Resolved: A Minimum Wage Should Exist.

The fact that you won't accept the fact that I posted the arguments in round three just because they were in round three isn't fair. My round three argument was just below 8000 characters, so I would have had to cut it significantly to fit in into round two. I planned on that - I was going to make my own arguments the first round, and address your own in the second round. And I didn't drop the poverty argument. I will use this round to address your concerns with my own arguments. I addressed everything this round. And you can't impose a debate structure without first articulating it in round one. ArgumentsI will split my arguments the way my opponent did, but I will save space by not quoting my opponent. Pareto-OptimalityWe're both making arguments. What you're arguing against is at least just as invalid as what he's arguing for. If all personal observations are wrong, there's no point in arguing. He's using reductio ad absurdum to make his case. While the case is indeed not realistic, that is the point of the argument - to show that one application of an arguments leads to an absurdity. What if the person doesn't allow them to scratch his finger? Are we going to have to respect his rights more than the continuation of the world? This is a valid objection, and this addresses your argument directly because your whole case rests upon self-ownership libertarianism, which I have just shown leads to an absurdity. Worker's NeedsWhat you're saying is that the raising up of millions of workers should not be more important than the preservation of a few wealthy people's fortunes, which would only be affected a very small amount by a minimum wage. In the end, the minimum wage allows more people to live better. Voluntary ContractsIndeed that is true. But wroth cannot be attached subjectively. Labor is worth something, and the minimum wage makes sure that this value is not subverted. Further, unemployment doesn't seem to be a problem, so it's not like workers are finding a lack of available contracts. Further, if the minimum wage helps businesses (which I hope to have shown in my arguments), why argue against it simply because of some inherently fallacious ideal? Worker's WorthI addressed the majority of this point above, but I will say that the minimum wage actually does increase productivity. I said before that it helps reduce employee turnover. Reduced employee turnover leads to savings by the employer because it spends less on recruitment, re-training, and re-staffing. As a result of lower turnover, these employees will be more experienced, and consequently more productive. Plus, if an employee is getting paid more, he lives a better life, and has a greater incentive to produce better. [1]UnemploymentThe first graph showed how the correlation wasn't there. No mind the causation, but if the correlation isn't there, there's no relationship between the two data sets. If the minimum wage caused unemployment, we should see it, but we don't. It doesn't matter if the number of studies on one side outnumbers the number of studies on another. If the vast majority of the studies from the numerically superior side used imprecise or inaccurate methodologies, they don't have much value. Further, as I said in the last round, "Two scenarios are consistent with this empirical research record. First, minimum wages may simply have no effect on employment. .. Second, minimum-wage effects might exist, but they may be too difficult to detect and/or are very small. " The key emphasis is on the last sentence - even if there was some residual negative correlation, it was too small to make any difference. [2]The Neumark and Wascher study was flawed. In 2009, a meta-analysis study examining publication bias argued that the existing data and Neumark and Wascher’s conclusions were not consistent, stating ". .. the contrast between their subjective narrative review and the meta-analysis is quite striking. Another 2011 study by Berkeley researchers argued that Neumark and Washer did not properly interpret the studies because they did not take into account that many of these studies used flawed experimental approaches. These researchers stated that ". .. interpretation of the evidence in the existing minimum wage literature (such as those reviewed by Neumark and Wascher) must be revised accordingly. "[3][4]Considering that the Card/Kreuger and Doucouliagos/Stanley meta-analyses had a much better methodology, and showed that all the studies that showed a statistically significant negative effect on unemployment used improper methodologies, we should conclude that those two studies are more reliable than the Neumark/Wascher study. The use of the number of employees in the Card/Kreuger doesn't matter. "Despite the claims of these critics, there has been no peer-reviewed research to date that contradicts the findings of Card and Kreuger or supports the claim that an increase in the minimum wage increases unemployment. " And the Doucouliagos/Stanley study provided many controls. "Doucouliagos and Stanley's results held through an extensive set of checks, including limiting the analysis to what study authors' viewed as their best (usually of many) estimates of the employment impacts, controlling for possible correlation of estimates within each study, and controlling for possible correlation of estimates by each author involved in multiple studies. "[2][5]My opponent doesn't address my labor force participation argument at all. The OECD showing that women's unemployment only goes up due to more participation and not because of MW per se. But, it can stand on its own without a source, and has essentially been dropped. ConsumptionMy opponent seems to concede that the minimum wage increases consumption. He provides no data on how the minimum wage effects investment. One method of measuring investment is: "Business investment includes the construction of new offices and factories, and the purchase of machinery, computers, and any other equipment used to assist labor in the production of goods and services. " Since productivity increases, this would increase. Overall, my opponent's argument lacks substantiation. [6]Income Inequality and PovertyThis study found that as many as 23 million workers would benefit from a moderate increase in the minimum wage (to $10.10, I believe). I hardly see how this would effect the others in poverty. No poor person loses anything by raising the minimum wage. They can only gain. [7]Teenage and Part-Time UnemploymentI did not mean to say all, but that doesn't make my arguments any less valid. The minimum wage is important to millions of primary bread earners. My opponent never addressed this argument at all, only criticizing a slight mistake in my wording. ConclusionThe minimum wage is a net benefit to workers and to the economy. It puts more money in the hands of workers, which increases consumption and decreases crime. There is no measurable effect of the minimum wage on unemployment, and any studies that show otherwise either use improper methodologies, or forget how the US government defines unemployment. Even for the business owners, while it takes some of their money away, the workers stay with them longer, and are more productive, so, on balance, even the supposedly negative effect on them is significantly reduced, if not eliminated. A minimum wage is an important and beneficial policy that needs to be kept. Sources[1]: . http://www.irle.berkeley.edu...[2]: . http://www.cepr.net...[3]: . http://www.deakin.edu.au...[4]: . http://escholarship.org...[5]: . http://www.uvm.edu...[6]: . http://www.colorado.edu...[7]: . http://epi.3cdn.net...