A mandated minimum wage does more damage than good.

As I begin my conclusion, I would like to remind voters of the resolution: A mandated minimum wage does more damage than good." Note that I was under no obligation to prove that the minimum wage was necessarily beneficial, only that the costs do not outweigh the benefits. For my conclusion, I would like to discuss the concept of a free market. As a matter of personal philosophy, I oppose the concept of authority on the grounds that it is innately unjust. For this reason I believe the market should be as free as possible. However, I view regulation of business in much the same way I view the existence of the State in general. It is necessary for us to have a government to prevent worse abuses of authority from occurring. In the same way, it is sometimes necessary to regulate the market. These necessary evils may not fall within what I would consider an idealist philosophy, but reality is not idealistic and therefore such things are necessary. Having no minimum wage only makes sense in a very abstract and simplistic view of the economy. But when there is job competition, we cannot have a contest of who will work for less. When we want a minimum standard of living for ALL our citizens, we cannot allow them to work for less than what would provide it. When employers need bodies to fill positions, they cannot choose not to hire because the minimum wage is a burden. People who's families don't depend on them for money cannot be expected to get a job that pays less than is useful to them simply because that is what they are "worth." In reality, what would the removing the minimum wage do? The small number of people that depend on it would be driven into poverty. Teenagers and others who don't depend on their wages would have no reason to work. All wages for employees would go down as companies maintained their pay structure. What benefit could result from removing the minimum wage? The examples my opponent provided are quite hypothetical. I'm not going rebut them as the rules do not allow it in this round. But, in the real economy, the cost of paying minimum wage does not place a strain on major businesses. McDonald's spends over 300 million a year on advertising (1); it is very unlikely that a slight increase in wages would devastate their budget. Businesses are not significantly hurt by the minimum wage. This debate is not a debate of freedom for the common worker. No one in American WANTS to work for $3 an hour when they know that is an insignificant amount in today's economy. And businesses aren't going to refuse to hire needed employees because the cost is too high. Is the cost of burgers at McDonald's going to go down if there is no more minimum wage? Unlikely. What is more likely is that profits are going to go up. The only 'right' that the minimum wage takes a way is the right for employers to force workers to accept dismally low wages so they can make more money. This is not a "bleeding heart" argument. Nowhere throughout my argument did I condemn capitalists or capitalism. I think it should be obvious based on my arguments that that is not my position. However, I do believe that businesses are not moral agents. As an entity a business does not take morality into account in its actions. Though it is the capitalist ideal, businesses will not always act in a way that benefits society. That does not mean I believe that all businesses are run by Ebenezer Scrooge, only that I do not consider money-making institutions to be altruistic agents. Is there a slight loss of freedom in that an individual cannot work for nothing if he wants to? Maybe, but in this case it is worth the cost of having to work for nothing if he doesn't want to. The point of a minimum wage isn't to pay someone greater than the price which can be sustained. It's to make sure he isn't paid significantly less than the price that can be sustained for no other reason than because his employer wants to get richer. The employer isn't going to pay the man the cost of his labor, he's going to pay the man the price for which he will work. And if every employer is offering low wages, than the price for which he will work can be driven down very low. This doesn't make the employer "Ebenezer Scrooge", it simply means he is acting in the way which is most rational for him. Should this obvious problem for the worker be ignored in the name of "protecting his freedom?" Removing the minimum wage transfers power into the hands of those who control the wages. It takes the power away from the many and transfers it into the hands of the few. It increases the power of businesses. Some on the right who call themselves "Libertarian" draw an arbitrary distinction between the State and business in their opposition of power. I support taking power from businesses and give to to workers because I'm a "socialist" or "communist", I support this instead because I oppose consolidation of power in all its forms, whether public or private. The minimum wage gives the worker more power because it removes one way his employer can control him: his wages cannot be lowered below a certain amount. He is not at risk of having the work for no money simply because it is his employers wish. It takes power away from the few people who control businesses and gives it to the many people who work for them. It may be seen as a reduction of freedom, but ultimately it results in more economic freedom. Sources: (1) http://findarticles.com...