Raising the minimum wage hurts the economy

If one types an argument at the last minute and it eats it, I might have some sympathy. But if one thens type it again in the same fashion, rather than typing it in a word processor and copy pasting it, I’m not sure how much slack is really deserved. Given that, I’ve got no problem asking voters to treat this as a de facto concession. Harm: The definition of harm was a little murky in this this debate. Pro tended to equate it with job loss, and I didn’t challenge him, so it seems that’s the reasonable interpretation for voters. Pro’s case. Pro never disputes that he must link the harm to his subgroups to harm to the overall economy. Reading this debate myself, there’s a semantic argument to be made whether harm to a subgroup within the economy constitutes harm to the economy by itself, but that wasn’t an argument Pro made, so please don’t take that into consideration. Instead, Pro relied on a general mechanism by which the minimum wage could cause harm, and a comparison to polling practices to claim his subgroups represented the overall economy. As I discussed in R3, the mechanism by itself doesn’t mean anything. Pro has to show that the mechanism actually causes harm to the overall economy instead of just having the theoretical potential to do so since there are other possible scenarios where it wouldn't. The polling comparison supports Con, as proper polling practices try to get a representational sample rather than choosing a subgroup with characteristics that support the conclusion they want to draw. At this point, you can vote Con as Pro hasn’t met the burden of proof. N1: The minimum wage is historically low. Pro simply did not engage this argument. Over the last forty years or so, the worth of workers has gone up, as measured by their increasing actual productivity and the rising GDP that they generate for the economy. At the same time, the real value of the minimum wage has gone down, so raising the minimum wage shouldn't make it greater than the value of the worker in enough instances to actually harm the economy. Whether or not you agree that productivity and rising GDP are valid measurements of worker value, or that it’s applicable to minimum wage workers, or any other claim of this argument, Pro has conceded all points by his failure to address them. So for the purposes of this debate, this argument proves that the minimum wage doesn’t hurt the economy. Vote Con. N2. The minimum wage doesn’t hurt the economy through job loss. This was a source battle, and one that Con won decisively. Pro’s source claiming job loss was a secondary source, 1996, political position piece. Con’s source claiming no job loss was a 2011 peer-reviewed journal article detailing a 10 year study with a large population. I topped it off with a source of similar provenance to Pro’s from 3 years later also claiming no job loss. This argument speaks directly to the resolution. As winning this arguments means no job loss, thus no harm to the economy, the resolution is negated. Vote Con. N3. The minimum wage helps the economy. I use another good study here to show that states which raised the minimum wage over the federal limit have better job growth than states which didn’t. Ignoring the quotation of an opinion piece that quotes an economist who quotes a study, Pro makes an argument that you can’t compare California to New Mexico because California has bulging pockets which give it a stronger economy. First, that’s only two states, and second it doesn’t matter where the states start. If we see all states that raised minimum wage increase their job growth relative to all states that didn’t, that’s reason to accept it as evidence that the minimum wage helps the economy. The objection fails, Con wins the argument and thus the debate. Vote con. Sum Up: Pro essentially concedes by not posting a final argument. Pro doesn’t connect his subgroups to the topic at hand, the economy, thus not meeting the burden of proof. Con puts forth unchallenged an argument that increasing the minimum wage won’t trigger the mechanism of harm Pro prposes. Con’s evidence for no job loss is a solid recent study while Pro’s evidence for job loss is an outdated political piece. Con shows a relevant study showing positive effects of raising minimum wage which Pro can’t counter. And as a kicker, the choice of quote that Pro did post in R4 was copy/pasted from a different person in the comment section. Bad form.