The Minimum Wage Is a Sound Economic Policy

In this round I will respond to Con's R2&3 arguments and defend my own case somewhat simultaneously.A key part of Con's case is that the minimum wage (MW) increases unemployment. To support this claim, Con presented both a hypothesis containing a false premise as well as data which is some of which is interpreted fallaciously and does not actually support Con's case. Con's hypothesis included the statement that workers' wages will likely be close to their marginal productivity because of competition for labor. While this sounds like it would be true in an economic dreamland utopia where supply and demand function perfectly and everyone has access to equal information and is subject to the same situations , reality does not necessarily work out that way. Many, if not most people who are most affected by MW laws are unskilled workers who desperately need a job to support themselves and/or their families. If the MW were to be abolished, a business would likely lower their wages below the marginal productivity of its workers, hoping to make bigger profits for the people on top. Other businesses might also lower wages for the same reasons. Uncertainty about finding a new job would cause workers to stay with current employment even though their wages had been cut. Over time, the difference between the marginal productivity of workers and their wages would certainly increase. If this type of situation seems fanciful, there is always history for a guide. During the industrial revolution up through the applications of the MW, workers were certainly paid extremely low wages for long hours of work. So why didn't they just leave in search of better paying employment? After all, don't businesses have to compete for these workers? Yes, they do have to compete, but if they're all paying similarly low wages, people will still be forced to work for less than their marginal productivity. A MW ensures some floor.A large problem with much of Con's case is that he merely addressed an increase in the MW as causing problems, not the existence of the MW itself. Con compared the state averages of those states that have MWs higher than the federal to those that only obey the federal law and found that the first group had higher unemployment. This comparison does nothing to support his case as it compares varying degrees of the MW, not with a MW and without one. More importantly, however, is the fact that just because Con can compare level of MW and unemployment does not mean that one causes the other as Con seems to assume. In fact, looking at Con's source, the level of unemployment appears to have more to do with a state's region that its MW laws.Next, he presented a graph. His graph only shows the years 2000-2010. It should be noted that unemployment is seen to increase while the MW stays flat in the beginning of the graph, and the increase in unemployment that happens to coincide with a raise in the MW also occurred at the same time as the Great Recession. Once again,it is fallacious to assume that MW effects unemployment.Con next addressed teenage unemployment, claiming a correlation between a raise in the MW and teen unemployment. The problem is that his hypothesis here is based on the false assumption that the MW causes unemployment and his data to prove this point suffers from the same Post Hoc inferences as the previously addressed data. Once again, we are presented with a graph that demonstrates unemployment increasing during the recession and this is blamed on the MW.This general claim is followed by a more specific claim regarding minorities, but once again there is no reason to believe that MW is more responsible for such things than the general state of the economy in general.R2 is concluded by Con with the claim that prices will rise as the MW rises. Once again, this only addresses an increase, not the existence of the MW as well as drawing conclusions with the Post Hoc fallacy. As Con went on in R3, his logic did not get any better. He continued debating whether the MW should be increased. This is exemplified in his statement: "If the cost of hiring someone increases, then companies will not be able to afford as many employees." This statement implies that I am arguing for an increase in the MW which he would argue would increase unemployment. The rest of his list continues on in this manner making reckless assumptions that are based on the previous assumptions which are incorrect or not applicable to the resolution.Next, he presented an elaborate study, however, this too is not really applicable to the matter at hand as it discusses not whether the MW should exist, but rather the effects raising it has, as shown by the title of the study: "Failed Stimulus: Minimum Wage Increases and Their Failure to Boost Gross Domestic Product."Con's final piece of evidence continues in this vain and does not why the MW should not exist, but rather why it should not be raised from $8 to &11. This evidence continues by saying: "Many people say that 'owners will pay their workers $2 per hour if there isn't a minimum wage.' This is a ridiculous statement if logic is applied. You have to ask yourself, would you work for $2 per hour? Probably not. Do you know anyone that wants to work for $2 per hour? Probably not."Would someone work for $2 in today's economy? Probably not. How about $5? There's probably someone out there willing to work for that. And then wages fall a bit. And if somebody will work for $5, why not $4? And wages fall a bit more. And in a few decades we're at $2. But competition ensures that this would never happen, doesn't it? Tell that to the workers of the Industrial Revolution or the workers in the sweatshops in India and China and Taiwan. Someone is always willing to work for a little bit less.Additionally, it should be noted that Con has not really refuted my R2 argument, which stated that a MW ensures that wages will rise as inflation rises.In conclusion, throughout the debate, Con has merely made a rather weak case for why the MW should be lowered, not why it should be abolished, drawing on Post Hoc fallacious evidence. I have explained why a MW is necessary. I have fulfilled my BoP, Con has not.The resolution is affirmed.