices by 5% [31]. On that same note, Con never addressed decreasing fast food sales [32]. P2 and P3 need not be expanded upon.P4: Effect on Employees.To expand this case, a chart taken from the BLS shows a perfect correlation between teenager unemployment and the minimum wage [33]. A review of studies confirmed disemployment among younger workers [34]. Kosters [35], Henderson [36], and Sabia, Burkhauser, and Hansen [37] confirm this. Mark Wilson found that most minimum wage workers get promoted past minimum wage within a year, displaying a natural progression away from entry-level worker, and when forced, leads to disemployment among those workers [38].This is confirmed in a mass review of studies by Nuemark [39]. Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen found the same results, as did many others [40,41,42,43], and a massive compilation of studies by the JECR found a consensus in academia similar to Nuemark's [44]. P5: Inefficiency and Alternatives.As stated in R2: Corporate Tax Cuts, the demographics are not in minimum wage's favor. In fact, notable liberal billionaire Warren Buffett claimed he didn't believe the minimum wage was effective [45]. A 2010 study by Burkhauser and Sabia concludes that increasing the minimum wage does nothing to reduce poverty [46]. I've already hit plenty on the topic of inefficiency, so I will move on to the point. Alternatives. The study mentioned increasing The Earned Income Tax Credit, which is the most proposed option [47]. AIE discussed the proposal in depth [48], claiming that the policy is far more precise since the tax credit is based on household income (the defining income for poverty). Therefore, a family in poverty will recieve an increase in income, while a minimum wage worker in High School and with a household income of $50,000 doesn't. The policy is far better targeted and far more precise.Other reasons for the EITC's efficiency is that it does not cost the employer anything. As many scholars agree on, jobs are the best anti-poverty tool, therefore an increase to wages without decreasing employment is the best path. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found, increases in the EITC and CTC (Child Tax Credit) led to higher grades, healthier children, increased earnings for the children later on, and a number of other benefits [49]. The Tax Credit also encourages work, as the credit is based on a percentage of income. More work equals more revenue [50]. This increases work, productivity, and wages.Conclusion:Minimum Wage does not reduce poverty, welfare spending, or hardships among earners. It does, however, increase disemployment, prices, and even poverty if doubled. It does not increase consumption, but does decrease GDP growth. It should not be increased to $15 an hour. Increasing the EITC is the best option for reducing poverty and hardship among low-earning households and the impoverished.Sources: http://pasted.co...