Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending

Premise I: Burden of Prove.Pro blatantly misreads my case. I didn't say the resolution was "x"... I said that, to affirm the resolution, Pro must answer "x". My cases addresses the resolution, whereas I have shown that Pro did nothing to prove the resolution.To restate Pro's arguments...P1) The people are on Welfare.P2) Welfare costs X amount.C) Increasing MW would decrease Welfare costs.As I said, Pro most prove that increasing the minimum wage would impact those in P1.Argument I: Demographics of Minimum WagePro puts out a claim, but does nothing to quantify it. He claims that more people are on/near Minimum Wage, but doesn't say how many more. 3%? 5%? Pro doesn't answer this. As for the opening few sentences about state minimum wages, there is no relevance. This debate is about federal minimum wage, and only 2% of the working are at the US federal Minimum Wage.If Pro CAN'T prove that most Minimum Wage workers are in poverty, then he fails to prove his case, as his whole case is about how increasing wages decreases welfare costs. However, by conceding all of my arguments, he has conceded his own case. If most minimum wage workers aren't in poverty, then increasing minimum wage does little to impact welfare costs.More importantly, Pro concede the following cases:- The average household income for Minimum Wage workers is $50,700+ a year. - 87% of those effected by Minimum Wage increases were not poor. - 56% lived in households earning more than twice the poverty rate.- Raising Minimum Wage would only affect 0.0043% of those on welfareBy conceding these points, Pro can not prove that raising minimum wage would decrease welfare costs. If increasing minimum wage doesn't decrease poverty, it won't decrease welfare spending.Argument II: Effect of Minimum WageA) Prior CasePro's only argument is a blunt display of information with no detail, no context, and no variables being accounted for. My studies have accounted for all variables and context that may alter, and distort, the conclusion. Pro has not accounted for these. Nor does his employment increase account only for employment rates among minimum wage workers. As such, we must assume his analyzes is not valid. In fact, just accounting for the employment of the youth alone shows us a far different picture, where unemployment amoung teenagers correlates perfectly with the increasing/decreasing value of the minimum wage (1). This alone shows how important these variables are.My studies are based on reviewing minimum wage increases that have happened (one of my studies even dealing with the 1997 amendment), and found, after clearing all the variables that distort Pro's assessment, that the increase hurt employment. Pro's assessment also fails to account for disemployment. Pro may notice that I often talk about disemployment, not unemployment. Increasing minimum wage doesn't have a sudden, immediate effect. It can take a year or two to find the effects in place. Increasing minimum wage can decrease employment in the long-term by decreasing the rate of additional employment.... Called disemployment.A study by Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen found that, for every 1% increase in the Minimum Wage, there is a 0.12% increase in disemployment... Sometimes as high as 0.92% increase. To increase Minimum Wage to Obama's proposed $10.10, we'd risk seeing an increase in unemployment by as much as 9% (2). Another study, by Nuemark, backed up this claim (3). Later, Nuemark redid his evaluation, and found that with new variables accounted for, there was a similar disemployment rate (4).A review found that in 2011, McDonald's hired 64,000 Americans, but in Europe (with it's higher MWs), they replaced workers with 7,000 self-serve computers. They intend to do much the same in the US as well due to increasing minimum wage costs (5). Mark Wilson found that increased unemployment among the youth followed increases in minimum wage (6). This effect hurts the long-term success of these youth, making them costlier for the Government.I also want to note that, at only a 57% rate of success (11 out of 19 amendments), he has disproven his case about unemployment. He must prove that increasing the minimum wage WOULD decrease spending. Not that it MIGHT (57% could) decrease spending.[1] http://web.archive.org...[2] http://www.nber.org...[3] http://www.nber.org...[4] http://www.nber.org...[5] http://www.wsj.com...[6] http://object.cato.org...Argument III: Less USFG Income = More Debt.Pro claims that 66% of low-wage earners are working for Large Corporations. His source is wrong in how it assesses who they work for, however. If 100 employees are working for McDonald's, his source would claim that they are working for a "big corporation." But this is wrong... They are employed by a small business franchising from McDonald's. That small business pays the employees wages, not McDonald's themselves. And that small business owner is bringing in tiny profit rates of around 6% or less (7) This, by itself, disproves Pro's whole study from NELP, as well. These studies were built on the false premise that the corporation, and not the actual franchisers, employs and pays the employees. Therefore, their results are corrupted.Pro's case is also flawed in that it reviews the productivity of the employees, and not the overall productivity rate. If the corporation decreases employment by 30% in order to fix losses, and the productivity of each employee increased by 10%, they would still see a 23% decrease in productivity. My Argument II case proves these potentionally massive unemployment/disemployment effects.Pro dropped the rest of this case, including lower profit margins.As for the $50 bn claim... This need not be sourced. Pro's attempt to discredit this is rather silly. I didn't say the debt WOULD increase by $50 bn here... I was showing how much debt and interest a $50 bn a year deficit would cause. Over a decade, that would amount to $500 billion in debt, which would produce at least another $500 billion in interest. Pro is acting as though I said increasing the minimum wage would lead to a $50 bn increase in the deficit.Based on US income tax revenues (8), it's likely that, with the CBO's unemployment estimate in mind, an increase to $10.10 could cost the USFG over $10 bn a year in income tax. $20 bn a year if we include unemployment costs from Rebuttal I. The cost could be $100 bn+ based on Brown, Kilroy, and Kohen's study.[7] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...Rebuttal I: Welfare CostsPro's copy/paste seems pointless... These number don't tell us anything about who is on welfare. My whole case proved that those people on welfare are not the same as the people on Minimum Wage. Perhaps if Pro hadn't been so quick to concede my case, his case would still work.Pro says that Walmart employees receive $6 billion in welfare, these statistics are recession related. To find an accurate measurement of how much welfare is spent on Minimum Wage, Pro needs to give us a number that accounts for the recession. However, even then, Pro fails to account for the largest issue...Pro has NOT proven that increasing Minimum Wage would counter these welfare costs. A study by Heritage Foundation found that, if increased to $10.10, the minimum wage increase would do nothing to reduce Welfare costs (8). Nor has Pro proven that, if it did decrease welfare costs, it would be larger then the negative impacts. The cost of the 1997 increase, as an example, and if accounting for population increases, would cost $8 bn - $10 bn alone just for unemployment increases if enacted today. Well over the $6 bn welfare costs for Walmart.I addressed these impacts in Argument II and Argument III.[8] http://www.heritage.org...Conclusion:I have shown that great disemployment effects would be seen from an increase in Minimum Wage. I have also shown the costs of these effects. Pro has not proven that minimum wage workers greatly impact welfare costs, while I have shown that the vast majority of them are too far from poverty to have an impact. Pro has also failed to prove that, among the few who are poor, increasing their wages would help them, while I have proven it wouldn't.Pro has not affirmed the resolution. And the argument he has conceded (especially from Argument I) prevent him from doing so.