Raising the minimum wage

CON begins by conceding that his statements contradict each other; he states than an increase in the minimum wage will either reduce employment or lead to inflation. Note that he provides absolutley no empriical data to substantiate his claim, whereas I have provided several studies showing how employers tend to react to minimum wage increases, and that price increases are extremely negligible. My point, though, is that for prices to increase at all, we would either be dealing with demand-pull inflation -- meaning that there is more overall demand in the economy, meaning that more jobs wre created -- or cost-push inflation. The only way for CON to be consistent with his remarks is to argue that any increase in the minimum wage is a supply shock on par with staglation on par with the oil crisis of the 70s. As the evidence I have brought up thus far bears out, this is hardly the case. The second we begin to consider this issue in terms of demand rather than supply, the evidence is heavily favored toward increasing the minimum wage. No, I wasn't speaking of an increase in the minimum wage from $10 an hour because the federal minmum wage right now is $7.25 per hour. Why would I introduce an unrealistic hypothetical scenario that suggests that the minimum wage is higher than it is? The first study piece of evidence I provided from Jeannette Wik-Lims speaks of a ten percent increase in the minimum wage, and the negligible impact on prices. The further evidence I provided, consistent with this premise, comes from John Schmitt, Lynn Thompson, Sara Lemos a UC Berkeley study, and Converse et al. Note that CON does dispute the emirical data that I have provided, nor does he provide any of his own to balance against the weight of evidence I have provided. Note that I am not defining a "modest' increase as 10 cents an hour, but in order to win this debate, I must only show that any increase in the minimum wage would not have the time of negative impacts that CON is suggesting. Therefore, CON's argument about a ten-cent rise in the minimum wage being virtually negligible is irrelevant to the resolution we are discussing. Granted, he admits that "over a very large period of time an extra ten cents an hour does become a significant anount." Note that this is a concession on his part that there is a conceivable increase in the minimum wage which he accepts would in fact be economically beneficial. CON claims that he "stands that it could result in the laying of some workers." Note that this is nothing more than a bare-assertion fallacy by CON. He has provided us with no evidence bearing out this claim, and in fact has made conflicting statements on the impact of the minimum wage, a contradiction to which he admits. This argument, as of now, can be discarded.CON suggests that I have failed to account for human nature; he claims that the majority of people would "want to look out for themselves then [sic] than take a pay cut so they can afford to keep their employees." This remark is fallacious for a number of reasons. First, not only is his account of radical self-interest -- and, mind you, I accept that this is more likely than not at least among the central forces driving people, though there are indeed others (e.g., commitment to altruism) -- a bare-assertion fallacy as to how he believes people will act, which is nothing more than egocentric, but he again contends that it would actually be necessary for employers to lay people off in order to afford their employees. He has provided no evidence for this, so we have to at ths point discard this claim. If the minimum wage has "no discernible effect on employment," which is the case I have made and that my evidence has borne out, then we know a few things: first, there is no need for radical action by employers, and it simply doesn't occur, as we already know how they respond to increases in the minimum wage, as the UC Berkeley study discusses, and much more than simply reducing profits acts as a check against negligibly rising labor costs. At the same time, CON refuses to account for the fact that increases in the minimum wage increase worker productivity and decrease turnover. At the same time, if employers were to lay off workers, they would actually be producing less and therefore profiting less; this is contrary to radical self-interest that CON contends is at the heart of human nature. His remark on more efficient technologies discounts the fact that (1) I have already demonstrated how employers react to the minimukm wage (2) this is a bare-assertion fallacy and (3) he misunderstands the point entirely. More "efficient" means doing more with less, meaning that we're dealing with a decline in costs in this area, not a rise. CON once again fails to account for a net loss of employees, but merely keeps asserting it again and again .CON admits that, in the long run, wages will rise, which again is a concession that wages will rise. Of course, he provides absolutely no evidence that this effect will only take place in the long run. If the minimum wage were increased tomorrow and people had more money in their pockets, they would begin to increase their spending immediately. When people feel wealthier, they spend more, which is why people spent more during the housing bubble even though their real incomes were declining (their home values continued to increase). CON's contention that employers refuse to look to the long run is not only a bare-assertion, but irrelevant unless he can actually contend that the minimum wage kills job and shrinks wages in the short run, a point which he still has not proven. What's interesting is that he contradicted himself. Earlier he noted, "it will not help our economy or even the workers getting higher pay in the long run." Now he concedes that pay in the long run will rise." The only way this narrative could work is if wage rise proportionally to wage cuts, producing an impact of net zero. But this is flat-out wrong, and we know from empriical data that minimum wage increases impact far more people than only minimum wage workers. An increase in the minimum wage applies upward pressure on wages generally speaking. Look at this piece from the CBO, for instance: "The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates." (1)CON completely misunderstands the point of the minimum wage. In arguing that it is difficult to gauge a worker's MPL, not only does he concede that MPL is not the central determinant of wages, but that the notion of workers "earning what they're worth" is merely a crock. For instance, productivity since 1968 has doubled, yet median wages have flat-lined and prosperity hasn't been shared. In fact, the minimum wage in 1968 has more purchasing power than the minimum wage today (2). He contends that we would need a different minimum wage per industry, but refuses to acknowledge that, whilst overall productivity has increased, the vast increase in prosperity has gone to the affluent. The minimum wage merely amelioerates this gap. For instance, if the minimum wage kept pace with inflation since 1968, it'd be $10.52 an hour. If it kept pace with inflation and productivity, it would be $21.72 an hour. Yet that is not my recommendation. ConclusionI am out of characters, so I will have to pass back to CON, though I have more contentions to offer. My central point, however, is that CON is dealing with hypotheticals, not reality, and has provided no empirical data to prove his case.(1) http://tinyurl.com...(2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) http://tinyurl.com...