Abolishing the minimum wage will not reduce unemployment

My opponent seems to confuse my saying that removing the minimum wage will reduce wages with me saying that most people earn the minimum wage. I very well know that the number of people earning the minimum wage is low (at least in the US, but this is far from being the case in other parts of the world) but this does not change my argument that by removing the minimum wage would be akin to dropping wages across the board. Both because those who earn the minimum wage will have it probably reduced, and also because the increased supply of labour (forced by insufficient funds) will further drive salaries down. As for judging the production, one does not reward a position by what they think the person can produce, but rather by what they expect the position will produce. While small oscillations within the range of the original salary might happen depending on the interview, the salary expectations will have been decided long before the candidate is chosen. By claiming that the wage will be decided solely by the expected production of the worker and not of the position, my opponent shows a distinct misunderstanding of how job-seeking and wage-labour works. In fact what is more likely to happen is that the wage will remain the same (if we're talking about low skilled labour) no-matter the efficiency, initiative or stamina of the employee but will drop as soon as the employer finds an excuse for it by either the history of the worker or their mistakes, thereby showing the true decision factor of wages, the power difference of employer to employee. Lastly, my opponent's example of a Football team somehow "producing" anything is weird to say the least and does not apply. RE: Economics is zero sum: The reason we are not in the stone age, is not because exchanges of goods produced value. It's because human labour produces surplus value from what naturally occurs. This is the sole most important aspect of advancement of civilization and surprisingly the aspect which modern economics avoids the most. The ways by which human labour can create more value in the world and thus more opportunities for new jobs is another debate for another day. In our discussion though, it is whether the distribution of wage-positions in comparison to the available labour is zero sum. This is very much so, unless the labour of people can create more opportunities for them (ie more capital). Con insists on bringing his own definition of employment in which it's better for more people to work more hours for the same amount of commodities as this is somehow better overall. Better for whom though? For those who work more for less? We are expected to believe this because "economics is not zero sum". This sentence is the totality of the argument Con is making at the moment and I have already explained why it does not stand. He is also at pains to stress how "voluntary" the whole thing will be, but this is nothing more than consciously increasing the supply of labour in order to drops its cost. This is as "voluntary" as the workers banding together to pressure the state to pass minimum wage laws and the capitalists "voluntary" accepting this state of affairs. In fact, this has nothing to do with voluntarism and rather to do with the power struggle between workers and employers. Whereas the "invisible hand" is the weapon of the capitalist which will "voluntary" lower costs, the union and solidarity of the workers is the weapon of the worker which will "voluntary" increase them. To prefer one to the other, is simply choosing which side one favours. My opponent is confused also about the role of the Capitalist. It is irrelevant to argue the apologetics put forth other than to mention that all the things Con gives credit to the capitalist would have been impossible without the worker's labour and the society around them. A Capitalist only made a profit because a society was around to work and purchase it, as such, there's no excuse for them withholding the fruits of social arrangement until they can get even more of them. For some reason, Con thinks that the Capitalist is some kind of genius superhuman, by who's brilliant mind society goes forward. I would ask him to read less of the ramblings of Ayn Rand and actually look at the real world instead of trivializing the most important aspect of civilization, which is the production and not the ideas. Everyone has ideas in their mind but it's the actual labour that makes them a reality. To assume that the Capitalist is the one who when unrestricted will lead us all to a brilliant future is to assume that there's two types of humans, and that this brilliance passes genetically as well (since wealth passes through progeny). In fact, there's not difference between the Capitalist and its workers other than who owns the capital. Given the opportunity (ie sustenance and leisure), humans can innovate just fine without having to boss people around as well. This managed to happen for thousands of years before capitalists came about. So Nietzschesian dreams about Superhumans are really obsolete. Con once again brought teenagers into the argument as somehow being the most relevant but never got around to showing that it is teenagers doing it for extra money, or desperate people taking every job they can get. I have shown in my original argument that the later is far more likely. Removing the minimum wage will only mean that those already desperate will have to work more for less. Next my opponent attacks the motion that empiricism can be of use in Economics. This is par for the course for ideologues of the free market as the scientific method produces results that go against their ideology. Unfortunately this is why this kind of thinking is misguided. When reality and ideology conflicts, it is reality that must be wrong. This can be seen by Con's quick dismissal of the study on minimum wage I have provided not because it is wrong, but because it conflicts with what he already believes. This is exactly what he shouldn't be doing though. When empirical studies conflict with our hypothesis, it must be the hypothesis that changes instead of simply ignoring reality and sticking to our previous theories that are obviously false. Needless to say, human knowledge managed to truly progress once we've learned to create theories according to reality rather than the other way around. It's unfortunate to say that mainstream economics has still not reached this level of investigation but has to rely on schools of thought (Keynesianism VS Austrians VS Neoclassicals VS Monerarism etc), very much like the Greek philosophers of the classical age. Finally, my argument on wages actually increasing employment still stands. My opponent had to move to the comment field of the debate as he couldn't stay within the character limit. I do not know the netiquette of Debate.org on this issue but I expect this is bad form? Since I have some space left, let me remind the audience that my task is to simply show that removing minimum wage laws will not increase employment, not to defend the whole concept of minimum wage or argue for its increase. I am stating this because the flow of the argument seems to be moving towards a direction where it may seem so.