Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending

Thank you for this debate.Premise I: Burden of Prove.As the resolution makes a claim that must be proven, as it is theoretical, BOP is on Pro to do so. Based on the set of arguments put forth by Pro, it would seem his burdens must be fulfilled by addressing, at it's core, the following question: "How does Minimum Wage impact poverty."Pro, as of now, has not met his BOP, as he has not answered that question. He states that raising MW would lower welfare costs, but without addressing how MW impacts poverty, he haven't proven why or how it'd decrease welfare costs.Rebuttal I: Pro's Case.The error in Pro's case is that it can be simplified into an incomplete syllogism.P1) The people are on Welfare.P2) Welfare costs X amount.C) Increasing MW would decrease Welfare costs.To make this complete, Pro needs P3... A statement explaining how MW impacts those in P1. He must make, and prove, this claim. While 112.89 million people may be on Welfare, how many of those are on MW? Another error is the broadness of C, making the syllogism ineffective at explaining all the variables and circumstances that lead to C.If, for example, Pro does prove P3... The introduction of employment effects of MW, including disemployment and demographic shifts in employment, could prove a long term increase in spending and completely mess up his syllogism. Another error here is that Welfare is a huge concept. It engulfs a number of programs. 113 million people aren't poor in the US... Therefore it goes to reason that not all welfare recipients are receiving welfare because they are poor or not making enough money, or that they are MW workers.Argument I: Demographics of Minimum Wage.Only 2% of workers in the US is on Minimum Wage. This accounts for, at most, just over 3.75 million workers (1). This is would make up only 3.3% of the 112.89 million people on Welfare. However, this still doesn't tell us how many of these people are on welfare. The thing about Minimum Wage and welfare is that we must look at household income. Not personal income. A man with a child, earning only $5,000 a year, would be considered poor. However, if he lived with his parents, who earn $45k a year, the household income is $50k a year... Far above poverty. They are not legally poor.The average household income for Minimum Wage workers is $50,700+ a year (2). The household would require 11 members to be legally poor (3). At that average, it can be reasoned that most, if not almost all, minimum wage workers are far from poor. This is because a couple earning minimum wage would still earn around $24,000 a year if they are working 30 hours a week (national average for post-high school citizens being 35.) Almost $10,000 above their poverty rate. A study by R. Nelson found that 87% of those effected by Minimum Wage increases were not poor, and 56% lived in households earning more than twice the poverty rate (4). At most, only 13% impacted were poor, however, there is no indication that MW increases help them, as sudden tax increases on their income, decreased hours, and sudden lay offs would affect their pay and situation. At 13% of the affected being poor, this is only 0.0043% of those on welfare.Such a petty effect on poverty is negated by the negative impact of a MW increase, as a number of studies found. I will address that in my next Argument.[1] http://www.pewresearch.org...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[4] http://www.academia.edu...[]Argument II: Effects of Minimum Wage.The negative impact of Minimum Wage negates all benefits. A 2010 study by J. Sabia and R. Burkhauser shows that Minimum Wage increases did not reduce poverty at all [5]. However, a number of studies claim they increase disemployment, leading to more unemployment costs, welfare, and food stamps. Such studies, such as Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen [6] and a mass review of studies and literature by D. Nuemark [7] show that there is a very real disemployment impact of MW increases.Backing up Nuemark and Brown, et al, are a vast number of literature claiming disemployment effects. Such studies include D. Henderson and Sabia, Hanson, and Burkhauser [8,9]. In Henderson's study, they analyzed California's 15% increase proposal while under Governor Schwarzenegger. They found that the increase would destroy 35,000 -70,000 unskilled jobs. Effectively landing 3% of their youth into unemployment. The impact on their lives and their children's would cost the federal government tens of billions if applied to the whole US. The impact, they found, was as high as 140,000 total jobs in California, and if applied to the whole US, 600,000 youth jobs and 800,000 jobs total.Returning to Argument I, only 13% of those effected by a wage increase were poor. That's half of the 800,000 people who would lose their jobs. Ignoring how a prior mentioned study showed that the increase didn't help that 13% anyways. According to a 1997 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a minimum wage hike in 1996 led to a 4.5% increase in poverty (10).[5] http://www.people.vcu.edu...[6] http://www.nber.org...[7] http://www.socsci.uci.edu...[8] http://www.ncpa.org...[9] http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...[10] http://www.nber.org...[]Argument III: Less USFG Income = More DebtThe final variable is a reduction in income, as corporations lose profit. They expand less, and even see massive cuts in productivity as they have to use less employees to stay afloat and keep prices down (11). The loss in Corporate tax revenue matched with the increase in Welfare costs would lead in a massive increase in borrowing. This would lead to far higher interest costs in time. Increasing the US Debt by just $50 bn a year would lead to potential $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion in debt + interest after only a decade. This assumes cost increases ends at 10 years... The long term debt would, by itself, negate the Resolution.[11] http://sites.psu.edu...[]Conclusion:Raising the MW would not effect poverty in a positive manner. If anything, it greatly increases poverty, causes massive disemployment, and hurts employers. This negates Pro's whole case, while affirming the negative. The resolution is disproven.