An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment

Time: For sake of argument, I will concede that time is actually important.It would be interesting to note that the minimum wage for some sub-groups actually makes it harder for them. Teenagers often enter the minimum wage workforce to gain experience. However, if they are not worth the current minimum wage, they will not get hired. That would lead to the employer losing money. Simply put, they never get experience and in their future enter the workforce with slightly higher skills (alive longer, mostly) but experience lower wages overall because they never gained the experience when they were young. Studies further show they become less likely to get hired at all. If the minimum wage lowers the chance of getting hired, training for a job (often included) if hired, as documented in the literature, the skill set and possible future wages substancially decreases the living standard for some and their ability to get hired [1]. To say that increasing the price of labor will not reduce the amount employment is absurd. Sources: My opponent claims my book is not a good source because he cannot read it. However, Neumark and Wascher have been publishing in the literature for years. Their book summarizes their research. The page I was refering to was page 65, section 3.4.3. Their studies found that the minimum wage reduced school enrollment. Teenagers falsely assumed they would recieve higher pay, and dropped out of school to get a job. When factoring this effect, they found "a statistically significant employment elasticity of -0.22", or negative 22% [2]. Empirical EvidenceIf my opponents source claims all research which they chose was supporting their opinion, by response is duh. If you cite ThinkProgress and expect them to cite Neumark and Wascher 2007 which found that 85% of the research supports my opinion, then lol. My opponent essentially admits that the research he cited is cherry-picked by ThinkProgress, not even including some literary dissent. My opponent cites a meta-analysis by Lester and Madland, whose whole conclusion relies on the studies Neumark et al. refuted as their "evidence" for recent research supporting minimum wage increases. It says that all of the recent research supports his view, not s strawman. Those five studies are complete bogus. Two rely on weak controls less suited to the tasks that studies that show minimum wages harm the economy have [3], one is the meta analysis cited screaming publication bias. Let me explain. Card and Krueger have had their research published in mainstream outlets, which proves no publication bias. Further, for there to be publication bias, there is generally a mechanism. This is an issue where labor unions probably have more influence. In Neumark and Wascher (2008) they document their work near the turn of the century which finds little publication bias to be found [2]. The last one is Dube et al. 2007. They claim that old research fails to control clustering properly, and minimum wage has no effect when this is done. Clustering makes the result less robust, and therefore their studies conclusions are not correct [4]. The studies are weak. Gary Becker does mention these new studies and uses the Neumark rebuttal. He is using academic literature and noting that the studies are flawed. He never makes extraordinary claims that all of the new studies are in near-universal agreement. And the state argument you didnt read the full studies. ALL of the other 5 studies focus on state effects because it is easier to control for those factors. They use data from all the states to get a national sample. The fact Neumark uses state data, like everyone else, is a widely supproted technique.One rebuttal was published 5 months earlier then cons sources [3], and the economist quote was published a month after the formal rebuttal was produced [5]. They fully ignored those studies. ProductivityThe workforce probably gains some productivity because less of the low skilled workers are employed. The decrease in production is due to the increased capital costs to the hiring firm, not the workers decrease. The minimum wage reduces production, not productivity to the worker (which is what I meant). Large changes in raw data are often explained with simple controls. When put in, many industries see a significant drop in productivity and production when the minimum wage is increased, when factors are controlled for [6]. The reason GDP grew is simple. Growing economy regardless of a minimum wage--other factors. Growing population, etc. Even if we assume his argument is relevant, he loses the point.I used the word "production" in order to explain the theory in full. My opponent thinks that it was a significant point to the debate, which it wasn't, and claim that is is highly relevant to the debate. NumbersA hypothetical used to explain a point, not be a data point, do not have to be correct. I used them to make my point simple. I really dont know why you want to see a hypothetical which used econometric equasions which are based off of monospy and neoclassical models. I mean I could do that. Or we can accept what I said as a hypothetical, an explanation device, and not an ACTUAL data point. We save character space that way. Large companies are unaffected by minimum wages, as most of their workers require greater skills and are paid hogh wages. So their record profits are often due to other factors. For those who manage to get a job on it they are promoted within one year because they gained the skills needed to get a pay raise [4]. So their wage actually increases if they have a low wage job. If we had no minimum wage, people worth $4 dollars an hour would get training, get experience, and eventually get higher paying jobs. The minimum wage only prevents people from gaining the invaluble life skills of work training because the minimum wage makes them a net-loss for the employer. This is why minimum wages have negative long term effects. Less skilled workers get laid off and hours reduced, lowering their pay [pg 138].Minorities"The choice to fire those with greater ethnic diversity first, is entirely on them." -- R2You said that it is the emokoyers racism or discrimination to lay off those who are minorities first is at fault. Well, you say it in a discrete manner. You say that their decision is odd, and that the minimum wage is not the source of the discrimination, but rather it is the worker. Again, as I explained, this is totally false. African Americans and Latinos happen to be poorer, less skilled, and less educated due to their enviroments. If they fire you for being less skilled and you happen to be Latino, that's not discrimatory. It just so happens to be that minorities are more likely to be less skilled, and therefore more vunerable to minimum wage increases. A lower wage would make it more likely for them to be hired and then skills to be aquired worthy of a higher wage. Minorities are the most affected because of their relative skills and education, not racism of the employer. The minimum wage is not racist per se, but its unintended consequences are. The video talks more about this. ; Specific Examples All the studies are measuring specific examples and find negative effects. I provided an example where the 2009 hike caused a company to lay off 2,000 employees. The 1991 wage hikes and the late 2000s hikes show negative effectsn[7]. My case is full of examples. CONCLUSIONThe strength of the empirical data, the mere amount too, the theoretical predictions which have been proven by the peer reviewed data all support my case. I provided statistics then gave a reason. My opponent has provided minimal data and has not even provided one theoretical reason as to why it would have no effect (or a positive one). The BOP is even, and I have met it far better then my opponent. Vote PRO. http://tny.cz...;