Question: Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

The federal minimum wage should be increased The minimum wage increasing will allow more people to have more money, stimulating the economy and helping citizens who are currently in poverty reach out of it, take a foothold, and stay in the middle class. (1) These workers are not making enough to live on in this economy, and they need more. Unfortunately, jobs are very limited due to our ever rising population. (2) There has been discussion about how increasing the minimum wage will increase prices, and this is always a fear but unfortunately for this side; increasing the minimum wage and increasing prices would be disaster for these companies. The more money they have, the more they are willing to spend on luxury goods and more expensive food. This would increase sales and return on investment for companies. They must be made aware of this, and there must be checks in place to protect the costumers from overzealous companies and organizations. Most of the big names who are against the minimum wage increasing, tend to be owners, backers, or stockholders of very large companies that have had very shady practices regarding the minimum wage. Such as Walmart, McDonald's, etc. (1) http://www.postcrescent.com... (2) http://www.salary.com...

The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourThe federal minimum wage has been $7.25 / hour since July 24, 2009. [1]“In the 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama called again on Congress to raise the national minimum wage, and soon after signed an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage for the individuals working on new federal service contracts.” [2]There is much debate among policy makers about the merits of minimum wage and about the effects of different policies. The conservative narrative is that having a minimum wage increases unemployment among teens and other unskilled workers. The liberal position points to research done by David Card and Alan Krueger that concludes that there is no evidence that raising worker pay had killed jobs. [3]There is so much conformational bias among those writing on the subject that the experts look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions. Some researchers say that raising the minimum wage will cause increased unemployment. Card and Krueger found that an increase of 19% in the minimum wage ($4.25 to $5.05) did not reduce employment rates. [3]Some say that an increase in minimum wage will cause an unacceptable increase in prices. If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. [4]Some claim that an increase in the minimum wage will reduce staff turnover. “In 2013, the turnover rate for franchises was 93 percent, and it can cost $4,700 per worker who leaves. A previous study found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, turnover drops by 2.2 percent, and a $15 wage would come with $5.2 billion in savings for the fast food industry.” [4]All of this calls into question the published literature on the minimum wage. “The minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains.”[5]The misinformation around the minimum wage is so constant that the U.S. Department of Labor has set up a web page trying to debunk the common myths. [6]In light of this we need to do a controlled experiment on a national scale to see both the value and the harm done by raising the minimum wage raised by a significant amount.The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This should be introduced incrementally so we can measure the effects of the change to the federal minimum wage. (I suggest $2.58 / hour increase on Jan 1 each year for 3 years).This would give us good data to draw some conclusions about what effects the minimum wage has on around issues of poverty and economics.Here are some questions that need more data. Does increasing the minimum wage reduce jobs? - Current data says job growth is better with an increase in minimum wage. Does increasing the minimum wage help the poor? - Current research suggest it will mostly help middle class white women.Does increasing the minimum wage reduce poverty? - Current research suggests that most in poverty are not working at minimum wage jobs. The prime factors causing poverty are: Current Poor Economy; Drug Use; Lack of Education and Medical Expenses.[7]Do we even have a good definition of poverty? [8] Current definitions of poverty (for government policy considerations) have nothing to do with insufficient food or insufficient housing.The minimum wage debate is crippled by a lack of good information. Statements of position are presented like articles of faith which demand belief without question. We should raise the minimum wage substantially so we can see what effect, if any, all our minimum wage policies have. Then we can see if the minimum wage is a useful economic too or not.- The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour1. www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm2. www.whitehouse.gov/raise-the-wage3. www.davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf4. www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/5. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x/abstract6. www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm7. core197b.wikispaces.com/Major+Causes+of+Poverty+in+America8. www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor

The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I will be arguing that the US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I would like more my opponent to note that I agree that the US Federal government should raise the minimum wage one dollar every year until we get to 10 dollars in order to make small businesses adjust to the wages. Now, I will begin my case. -------------------------------------- Democracy Advantage: Before, I begin to state the statistics on how many people in America support an increase in the minimum wage; I want to stress the importance of this argument. The Founding Fathers intended for our representatives to listen to what the American people want. These are one of the fundamental principles of America, and what defined our country in the 1700s as a democratic nation. My opponent is libertarian. If there is anything libertarians, liberals, and conservatives can agree with; it is that we should all be able to agree that when 76% of Americans agree on simple legislation that should be passed, than the government is obligated to listen and pass the legislation a majority of Americans want to be passed. If the government does not listen to the pleas of the American people, than our democracy is not functioning properly. 76% of Americans support raising the minimum wage. A great majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 dollars an hour. I offer this question to my opponent. I believe that if the government continues to deny the pleas to raise the minimum wage, than how can we still call ourselves a functional democracy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benefits: My opponent is of the few in America that claim that raising the minimum wage will hurt jobs. I will debunk this popular myth in this contention. Note that 73 million people are paid hourly wages. 1. Improved living standards: The first benefit is that millions of Americans would see a pay raise that could go toward meeting their basic needs and living expenses. A 2013 report from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 16.5 million low-wage workers would benefit from a $10.10-per-hour wage, including 900,000 workers who would climb above the poverty threshold. A more recent analysis by CNN was even more aggressive, implying that 5 million Americans would be lifted out of poverty at $10.10 per hour. More workers being able to pay for their basic expenses is a good thing, as it may lead to less reliance on government- and state-sponsored financial-aid programs --------------------------------- 2. Increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.80 by July 1, 2014, would raise the wages of about 28 million workers who would receive nearly 40 billion dollars in additional wages over the phase in period. ------------------------------------ 3. GDP has been proven to increase roughly by 25 billion dollar resulting in the creation of approximately 100,000 net jobs. -------------------------------------- 4. Around 54% of affected worker work full time, over 70% are in families with incomes of less than 60,000 dollars, more than a quarter are parents, and over a third are married. ------------------------------------------------ 5. The average affected worker earns about half of his or her family's total income. ----------------------------------------------------------- 6. The immediate benefits of a minimum-wage increase are in the boosted earnings of the lowest-paid workers, but its positive effects would far exceed this extra income. Recent research reveals that, despite skeptics" claims, raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss. In fact, throughout the nation, minimum-wage increases would create jobs. Like unemployment insurance benefits or tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers, raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power. Economists generally recognize that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend any extra earnings immediately on previously unaffordable basic needs or services: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Europe: Europe is also a good example of how the minimum wage actually benefits workers more than it harms workers. -Great Britain's minimum wage is $10.31 an hour. There GDP is 2.8 trillion dollars. There are 4.9 million small businesses that are fully capable of managing this wage without loosing jobs. -Germany's minimum wage is $11.50 an hour. Germany's GDP is 3.85 trillion dollars. -France's minimum wage is $10.70 an hour. France's GDP is 2.83 trillion dollars. -Australia's minimum wage is $10.50 an hour. Australia's GDO is 1.45 trillion dollars. - America's minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. America's GDP is 17.48 trillion dollars. I offer my opponent these questions. -Why is it that America was the wealthiest country in that list, yet had the lowest federal minimum wage? -Why is America able to access an abundant amount of benefits from raising the minimum wage, and the government is still not pass it into law? -Why is it that that the US Federal Government will not raise the minimum wage when 76% of Americans believe that it is the right thing to do? I look forward to these answers. It is up to my opponent whether to address these questions in his case or rebuttal. Sources: . http://www.reuters.com... . http://www.forbes.com... . http://www.msnbc.com... . http://www.bing.com... . http://www.timeforaraise.org...

The federal minimum wage should be increased So because these people are not the ideal societal members, we should forget about them and leave them to their fates? We should leave the group who is forced into these jobs to suffer and make below the amount required to live? You also forget that the price to live has increased, and it will only continue to increase. And with the current minimum wage, these people will continue to seep deeper and deeper into poverty. (1) Quoting from the article: "When the cost of living goes up, so should wages. It's common sense. While serving in the US Congress, we supported reasonable periodic increases in the federal minimum wage to enable workers to better support their families and keep up with the economy. And we rallied our Republican and Democratic colleagues to make it the law. But the last time Congress voted to raise the wage to its current rate of $7.25 an hour was seven years ago. Since then, the cost of life's essentials have shot up. Groceries cost 20% more, a gallon of gas costs 25%more, and average tuition at a community college increased 44%. But the minimum wage remains at $7.25. If it had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be almost $10.70 today." These people deserve to have their wages increased as the price of living increases, for the time that was a proper minimum wage. Now? Prices have increased and to live costs more. Should they be forsaken to this fate as the prices continue to rise every year? Raise the minimum wage and leave it that way for ten years then go back and review the situation. Change the minimum wage to be parallel to the price of living. As it increases, raise the wage, as it decreases, lower the wage. Sources: (1) http://www.usatoday.com...

Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour Raising the minimum wage would increase economic activity and spur job growth. The Economic Policy Institute stated that a minimum wage increase from the current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. Economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. A 1994 study by economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD, compared employment in the fast food industry after New Jersey raised its minimum wage by 80 cents, while Pennsylvania did not. Krueger and Card observed that job growth in the fast food industry was similar in both states, and found "no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment." Their findings were corroborated by economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found "little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment." Increasing the minimum wage would reduce poverty. A person working full time at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour earns $15,080 in a year, which is 20% higher than the 2015 federal poverty level of $12,331 for a one-person household under 65 years of age but 8% below the 2015 federal poverty level of $16,337 for a single-parent family with a child under 18 years of age. According to a 2014 Congressional Budget Office report, increasing the minimum wage to $9 would lift 300,000 people out of poverty, and an increase to $10.10 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. A 2013 study by University of Massachusetts at Amherst economist Arindrajit Dube, PhD, estimated that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 is "projected to reduce the number of non-elderly living in poverty by around 4.6 million, or by 6.8 million when longer term effects are accounted for."

The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Yes, I am referring to the federal minimum wage in the United States and I apologize that I was unclear. I would like to open by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate and I am looking forward to have an intelligent discussion with you. I will start by reasoning on moral grounds. "It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged." This quote is from Adam Smith's book 'The Wealth of Nations." Smith was a political economics pioneer and laid the foundations of what is known today as the classical free market system. I believe that a person who works a full time job should not live in poverty. At $7.25, a single mother trying to raise her child will face many unnecessary difficulties because the current minimum wage is a starving one. As the American dollar is inflated and prices increase the minimum wage remains stagnant, and has been stagnant since the last increase in 2009. (dol.gov) Also, American workers are more productive than ever before in American History(The New York Times). It only seems just, that they should share the benefits of this great feat. Furthermore, a low minimum wage leads to gross underemployment, which is when workers don't earn enough money to cover all of their necessary expenses, which leads to employee turnover. Having recently worked in a restaurant that played minimum wage, a restaurant in which there was about a two month period when there were only eight employees, I can attest to this fact. Since the minimum wage is regarded as a social justice, what is the point of having a minimum wage that is socially unjust? A $12.50 Federal minimum wage would fix this problem.

Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased Thank you 16K for havinhis debate with me. MINIMUM WAGE AND WELFARE Minimum wage pays less than welfare in 35 different states. http://www.cato.org... currently the minmum wage is 7.25 an hour. http://www.dol.gov... Here is what welfare pays in a few different states: State Hourly Wage Equivalent Hawaii- $17.50 Alaska- $15.48 Massachusetts- $14.66 Connecticut- $14.23 Washington, D.C.- $13.99 New York- $13.13 New Jersey- $12.55 Rhode Island- $12.55 California- $11.59 Virginia- $11.11 http://www.statisticbrain.com... It's more beneficial for a lot of minimum wage families to quit working and collect welfare. The fact that minimum wage jobs pay less than welfare ecourages people not to work. The government mandating a minimum wage increase would incentivize working. the minimum wage increase should be enough to equal possible welfare benefits from not working. The government spends close to a trillion dollars a year on welfare spending. http://www.cato.org... This is money that businesses could be paying people if they were incentivized to work. These stats don't even include the people who are working and having to be partially subsidized by welfare. If there were a minimum wage increase, government could stop sunsidizing these corporations so they can pay less than a livable wage. REDUCES POVERTY LEVEL Raising the minimum wage reduces the poverty level. There is pretty much a consensus among economists about this fact. http://www.washingtonpost.com... A study by the University of Massachussets says; "higher minimum wages moderately reduce the share of individuals with incomes below 50, 75 and 100 percent of the federal poverty line" https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com... Here are a few of the benefits that the congressional budget office found would result from increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion. Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law). Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold. Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent. https://www.cbo.gov... CONCLUSION Raising the minimum wage helps out poor people by bringing them above the poverty level and raising it enough can dramatically reduce the amount of federal spending on welfare as well as incentivizing people to work. I hand ove the debate to my opponent. Good luck.

Minimum wage should be increased in the US. The minimum wage in the US should be increased each year to help provide a higher income to those working on minimum wage.

Minimum wages should be raised How do you think a mother feels when her child goes up to her and tells her that she does not want a birthday present because that child knows that her mother can not afford to buy her a birthday present? What if I tell you that if the minimum wage was raised that this mother and many like her can afford to buy a birthday present for their daughter's birthday? Many believe that the minimum wage should not be raised because small businesses can not afford to pay employees more that the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, or waiters/waitresses for example, who get tips earn $2.13 per hour. This translates into an average of $ 14,500 a year for a full time worker. Another reason that people say that the minimum wage can not be raised is that if the federal minimum wage is raised then the prices of goods and services also increase. Many also say that increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. People argue that small businesses can not afford to pay employees more and as a result will end up firing many employees. This is just not true. In July of 2015 a survey found out that 60% of small business owners support a gradual increase to the minimum wage of $12.00. This survey also reports that small business owners preferred this because an increase of income would put money into the pockets of low- wage workers who will then spend the money on goods and services. This boost in demand will stimulate the economy and help create job opportunities. In fact, the White House published an article called Raise the Wage and it states that raising the minimum wage nationwide will benefit local economies and support millions of workers. Many people also say that the federal minimum wage should stay the same because if the minimum wage goes up then other prices will increase as well, and as a result everything becomes more expensive. Some states have placed rules in recent years causing increases in their minimum wages to help keep up with the already rising inflation. The federal minimum wage does not operate that way. According to the Department of Labor in their article Minimum Wage Mythbusters, in order for the federal minimum wage to increase it has to gain approval from Congress and the President. The plan is to gradually increase the minimum wage so it has time to adjust automatically with inflation. This will help low income families keep up with prices of the cost of living. People also say that increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. What these people are thinking that the federal minimum wage is going to be raised immediately. In reality what President Obama wants to do is to raise the minimum wage in increments until it eventually reaches $15.00 per hour. He wants to do this because if he tells the whole country to pay their workers $15.00 per hour, employers will not have a chance to adjust to this sudden change. But if he asks to slowly raise the wage of employees, then employers will have the time to adjust. This way no jobs are lost. In fact 600 economists studied that increasing the minimum wage has no effect on employment of minimum-wage workers including at times of weakness in the labor market. Robert Reich (former Labor Secretary) in an article called Why we Should Raise the Minimum Wage published on CNBC"s website on April 27, 2015,he states that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour from $7.25 per hour would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.

The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States The benefits of moderate and proportional increases to the minimum wage outweigh the risks.I assume that Pro's argument against minimum wage increases will be something along these lines: an increase in the minimum wage should translate into higher prices, contributing to inflation and nullifying the increase.In the real world, however, economic forces are much more complicated. However much theory says it shouldn't, study after study shows that base wage increases have a minimal impact on prices and that base wage increases are strongly correlated to economic improvement. Economists differ strongly on the relative value and importance of the minimum wage, but history shows that economic strength typically improves after minimum wage hikes and that jurisdictions with higher minimum wages enjoy stronger economies than jurisdictions with lower or no minimum wage law. "According to a poll of 500 small business owners conducted on behalf of Small Business Majority, 67 percent of these firms favor boosting the minimum wage from the current rate of $7.25 an hour and adjusting it annually as the cost of living rises" [1]Why? Because savvy small businesses understand that minimum wage hikes improve the economy, stabilize turnover, and contribute little to inflation.Small businesses in Australia account for 95% of GDP [2] compared to 46% U.S. GDP and Australia's minimum wage is twice that of U.S. ($16.88 USD) yet maintains unemployment at 5.7%, [3] and provides a statistically better quality of life than most US population centers(4 largest cities rank in global top ten). Look at Costco vs. Sam's Club. Costco pays 42% better average salary as well as better benefits, yet its grocery prices average 3.6% LESS because Costco employee turnover is 6% vs Sam's Club's 44% turnover[4] Happier, more experienced employees provide better customer service and bring in $21,805 profit per employee compared to Sam's Club's $11,615 profit per employee.Minimum wage earners only represent 5.2% of the US workforce, and that's mostly comprised of high school and college age people. [5] One might not suppose that adjusting the wage for this small sector would significantly impact the economy, but minimum wage increases ripple up into middle class salaries as employers retain wage hierarchies. This has the effect of pushing unused capital at the top of the pyramid down to the bottom where it is quickly spent, improving consumption and economic demand, which leads to higher employment. Minimum wage increases drive employers to improve efficiency. Rather than relying on a pool of cheap labor to take up the slack, employers seek out tech improvements, working smarter not harder.The higher the bottom rung is set, the more people prefer employment to criminal alternatives, boosting the market.Minimum wage laws improve work ethics, reduce absenteeism, and reduce turnover. In tandem, these effects result in significant improvements in efficiency across the economy. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com...[2] http://www.mccrindle.com.au...[3] http://www.abc.net.au...[4] http://hbr.org...[5] http://www.bls.gov...

Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy I wish her well and I know she will present me with a good challenge. This is, after all, the purpose of these debating engagements. As I stated in ROUND 1, I will be defending the position that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U. S. economy; I will also be arguing that any proposed minimum wage hike should be indexed to inflation, to allow it to rise with the increasing cost of living. A minimum wage hike will increase the number of jobs in the United States and is likely to increase the nation's gross domestic product--this according to the congressional budget office's latest projections on such a hypothetical raise [1]--and it will have a mostly positive impact on low wage workers, or those that make minimum wage or less to about 5 times the poverty threshold [1]; to give you an example of what this means, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would not only directly benefit those making the new minimum wage but it would also benefit a single person family (working) that makes up to $68,825 per year, by putting more money in his pocket--this according to the congressional budget office's estimation [1][2]. And of course larger working families will see even greater monetary rewards [1]. But before we get into that discussion, I'm going to demonstrate in this ROUND why a minimum wage increase is badly needed and why failing to raise it will only continue to hurt the nation's workforce, which has seen the purchasing value of its wages go down over the last 30 years because of inflation [3][4]. Purchasing Power of the Dollar isn't what it use to beBecause of inflation, the vast majority of America's workforce has either seen the purchasing value of its wages stagnate or decrease steadily [3]; low wage earners have seen the value of their wages decrease the most [4]. In comparison, the nation's top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably exceeding the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. While the value of earnings of the top 1% of earners outpaces the rate of inflation, the vast majority of working Americans are seeing the value of their wages stagnate (upper-middle class) or decrease (below). Income inequality in the U. S. is now at the highest its ever been since 1928 right before the Great Depression [5]. According to economist/professor Emmanuel Saez at the University of Berkeley, the top 1% of earners in the nation get 22.5% of all pre-tax income while 90% of remaining earners get less than half, 49.6% [5]! Low-wage earners have the seen the value of their wages decrease the most. For the last 40 years, the federal minimum wage has badly fallen behind inflation in real terms. Studies by the U. S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is even less than what it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars (see graph below) [5][7][8]. The U. S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid even less in real terms because of inflation when compared to their 1968 minimum wage counterparts [8]! In fact, since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7]. In a 2012 study, The Centers for Economic and Policy Research concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it was first enacted in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. To provide an accurate sense of how badly lagging behind the federal minimum wage now is, in 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about $20,000 per year in today's dollars; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 per year [4]. In 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. A steady decline. While the price of food, services, goods, and healthcare go up both in terms of cost and inflation, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has significantly eroded over the years [3]. While the average price of the McDonald's Big Mac has risen from $2.71 in 2004 to $4.62 in 2014--an increase of 70.1% over 10 years--the federal minimum wage has only increased by $2.10 to its current rate over the same period, or by 41% [9][10]. Over the years these less than adequate minimum wage increases accumulate and they create poverty were previously there wasn't any or where it was less pronounced. As the graph above shows, when accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage has less purchasing power now than it did in the late 1960s. In order to rectify the reduced value of the minimum wage, it needs to be elevated to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value! Failure to do so will only expand poverty in America and deepen the crisis facing low wage workers. Raising the Minimum Wage would directly benefit 21.4% of the worforceCurrently 3.8 million workers are paid the nation's minimum wage, but raising the wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforce--about 30 million workers--by putting more money in their pocket [5][4].21.4% of the nation's workforce would now have more money in their pocket; the accumulated losses caused by inflation over the years straining the minimum wage worker would be effectively eliminated! A fierce proponent of this idea, the current President has advocated tying this proposed minimum wage hike to inflation, that way any adverse effects created by inflation are effectively handled [11]. This is an even better idea! Recognizing the current crisis facing the nation's million of low wager earners, President Obama has already signed an exectuve order raising the minimum wage for federal workers from $7.25 to $10.10 [11]. The rest of the nation should follow this example. Who directly benefits? As of 2012, 49% of all minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older (see graphic below). However, more than 85.5% of all minimum wage workers are 20 years old or older (not teenagers) [7]. 55% of federal minimum wage earners work full time [4]. But of course many more people making less than $10.10 per hour would see a pay raise. As I stated earlier, nearly 30 million workers would get a pay raise with the minimum wage increase; 9 million of these workers are parents [4]. 57.3% of those who would be effected are women [7]; a low minimum wage is one of the reasons why females continue to make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes [12]. Increasing the minimum to $10.10 would help close that gap by 5% [12]. And increasing the minimum wage is the sensible thing to do. Already 19 U. S. states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum [7]. Numerous business executives and CEOs are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Costco President and CEO, Craig Jelenik, has come out in favor of this proposal by President Obama, stating "Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty" [5]; executives of GAP have come out in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 as well [12]. Already a full 85% of small businesses pay wages higher than the minimum [4]. Conservative estimates by the congressional budget office (CBO)--a federal agency within the U. S. government that provides economic data to congress--places the total immediate gains of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at $5 billion for working families that make less than the poverty threshold (live in poverty); their income would increase by about 3% and 900,000 people would be moved above the poverty threshold [1]. The CBO also projects that families making one to three times the poverty threshold would see $12 billion in additional real income; families making three to six times the poverty threshold would see $2 billion in additional real income [1]. Overall, the CBO estimates that the nation's poverty would be reduced and that a total of $2 billion would be immediately added to the U. S economy because of the minimum wage increase [1].2 out of 3 Americans Support Raising the Minimum WageFinally, a large majority of Americans approve of raising the federal minimum wage. As inflation continues to increase and as wealthy employers increasingly keep more of their profits and distribute less to their employees, widening the income gap, Americans are recognizing the need to increase the federal minimum wage! A recent Wall Street Journal/CNN poll shows that 63% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour [13][14]; some polls show even greater support for hiking the federal minimum wage [4]. [1] (. http://cbo.gov...)[2] (. http://aspe.hhs.gov...)[3] (. http://www.epi.org...)[4] (. http://www.epi.org...)[5] (. http://www.mybanktracker.com...)[6] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[7] (. http://www.pewresearch.org...)[8] (. http://www.dol.gov...)[9] (. http://news.yahoo.com...)[10] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[11] (. http://www.foxnews.com...)[12] (. http://www.whitehouse.gov...)[13] (. http://www.cnn.com...)[14] (. http://online.wsj.com...)

The federal minimum wage should be increased You seem to be forgetting that people are forced into living on minimum wage due to the shrinking amount of well paying, high education jobs available. Again, there must be checks. For a Fortune 500 company to cut employees because they are making more per hour shows that, once again, these companies are shady and will do anything to make the big bucks. These people living on minimum wage do not make enough to get by, they lack the ability to break out of this cycle due to the lack of funding that they receive. (1) Quoting from the article: "Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.50 an hour, would inject an amazing $9.5 billion extra spending power into the economy (this assumes all 3.8 million workers are making exactly $7.25, that each additional dollar earned is spent, and that none of the 3.8 million are earning wages below the federal minimum wage " even though there are 9 states that are below this level or which have no minimum wage law). If the minimum wage were instead raised to where it should be, at least $10 per hour (which would still put it below the minimum wage in 1968), this would release at least $60 billion over two years into the economy.. On top of this, an increased minimum wage may also lead to an increase in the hourly pay of other low-wage workers that only make slightly more than the federal minimum wage. This increased purchasing power across the board helps stimulate the economy and benefits small businesses, many of which were hardest hit by the recession." As you can see, increasing the minimum wage will also increase the economy and allow for more spending of the individual workers. Currently, these workers do not making enough. Some states do not even have minimum wage, or they offer much lower than the federal wage. The increase would force companies in these states to give minimum wage, and this would in turn increase the purchasing that these workers receive and may even help them out of this deadly cycle of low income. Sources: (1) http://www.timeforaraise.org...

The federal minimum wage should be increased But again, the cost of living is increasing. The only way to fix that problem, caused by inflation, is to stimulate the economy through an increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the wage would assist many people, mostly those who are in poverty. As discussed by CNN (1). Quoting from the article: "Last week Oxfam released a new study that dispels many of the political myths surrounding the nation's minimum wage debate. It shows not only that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would give some 25 million workers across America a much-needed raise, but also that, on average, one in five workers in every single congressional district in America -- red or blue -- would benefit from such a raise. In fact, according to our data, a hike in the minimum wage would benefit more than 55,000 workers in the average congressional district." This increase has been proven to assist workers across America, helping those in every state. Quoting from the Study done by Oxfam: "The districts with the highest percentages of workers who would benefit from a higher minimum wage are a diverse mix " at least 29 percent of workers in districts like South Florida, rural South Texas, and Bakersfield, California." (2) This increase would benefit workers across the nation, but assisting those mainly in the states with the highest number of workers. This is what America needs, a chance to fix this poverty problem by attacking the source; low income. The price to live has risen over these seven years, and it is time that we fix that mistake. Sources: (1)http://www.cnn.com... (2) http://www.oxfamamerica.org...

Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy In ROUND 2 my opponent makes several points--including accusing the U.S. Federal Reserve of forcing inflation to benefit the U.S. economy. She also accuses this federal organization of "crook[ing] the books" to make the numbers it reports look good to the American people. This second specific point is an allegation of wild conspiracy and I consider it irrelevant to the debate; however, she does use this argument to indicate that inflation is actually higher than what is reported, because of alterations to the way the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is computed since the early 1970s [1]. (My opponent is actually wrong. Excluding the prices of fuel and food from the CPI has been the way the U.S. Federal Reserve has been computing this parameter for decades now--not beginning in 2009, as she claims [2].)I want to point out that if inflation is actually higher than what the U.S. Federal Reserve is reporting, than this should motivate us even more to hike the minimum wage and index it to inflation! This means that the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage is even less than what the U.S. Labor Department is already reporting--and it's reporting a significant decrease in the value of the minimum wage over the last four decades in real terms with great worry [3]. (However, the inflation rate as reported is accurate; my opponent is in fact mistaken about the way the CPI is traditionally computed since the 1970s [2].)My opponent also claims that worker output should decide "pay scales in a real economy". I will demonstrate why she's correct, and why the 20% increase in worker productivity observed over this last decade should correspond with an increase in the federal minimum wage [4].I will demonstrate this and other reasons for hiking the federal minimum wage in this ROUND.Inflation has many causes, which is why the Federal Minimum Wage should be Indexed to InflationMy opponent argues that raising the federal minimum wage would be pointless, as inflation would eventually eat the gains caused by increasing the minimum wage. And on this point she is moderately right; however, inflation has many causes, as economists point out, and it's a healthy economic trend in any growing economy--as long as it stays within limits [5]. Inflation is caused when demand for a product or service outstrips supply, which causes prices to go up; it can also be caused when new popular technology is introduced--some brand names demand higher prices; but it can also be caused by the depletion of natural resources, by natural disasters, by an increase in production costs, by the deregulation of banks, by government regulation and taxation, by business monopolies, by the expansion of the money supply, and various other reasons [5]. Inflation is natural and unavoidable in any economy. But too much of it can present problems, which is why the federal government tries to regulate it wherever it can [5]. Increasing wages can also create inflation if a business passes on the wage increase to consumers, but this doesn't always happen [6]. Recently, inflation has caused even pay raises among middle class workers to be fruitless, as the modest pay increases simply aren't enough to deal with the deleterious effects of inflation, especially as the income gap grows between well-to-do employers, who are increasingly keeping more of their profits, and all other wage earners [7][4]. As I demonstrated in ROUND 2, the nation's wealthiest Americans are generating income comfortably exceeding the rate of inflation; the middle class has seen either stagnant wage growth or negative wage growth when accounting for the effect; the lower classes have seen the worse decline in income over this last decade [4]. Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 would eliminate the accumulated deleterious effects of inflation over the years for low wage earners; linking (or "indexing") it to inflation would ensure the effects are prevented in the future.Four states--Florida, Oregon, Washington, Vermont--have already indexed their state minimum wage to inflation, and Minnesota is currently proposing to do so [8]. After raising the state minimum wage and indexing, the state of Washington saw no negative impact on employment some initially feared would be there [9]. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, and then having it adjusted every year to keep pace with the rising cost of living [10]. It is a congressional bill President Obama endorses and continues to endorse [11], particularly in light of the recent executive order he enacted which hiked the federal minimum wage for federal contractors from $7.25 to $10.10 [12].Since 2000, worker productivity is up 20%In ROUND 2, my opponent claims that worker productivity should decide their pay wages. I whole-heartedly agree! That's why I endorse raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. Since 2000 worker productivity has risen 20%, even while median hourly wages among all workers have increased by only 3% [4]. Even more astounding is that since 2003, median hourly wages among all workers have not increased at all--zero increase in hourly wages--while the income of the nation's richest 5% have increased by 9% [4]! The nation's top 1% of earners have seen their incomes rise by 31.4% since 2009 [13]!This trend is frightening. While the nation's workers have seen their productivity rise, their income has not grown at all; yet the income of the nation's top 5% of earners continues to surge upward [4][5], widening the income gap. When the effects of inflation are incorporated, middle-class workers have seen their incomes stagnant while lower-class workers have seen the value of their wages depreciate, contributing to an uptick in poverty [4][14].Inadequate Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage have Increased PovertyIn the U.S. poverty is measured by whether a household fails to make enough income (or show enough savings) per year to surpass the "poverty threshold" assigned by the U.S government for the number of individuals living in the household [15][19]. Because of inadequate increases in the federal minimum wage with respect to inflation and because employee paychecks have become smaller in real terms for the same reason, poverty in the U.S. has increased over the last three decades [16]. The chart below illustrates the "povery guidelines" used by the Department of Health and Human Services for assigning poverty to a household based on annual income and number of people. Households making less than the income enumerated for the corresponding number of people in them are classified as "living in poverty". The "poverty guidelines" are in actuality simplified versions of the "poverty thresholds" used by the U.S. Census Bureau [19]. Now, from first appearances via this chart a full-time minimum wage earner might appear to not be in poverty, but if his/her family consist of another person not employed and not receiving any type of income (a child perhaps), that would assign this person as "living in poverty", simply because his/her income falls below the poverty guideline for the household number [17].In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that more than 16% of the U.S. population lived in poverty, including about 20% of all U.S. children, up from 13.2%--39.8 million people--in 2008 [15]. Since the 1980s, relative poverty in the U.S. has consistently exceeded that of other wealthy nations [15]. In 2011, child poverty reached historically high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households; in 2013 a UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world [15].The congressional budget office (CBO) projects that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not only add billions of dollars to the economy and provide additional income to low-wage earners, but that it will lift a full 900,000 people out of poverty [18]!American Tax-payers Subsidize Low-wage BusinessesFurthermore, American tax-payers subsidize low-wage businesses. Many low-wage earners have to rely on public assistance such as food stamps or the earned income tax credit (EITC), because their wages are simply too low. Programs like the EITC are useful protections against poverty, but we shouldn’t let them act as subsidies to low-wage employers, who currently pay lower wages because the American taxpayer will make up the difference [14].Raising the minimum wage would shrink the federal deficit, since fewer workers would qualify for the EITC [13]. Finally, a recent study by U.C.-Berkeley concluded that raising the minimum wage would allow 3 million people to quit the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps [13].(Note: R2 = Round 2; S# = Source number)[1] (http://www.bankrate.com...)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[3] S8, R2[4] S3, R2[5] (http://useconomy.about.com...)[6] (http://www.wisegeek.com...)[7] (http://www.washingtonpost.com...)[8] (http://www.ehow.com...)[9] (http://seattletimes.com...)[10] (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...)[11] (http://www.nytimes.com...;)[12] S11, R2[13] S5, R2[14] S4, R2[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[16] (http://www.worldhunger.org...)[17] (http://poverty.ucdavis.edu...)[18] S1, R2[19] S2, R2

March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Argument 1: Raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment One of the greatest shortcomings of raising the minimum wages is that wage increases are often correlated with the decrease of such low-paying jobs hurting those who are supposed to be help with this wage increase. The extra money for these workers has to come from somewhere and such comes primarily from the businesses that employ them. In a 2014 study by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that a half-million jobs would be lost if the minimum wage was increased to at least $10 an hour as this debate describes. [1] If you also look at the history of minimum wage, wage hikes do reduce employment. With the very first introduction of the minimum wage at $0.25, according to the US Department of Labor, the minimum wage led to 30,000 to 50,000 jobs lost which accounted for around 10-13% of workers who had jobs before the minimum wage. With the implementation in Puerto Rico, 120,000 jobs were lost within the year after the law was put into place. A review of the Minimum Wage Study Commission’s report in 1981 shows that a recent 10% increase in the federal minimum wage resulted in the reduction of teen employment by 1-3%. [2] With the added labor costs, businesses would have to raise their prices, cut employee hours and benefits, cut workers, or in the 21st century replace them with computers, machines and robots. Take for example BAXTER, a robot that costs less than the average worker’s salary at $25,000 capable of doing many unskilled jobs using pennies worth of electricity to operate [7]. Sure, it may not be as versatile as your average minimum wage worker, but if you look at computers, they developed from a programmer’s play thing in the 60’s to literally integrated into everything in society within a matter of decades. The Bank of England predicted that within the next 10 to 20 years, robots will take over 80 million jobs in the United States leaving those who are only capable of simple tasks out of the job market. By raising the federal minimum wage, you are only pushing employers to utilize more robots and computers in response to their raised labor costs. [3] Argument 2: Raising the minimum wage is ineffective at decreasing poverty. According to the Census Bureau, 34% of those living in poverty do not work. And if they don’t work, such individuals would not benefit from a minimum wage increase. And pertaining to my previous argument, if the minimum wage was increased, there will be less jobs inflating the percentage of people who will not benefit from a wage hike. [5] Another issue with raising the federal minimum wage is the fact that cost of living varies by state. The states where the cost of living is lower would be negatively affected by unnecessarily raising costs of businesses in areas where poverty is minimal. This map below illustrates areas where costs of living are high and low. [4] In addition, most minimum wage earners don’t even live in poverty. The average family income of a minimum wage earner is around $53,000. [6] Conclusion: I have proven that not only would increasing the federal minimum wage to $10 or above would be ineffective in reducing poverty, it would hurt businesses and ultimately the minimum wage workers through unemployment. Sources: [1] https://www.epionline.org... [2] http://object.cato.org... [3] http://money.cnn.com... [4] http://www.cnbc.com... [5] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... [6] http://www.washingtonpolicy.org... [7] http://www.rethinkrobotics.com...

The federal minimum wage should be increased While people working for minimum wage would earn more, this would also mean the employer would have to pay them more. This means many people could get fired from work. Also as you mentioned, this would result in higher prices for their goods. In the long run, these higher prices could hurt everyone, not just those living on minimum wage. A CBO report from 2013 states that half a million jobs would be lost if the federal wage would be raised to $10.10 ( as many people want it to be ) The report also estimates that many job benefits would be lost, such as paid vacation and reimbursed parking. Another point I want to add is a higher minimum wage would hurt the development of people. Say you're in highschool and the new minimum wages looks pretty good to you. Many teens chose to drop out of highschool and not bother to attend college. These higher wages very well could entice teens and others to not go/go back to college because they are already making more money doing something so easy, like working at a fast food restaurant. In 2011, 3.8 million Americans were working for the federal minimum wage, more than half of them teens. About 70% of minimum wage employees work fewer than 35 hours a week. They work less, and their job is a lot easier than ones that require a college education. Why should we give more money to people doing less work? They work less and the job is easier, thus they earn proportionally less. In conclusion, we should not increase the federal minimum wage. By doing so, the quantity and quality of jobs decrease, and people very well may lose their strive to go to college and get a better education. Sources- Salary.com, Economicshelp.org, Balancedpolitics.org

The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Extend arguments and rebuttals.

Raise The Minimum Wage Alright, so I am going to go through the reasons I believe increasing minimum wage would be beneficial to society.1. As productivity has climbed marginal compensation has rise very slowly with it. As we can see from this graph, in the past few decades we have increased our production capacity by a stunning amount yet hourly compensation has risen very slowly with it and has even stagnated and decreased. Meanwhile, CEO pay has greatly increased only dropping significantly during the 08 crash If productivity increased by this much you would think not only the ceo, but the average worker's pay would go up by similar margins but that is not evident. A rise in minimum wage would help this gap close. 2. Increased aggregate purchasing powerWith an increase in minimum wage those living on minimum wage would have the ability to purchase more. As we can see from this graph, the average purchasing power has gone down significantly and while that has happened we have been unable to fully compensate through an increase in wages. And it is very difficult, to live if at all on a minimum wage at 7.25 an hour.[1]3. It will not increase unemployment.Contrary to popular belief among Austrian economists, raising minimum wage does not increase unemployment. Why? mainly because there are only around 1.3 million people (in the United States) who work for minimum wage.[2] So a slight addition to the cost of labour to a certain group does not significantly shift the aggregate supply curve for the labour market. Here is some evidence for my claim. NELP (National Employment Law Project) conducted a study[3] and found that for the 22 times the federal minimum wage was raised from 1938 to 2010, the majority of the time employment went up and the times it went down can easily be attributed to the natural business cycle.This itself should prove that increasing minimum wage has little effect on unemployment and if anything, brings it down.Here is a piece of modern empirical evidence for my claim. Seattle not too long ago increased their minimum wage to $15 an hour and we can already see that unemployment has actually been low and today it hovers at a measly 4% [4]For these reasons, I believe minimum wage should be increased gradually.I shall await for you to present your reasons and why it should not be raised.sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [1]http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... [1]http://www.nelp.org...;[3]https://ycharts.com... [4]

The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour In round 4 I want to cover the following : 1. Arguments for a $15 federal minimum wage. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON’s statements 3. Closing statement.1. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. The primary reason the Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage is so it have hard data on all the effects of this public policy tool. The majority of current research suggests that increasing the minimum wage will do the following: a) “Provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.” [1] b) Stimulate the economy as workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth. [1] c) Senator Edward Kennedy once called the minimum wage “one of the best antipoverty programs we have.”. [2] d) Reduce the number of single moms living in poverty. [1] e) It is good for public health [3] Not only are these benefits backed by the data, but the following are likely. [4] a) Job Hunt Motivation b) Single Parents benefit c) Job Creation d) Increased Morale e) Greater odds of high school completion [3] f) Reduced costs for state Medicaid [3] g) Less people choosing welfare over work. These are all excellent reasons to increase the minimum wage. The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because that is a substantial increase, and we will see clear trends in the data to help us understand all the effects of a minimum wage that is above the poverty line. Another reason for proposing a $15 minimum wage, is because it will place our minimum wage earners above the poverty line. Our federal government uses two measures of poverty: “poverty guidelines” and “poverty thresholds” [5] Poverty thresholds were developed in 1963-1964, based largely on estimates of the minimal cost of food needs. Poverty guidelines are a dollar figure used by the census bureau to calculate the number of people in poverty. [6] As an example, the poverty guideline for a single person living in “48 Contiguous States and D.C.” is $11,770 for 2015. It would take 1624 hours at the 7.25 minimum wage to earn this amount. Many minimum wage workers get 30 hours a week or less, and can not rise above the poverty guideline. If the minimum wage were $10 this same worker could earn $15600 a year, which is almost enough to support a spouse or child at the poverty line($15,930). If the Federal minimum wage were $15, this same person would earn $23400. This is enough for three people to be above the poverty line, or for four people to almost rise out of poverty. [6 - poverty guideline table] The issue of public health is often forgotten in the Minimum wage debate: “Last year, Minnesota legislators successfully enacted a raise in the minimum wage, taking Minnesota from one of the lowest-paying minimum wage states to one of the highest. State Health Commissioner Edward Ehlinger described the move as the greatest legislative victory of the year. - “I’d argue that it was the biggest public health achievement in that legislative session — and probably in the four years I’ve been health commissioner” [3] The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because it will improve the health of low income earners. This means there will be less drain on medical resources and possibly even net savings as federal costs of Obama Care rise. A study “in APHA’s American Journal of Public Health, found that the wage increase would decrease the risk of premature death by 5 percent for adults ages 24 to 44 living in households with an income of about $20,000. In addition, the children of such workers would experience substantially increased odds of high school completion and a 22 percent decrease in the risk of early childbirth.” [3] A “higher minimum wages reduce enrollment in traditional Medicaid — the portion of the health insurance program in which states pay a substantial share.” There are many other reasons why a $15 federal minimum wage would be good for minimum wage earners, and for the country. One helpful way to think of it is: You get more of what you pay for! I would rather see workers paid a living wage. I would rather not see increased spending on welfare and medicaid. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON’s statementsCon has the following concerns / issues - Cost of Living - Will lead to job loss - Does very little to help the poor - EITCLet me respond to some of his errors. - Cost of Living “Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.” CON is taking a simplistic view that any increase in prices as absolutely bad. For the worker earning minimum wage, their purchasing power at $15/hour is far greater than it was at $7.25/ hour. For the rest of us, a Big Mac meal ($3.99) would cost about 17 cents more ($4.16) which is hardly going to hurt us.[7] One of the problems with the current Federal Minimum Wage is that it is not indexed to the consumer price index or the cost of living. [8] Adjusted for inflation/cost of living, the highest minimum wage was in 1968, when it was equivalent to $10.69/hour in purchasing power.[9] The effect on the cost of living will be small, but the effect on those earning the minimum wage will be huge. - Will lead to job loss CON seems to ignore all the scholarly papers that state that an increased minimum wage will have little effect on the unemployment rate. The literature concludes “we find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state.” [10] The Pew Research Center found that the strongest opposition to a minimum wage increase came from Republicans, and that the opposition in the debate are more partisan politics that based on fact.[11] - Does very little to help the poor CON is correct that not all people in poverty are the working poor. Many are on some form of welfare. I want to reward the working poor with a higher minimum wage so they will be not so poor. Raising the Federal minimum wage to $15/ hour will even allow some to be above the poverty line. It will increase the health of these working poor. It will encourage people who are on welfare to consider working. CON is absolutely incorrect in suggesting that an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage will not benefit the working poor. - EITC CON sings the Republican party line that tax breaks are the answer. This is absolutely false. The people who benefit the most from tax breaks are the wealthy who can afford to hire an accountant to protect their money from government. I have a good income. I pay almost no taxes because the wealthy have a high motivation to find tax breaks. There is one great advantage of the EITC. It often encourages people who are on welfare to participate in the workforce.[12] As such, I applaud it. It is a good tool to reduce welfare abuse. Combined with a decent ($15) minimum wage there should be even more benefits for the working poor, and for tax payers.Closing Statement. We need a Federal Minimum Wage of $15[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org...[4] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[8] http://www.dol.gov...[9] https://www.fas.org...[10] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[11] http://www.pewresearch.org...[12] http://www.cbpp.org...[13] http://www.tylervigen.com...this is a good resource https://www.policyalternatives.ca...

Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised Sorry about the delay in posting, the site went down for maintenance or something this morning. So here we go now. Whenever a minimum wage is set, it imposes no cost to the rest of us, the taxpayers. It is the businesses that absorb it, who will oppose it in the beginning, but then see that sales have gone up tremendously. That is because giving money to our people will in turn create a stronger economy. Americans will spend their increased income on housing, food, electricity etc., and companies of all kind will experience a surge in business. Of the 28 million Americans who would benefit from a federal wage raise, a portion of the group would include adults who are either married or with kids. Here is a run-through of the proportions: "3.4 million under 18, 4.6 million married with kids, 2.8 million married with kids, 4.9 married without kids, 12.4 adults not married without kids." The value of the minimum wage is also greatly decreasing, another reason of why we should propose a raise. Not only has it dropped by a third since 1968, but we observe great increases in everything else. College fees have shot up, basic necessities for survival are being overpriced, and our landlords haven't decreased our rent or anything. Basically, it is physically impossible to survive on the minimum wage, and our growing prices haven't aided in the welfare of our Americans. Speaking of welfare, when working multiple minimum waged jobs becomes extremely persistent and agitating, many citizens might turn to government assistance programs, like food stamps, medicaid etc. As of now, 52% of fast-food workers have to rely on food stamps, therefore costing our government the taxpayer's money. If we simply increased the wage a tad bit, than these welfare receivers will stop riding of the system. And plus, the amount of money in food stamps going to fast-food workers tallies to $1.04 billion dollars. That money could've been spent on schools, community buildings, or just back to the people. The argument as to as if whether the federal wage increase will harm the job openings in America is a myth. These companies need their workers to service customers. And if customers on average spends $2,800 extra for every dollar of wage increase, those companies would receive more purchases. As I've said before, this increases will create money cycle, thus improving our economy. Minimum wage was not created for teenagers and college students, it was for everyone who happens to not be able to find a higher job position. Not everyone has the luxury of going to college, and even some who do complete college will find themselves at a restaurant working for minimum wage. There is something called being laid off, and when that happens to someone, they will take up a job at a local store for minimum wage just to support their family. When someone starts at minimum wages, they typically do not get raises at large corporations such as McDonalds. The Fair Labor Standards Act claims that the people working for minimum wage are not entitled to vacation, rest periods, premium pay for holiday work, pay raises, or a reason to terminate employees. The laws around the minimum wage are not beneficial to the employee after all, due to the fact that they have no lobbyists and negotiators. Another example of why the federal wage is not mainly for teenagers and college students is this rule in the FLSA; the youth minimum wage for anyone under 20 is $4.25 for the first 90 days. This allows the companies the opportunity to cut pay (a.k.a cheat) a youth literally out of three months of pay. Even fast-food managers are only paid slightly higher than their employees. A federal wage raise to $10.10 would even benefit them also, since their wage's would be raised to the federal minimum wage, plus higher to account for the slight increase between workers and managers. In short, everyone would receive a raise in some way. When workers struggle to make ends meet, productivity sags, absenteeism increases, morale suffers and turnover rises because workers are constantly hunting for better opportunities. When workers have less money to spend in the markets, companies also suffer because no one is buying their products. During the last 45 years, many middle class and lower class citizens are not as entitled because their wages have been lobbied away by the big companies who want profits to themselves. If we as a country raised our minimum wages to $10.10, we would witness significant growths at all fronts. From the lives of the workers themselves, to the increase in business for companies, it makes considerable sense we go for a federal minimum wage raise. It assists all people of this country. Whenever the minimum wage is raised, virtually all jobs will see an escalation in pay. When jobs that do not require collegiate education receive a raise, those that do also will witness the same increase. That undermines your argument of how Americans wouldn't be as motivated to attend university. Thank you for this debate, and this opportunity to express my views on the raising the federal minimum wage. Sources: https://www.whitehouse.gov... http://ourfuture.org... http://www.dol.gov...

Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy I wish him well and I know he will offer me a good challenge. This is, after all, the purpose of these debating engagements. As I stated in ROUND 1, I will be defending the position that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U. S. economy. It will increase the number of jobs in the United States and is likely to increase the nation's gross domestic product--this according to the congressional budget office's latest projections on such a hypothetical raise [1]--and it will have a mostly positive impact on low wage workers, or those that make minimum wage or less to about 5 times the poverty threshold [1]; to give you an example of what this means, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would not only directly benefit those making the new minimum wage but it would also benefit a single person family (working) that makes up to $68,825 per year, by putting more money in his pocket--this according to the congressional budget office's estimation [1][2]. And of course larger working families will see even greater monetary rewards [1]. But before we get into that discussion, I'm going to demonstrate in this ROUND why a minimum wage increase is badly needed and why failing to raise it will only continue to hurt the nation's workforce, which has seen the purchasing value of its wages go down over the last 30 years because of inflation [3][4]. Purchasing Power of the Dollar isn't what it used to beBecause of inflation, the vast majority of America's workforce has either seen the purchasing value of its wages stagnate or decrease steadily [3]; low wage earners have seen the value of their wages decrease the most [4]. In comparison, the nation's top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably exceeding the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. While the value of earnings of the top 1% of earners outpaces the rate of inflation, the vast majority of working Americans are seeing the value of their wages stagnate (upper-middle class) or decrease (below). Income inequality in the U. S. is now at the highest its ever been since 1928 right before the Great Depression [5]. According to economist/professor Emmanuel Saez at the University of Berkeley, the top 1% of earners in the nation get 22.5% of all pre-tax income while 90% of remaining earners get less than half, 49.6% [5]! Low-wage earners have the seen the value of their wages decrease the most. For the last 40 years, the federal minimum wage has badly fallen behind inflation in real terms. Studies by the U. S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is even less than what it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars (see graph below) [5][7][8]. The U. S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid even less in real terms because of inflation when compared to their 1968 minimum wage counterparts [8]! In fact, since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7]. In a 2012 study, The Centers for Economic and Policy Research concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it was first enacted in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. To provide an accurate sense of how badly lagging behind the federal minimum wage now is, in 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about $20,000 per year in today's dollars; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 per year [4]. In 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. A steady decline. While the price of food, services, goods, and healthcare go up both in terms of cost and inflation, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has significantly eroded over the years [3]. While the average price of the McDonald's Big Mac has risen from $2.71 in 2004 to $4.62 in 2014--an increase of 70.1% over 10 years--the federal minimum wage has only increased by $2.10 to its current rate over the same period, or by 41% [9][10]. Over the years these less than adequate minimum wage increases accumulate and they create poverty were previously there wasn't any or where it was less pronounced. As the graph above shows, when accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage has less purchasing power now than it did in the late 1960s. In order to rectify the reduced value of the minimum wage, it needs to be elevated to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value! Failure to do so will only expand poverty in America and deepen the crisis facing low wage workers. Raising the Minimum Wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforceCurrently 3.8 million workers are paid the nation's minimum wage, but raising the wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforce--about 30 million workers--by putting more money in their pocket [5][4].21.4% of the nation's workforce would now have more money in their pocket; the accumulated losses caused by inflation over the years straining the minimum wage worker would be effectively eliminated! A fierce proponent of this idea, the current President has advocated tying this proposed minimum wage hike to inflation, that way any adverse effects created by inflation are effectively handled [11]. This is an even better idea! Recognizing the current crisis facing the nation's million of low wager earners, President Obama has already signed an exectuve order raising the minimum wage for federal workers from $7.25 to $10.10 [11]. The rest of the nation should follow this example. Who directly benefits? As of 2012, 49% of all minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older (see graphic below); however, in excess of 85.5% of these workers are 20 years old or older (not teenagers) [7]. 55% work full time [4]. But of course many more people making less than $10.10 per hour would see a pay raise. As I stated earlier, nearly 30 million workers would get a pay raise with the minimum wage increase, 9 million of whom are parents [4]. 57.3% of those who would be effected are women [7]; a low minimum wage is one of the reasons why females continue to make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes [12]. Increasing the minimum to $10.10 would help close that gap by 5% [12]. And increasing the minimum wage is the sensible thing to do. Already 19 U. S. states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum [7]. Numerous business executives and CEOs are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Cosco President and CEO, Craig Jelenik, has come out in favor of this proposal by President Obama, stating "Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty" [5], as have executives of GAP [12]. 85% of small businesses already pay wages higher than the minimum [4]. Conservatives estimates by the congressional budget office (CBO)--a federal agency within the U. S. government that provides economic data to congress--places the total immediate gains of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at $5 billion for working families that make less than the poverty threshold (live in poverty); their income would increase by about 3% and 900,000 people would be moved above the poverty threshold [1]. The CBO also projects that families making one to three times the poverty threshold would see $12 billion in additional real income; families making three to six times the poverty threshold would see $2 billion in additional real income [1]. Overall, the CBO estimates that the nation's poverty would be reduced and that a total of $2 billion would be immediately added to the U. S economy because of the minimum wage increase [1]. [1] . http://cbo.gov...[2] . http://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] . http://www.epi.org...; [4] . http://www.epi.org...;[5] . http://www.mybanktracker.com...;[6] . http://www.bls.gov...;[7] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[8] . http://www.dol.gov...[9] . http://news.yahoo.com...[10] . http://www.bls.gov...[11] . http://www.foxnews.com...[12] . http://www.whitehouse.gov...

The US Minimum wage ought to be raised substantially. PROS CASE8 million workers live in poverty because the minimum wage is too low. (2) Only 62% of minimum wage workers are under 25, and only 25 of these workers are enrolled in school. (3)(A) The current minimum wage does not account for inflationThe average annual inflation rate is 3%. (1) This means that, every year, money loses about 3% of its value. This means, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage lowers by about 3 cents every year. Every year, minimum wage workers can afford less and less for their money that they are working so hard for. Because the minimum wage is not adjusted for inflation, those workers who are minimum wage earners are having to work more jobs in order to make ends meet. If the minimum wage is not adjusted for infaltion, then those working for minimum wage will move closer and closer to poverty. Raising the minimum wage, however, will help raise the overall standard of living for the US, thus helping the country. (B) The minimum wage is (historically) quite low. Past minimum wages (adjusted for inflation) have been lower than today, but these wages were made during a time of particularly low workers rights. Here is a graph illustrating historical minimum wages. As you can see, the minimum wage is relatively low, when compared to times of economic prosperity, such as the 70's (when the minimum wage was highest) in which the only economic hardship was a very brief and relatively mild recession. you can see, the minimum wage is low in both areas of the graph that constitute the great depression and great recession. 19 states already have raised their minimum wages above the federal minimum, as they can see that the current minimum is too low. Of these states, only one is a member of the top ten poorest American states (New Mexico), and that state still has a minimum close to the federal minimum. (4) Meanwhile, Alaska, California, New jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are all in the top ten. (C) Raising the minimum wage improves the lower class and the economy. One major benefit of raising the minimum wage is the effect that it has on the lower class and the economy. A minimum wage earner likely spends 100% of their income. This is because the money they are is just enough to make ends meet, and they therefore have none left over to save. This means that every cent that you raise the minimum wage by is returned into the economy, as minimum wage workers would still be likely to spend 100% of their income in order to make ends meet. increased consumer spending results in more money flowing in the economy, which results in the thriving of the economy. The middle class also stands to gain significant benefits from raising the minimum wage, which is illustrated in the following "If no minimum wage workers are laid off or have their hours reduced, the minimum wage increase is simulated to yield $4.0 billion in monthly benefits. " (3)Counter-ArgumentsYou may be already thinking to yourself about the potential negatives of minimum wages being raised. The two most common arguments are that the cost of basic necessities will go up and that unemployment will become rampant. Well neither of theses ideas are legitimate concerns. (D) Higher minimum wages likely do not affect employment. When many economists were asked if they thought raising the minimum wage would negatively impact employment, this is how they responded. As you can see, the experts are torn, many saying that it will, and many saying that it won't. Some economists even believe that raising the minimum wage would increase employment, due to increased spending. Here is a graph from Doucoullagos and Stanley (2009). Each dot represents an estimate of the effect of raising the minimum wage on labor demand. Notice that the most statistically precise results, which are positioned higher up, cluster near zero. (E) Raising the minimum wage would not likely increase the costs of food. Many people are afraid that raising the minimum wage would likely cause the cost of living to go up. This is probably not the case. "Sara Lemos reviewed the literature and found that most studies reviewed above found that a 10 percent US minimum wage increase raises food prices by no more than 4 percent and overall prices by no more than 0.4 percent. " This means that the US government could safely raise the minimum wage without drastically increasing the cost of living. SummaryRaising the minimum wage would be greatly beneficial for the economy of the US and for those living in poverty, and wouldn't be likely to have a large negative impact on employment, or cost of living. VOTE PRO! Sources1. . http://inflationdata.com...;2. . http://articles.latimes.com...3. . http://www.theatlantic.com...;4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Raising Minimum Wage Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on; that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy; that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers; and that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage. As an American who works on minimum wage, I can tell you, there is nothing sadder than working hard all week and only being given $58 a day. That's $406 a week, and this is not enough to live on. A minimum wage increase from the current rate of $7.25 an hour to $10.10 would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. [1] It would help businesses and people alike, not hurt either. After New Jersey raised its minimum wage by 80 cents, while Pennsylvania did not. Economists, Krueger and Card, observed that job growth in the fast food industry was similar in both states, and found "no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment." [2] So saying that people would fire others because of a minimum wage increase is preposterous. According to a 2014 Congressional Budget Office report, increasing the minimum wage to $9 would lift 300,000 people out of poverty, and an increase to $10.10 would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. [3] According to a 2013 poll by Oxfam America, 66% of US workers earning less than $10 an hour report that they "just meet" or "don't even have enough to meet" their basic living expenses, and 50% say that they are frequently worried about affording basic necessities such as food. In the next 7 years California's minimum wage will rise from $10.00 to $15.00. The state's minimum wage will increase from $9.00 per hour to $10.00 per hour on January 1, 2016. This measure increases the minimum wage to $11.00 per hour, effective January 1, 2017, and by $1.00 each of the next four years, to $15.00 per hour on January 1, 2021. Thereafter, adjusts the minimum wage annually based on the rate of inflation for the previous year, using the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. [3] California had a pay increase of $3.50 over the past year, and they have not had any huge closure of business, nor did their employment rate drop. I doubt you are on minimum wage because if you were, you wouldn't be fighting against it, but for all of us who are, and for those of us who can't even support our families, it's people who are willfully ignorant and refuse to see the facts that are ruining us. (Please site your sources... I'd be nice to see work that is from actual sources and is reliable. I don't know if what you are saying is fact, or if you're pulling this information out of nowhere, so please cite sources. Thanks) 1. David Cooper, "Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost," Economic Policy Institute website, Dec. 19, 2013 2. David Card and Alan B. Krueger, "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania," The American Economic Review, Sep. 1994 3. https://ballotpedia.org...(2016)

Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy In ROUND 2 my opponent states that projections by the congressional budget office (CBO) for raising the minimum wage to $10.10 indicate that 500,000 jobs will be lost by 2016, when the final increase of the federal minimum wage is to be implemented under one of the President's plans. This is in fact what the CBO is projecting, though the CBO is also projecting an immediate increase of $2 billion to the nation's GDP (with an increase of $19 billion in pre-tax income among low wage earners); the CBO is also projecting that 900,000 people will be lifted above the poverty threshold (out of poverty) [1].These would be the immediate effects as of 2016, if the President's plan were to be approved by congress and turned into law. The CBO projects an additional $2 billion will be added to the nation's economy, because of such a plan, and that 900,000 will be lifted out of poverty; it also projects that roughly 500,000 jobs will immediately be lost [1]. However, the picture for long-term employment because of this proposed minimum wage hike looks far more positive, as do the financial gains to the economy once the minimum wage hike has been enacted. A study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that raising the federal minimum to $10.10 (in the precise steps offered by the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013) would generate $30 billion in new economic activity and lead to the creation of 140,000 new full-time jobs [2]; this is identical to the position of numerous economic research organizations and the White House [9]. Furthermore, to discount my opponent's contention that raising the minimum wage will hurt employment and the economy, numerous studies, including several by the U.S. government's Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the Universities of California-Berkeley, Massachussetts-Amherst, North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and a survey by the University of Chicago show that raises in the federal minimum wage have in fact positively impacted the economy and have no measurable negative effect on employment [3][4][5][6]; the opposite effect on employment has frequently been true [7][8].An often-cited 2006 study found that states with a minimum wage above the federal minimum wage had faster retail and small business job growth [8]!My opponent also claims that a proposed raise in the federal minimum wage will hurt working teenagers, but a two-decade wide study of previous federal minimum wage increases by U.C.-Berkeley have found that this fear is completely unfounded [11].Now, there is a plethora of data by government agencies, universities, and economic research organizations that show increases to the federal minimum wage have mostly expanded the U.S. economy and GDP, while either not negatively impacting the employment numbers or driving them up because of increased sales and business growth. I will cover the numbers and go over various studies in ROUND 4. This is also well understood in the business community. A 2012 study by MIT professor Zeynop Ton documents how major businesses like Trader Joe's and Costco benefit from higher sales revenue and profits than their low-wage competitors by investing in their employees, which reduces turnover and boost productivity [11]. For example, the starting wage at Trader Joe’s ranges between $40,000 and $60,000 per year, more than twice what many of its competitors offer, and yet the sales revenue per square foot at Trader Joe’s are three times higher than the average U.S. supermarket [11].As Costco CEO Craig Jelinek has stated: "We pay a starting hourly wage of $11.50 in all states where we do business, and we are still able to keep our overhead costs low. An important reason for the success of [our business model is that] we know it's a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity....We support efforts to increase the federal minimum wage" [12].85% of small businesses are on the same page with Craig Jelinek as they already pay wages higher than the minimum [13].So why do some business executives, managers and political partisans push to keep the federal minimum wage low? Because some individuals don't care about providing for workers and effectively, honestly managing a business--they care exclusively about personal income, no matter who gets hurts and stuck with the bill they should be paying. And America does pay for this kind of negligence...as we shall see.Inadequate Increases in the Federal Minimum Wage have Increased PovertyIn the U.S. poverty is measured by whether a household fails to make enough income (or show enough savings) per year to surpass the "poverty threshold" assigned by the U.S government for the number of individuals living in the household [14][15]. Because of inadequate increases in the federal minimum wage with respect to inflation and because employee paychecks have become smaller in real terms for the same reason, poverty in the U.S. has increased over the last three decades [16]. The chart below illustrates the "povery guidelines" used by the Department of Health and Human Services for assigning poverty to a household based on annual income and number of people. Households making less than the income enumerated for the corresponding number of people in them are classified as "living in poverty". The "poverty guidelines" are in actuality simplified versions of the "poverty thresholds" used by the U.S. Census Bureau [15]. Now, from first appearances via this chart a full-time minimum wage earner might appear to not be in poverty, but if his/her family consist of another person not employed and not receiving any type of income (a child perhaps), that would assign this person as "living in poverty", simply because his/her income falls below the poverty guideline for the household number [18].In 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that more than 16% of the U.S. population lived in poverty, including about 20% of all U.S. children, up from 13.2%--39.8 million people--in 2008 [14]. Since the 1980s, relative poverty in the U.S. has consistently exceeded that of other wealthy nations [14]. In 2011, child poverty reached historically high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households; in 2013 a UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world [14].The congressional budget office (CBO)--a source my opponent happily cites--projects that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will not only add billions of dollars to the economy and provide additional income to low-wage earners, but that it will lift a full 900,000 people out of poverty [1]!American Tax-payers Subsidize Low-wage BusinessesFurthermore, American tax-payers subsidize low-wage businesses. Many low-wage earners have to rely on public assistance such as food stamps or the earned income tax credit (EITC), because their wages are simply too low. Programs like the EITC are useful protections against poverty, but we shouldn’t let them act as subsidies to low-wage employers, who currently pay lower wages because the American taxpayer will make up the difference [18].Raising the minimum wage would shrink the federal deficit, since fewer workers would qualify for the EITC [9]. Finally, a recent study by U.C.-Berkeley concluded that raising the minimum wage would allow 3 million people to quit the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps [9].[1] Source 1, Round 2[2] http://www.epi.org...;[3] http://www.dol.gov...;[4] http://www.cepr.net...;[5] https://escholarship.org...[6] http://www.igmchicago.org...;[7] http://blogs.wsj.com...;[8] http://fiscalpolicy.org...;[9] Source 5, Round 2[10] http://escholarship.org...;[11] http://hbr.org...;[12] http://www.businessforafairminimumwage.org...[13] http://www.epi.org...;(Source 4, Round 2)[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...[15] http://aspe.hhs.gov...;[16] http://www.worldhunger.org...;[17] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu...;[18] http://www.epi.org...http://www.epi.org...;(Source 3, Round 2)http://www.bls.gov...;(Source 6, Round 2)

The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Summary from Round 2Pro - 1. Economists are not agreed on the of the effects of a minimum wage.2. The literature is split. We need more data by way of a large scale experiment.3. Too small a change to the minimum wage is unlikely to give use clear data. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 /hour.Con - Oops - no arguments Regarding CON’s arguments in Round 3The cost of living There are 2 problems with Con’s arguments about the cost of living.1. CON argues there should be no FEDERAL minimum wage, which is outside the scope of this debate. He also does not suggest a different value.2. Con says that a $15 minimum wage will hurt employers or overpay workers. Both these statements have no data to back them up. It seems that Con is suggesting that the FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE should be decided by each state or be different in each state. This is not the definition of a FEDERAL minimum wage. The idea of a FEDERAL MINIMUM is that it is decided nationally, and states can choose to have local or state legislation that mandates an increase above this. In CON’s example the state of New York could mandate a $20 minimum if they thought the cost of living merited an increase to improve the lot of people in their state. CON recognizes that states can have higher minimums than the federal minimum. CON does not seem to recognize that setting a federal minimum wage is designed to get people at a better standard of living in all states. CON seems to be arguing that there should be NO federal minimum wage. This is outside the realm of this debate. Note that CON says “Something such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities”, which implies that the Federal Government should not set any minimum wage. Some who argue against paying workers a living wage say that the cost of living would go way up for all of us if we raised the federal minimum wage to $15. I am glad that Con did not try this argument as it is directly refuted by the evidence.Will lead to job lossCon makes up a fictional scenario with fictional numbers. Any employer with numbers like those given by con would already be out of business. Please give us real numbers for a real business in a real state in a real world.CON gave a completely fictional “example” to try to sway the reader about an important question. “Will an increased minimum wage lead to any significant job loss?”One source referenced by CON is “Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!” which concludes that “The efficacy of the minimum wage continues to divide economists.” [1]The data presented say that 48.1% of economists want to decrease or eliminate the minimum wage, while 52.0% are in favour of it. (Note this does not specify local or federal minimum wage). Not only were 52% in favour of a minimum wage, but 37.7% of economists were in favour of a substantial increase. NOTE This is from Table 3 in first source that CON presented.The US Department of labor refutes CON’s claim. Here is what they say “In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.” [2]In the special case of tipped workers who get both the minimum wage plus tips (so they receive even more than the minimum) the department of labor states: “As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour — before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.” [2]There are many more studies that come to the same conclusion: There is no evidence that increasing the federal minimum wage will cause job loss or hurt job growth. The NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, which produces policy papers for government and industry, has an important 2008 paper on optimizing the value of the minimum wage.[3]It talks about supply, demand, competitive equilibrium and tax policy, and it takes the complexity of the issues seriously. Looking at all these factors we need a federal minimum wage of $15 so we can learn how to adjust taxes and welfare to give the most good to the most people.Does very little to help the poorCON seems to say that because the minimum wage does not fix every problem for the poor, we should abandon it as a tool for helping low wage earners. That is like saying that because everybody dies we should stop spending money on hospitals and doctors.CON suggest a low minimum wage BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH. This is a fallacy. In response to CON and people with similar logic we need to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 (and indexed for cost of living)CON says that 60% of those in poverty are not in the workforce. This is true, many are the children and non working spouses of the working poor. Raising the wealth of poor communities will help many who are not employed.EITC CON says there should be a tax credit for those earning so little that a minimum wage increase would affect them. I agree that a comprehensive strategy to help the poor needs to include MORE than the minimum wage. Our debate, however, is about the fact that the federal minimum should be increased to $15.CON’s (false) conclusions Con points to his false understanding about the cost of living and minimum wage. Con wrongly claims that a minimum wage increases unemployment Con rightly claims that a minimum wage increase is not the ONLY way to help the poor. Con suggests tax breaks (which are outside the scope of this debate). The facts prove CON wrong. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourRegarding CON’s “rebuttals” - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourDavid Card’s study - CON says the study didn’t show any proof that the minimum wage increase was a good thing. I’m sure that those receiving the increase were happy to receive it. Con makes a nonsense comment that it compared 2 cities with similar cost of living. This is the way science works, you try to minimize changes in every variable but the one you are studying. I’m glad CON pointed out that this is good science. His comment is a pont in favour of my understanding of the subject, not his.Con says that Alan Kruger was against raising the minimum wage to $15. Since he gives no reference, I’ll assume he is referring to the 1992 study in my references. I agree that $15 / hour would be excessive in 1992 when the study was between $4.25 and $5.05 per hour.Price Increases If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent.[5] That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. This is a trivial amount. If I buy a Big Mack meal every day of the week my total cost increase is $1.19 per week. The price increases would be trivial.CON states “I'll admit I'm a bit confused now.”CON seems to have missed my main premise that : The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This is because we need better information about the cause and effect relationship between minimum wage and other economic indicators. A federal minimum wage increase to this level would give good data for policy makers and a better understanding for economists. Most of CON’s arguments prove my point that we need good data that we can only get from a large increase in the federal minimum wage. For example, one main source for CON is a blog page from a software developer and CEO of a software company.[6] He is possibly a great guy, but not an authority on government policy and economics.CON basically ignores the position of the US Dept. Of Labor.Please read here to see them refute his fallacies one by one.http://www.dol.gov...Vote PRO The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.[1] http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...[2] http://www.dol.gov...[3] http://journalistsresource.org...[4] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[5] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[6] http://wheniwork.com...

The minimum wage should not be raised to$9.00 as campaigned for by the President. President Obama calls for raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour, up from its current $7.25. He also called for raising the tipped minimum wage " made by tipped employees, such as waitresses " and for indexing the minimum wage to inflation so that it grows along with the economy. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. According to a fact sheet released by the administration, "Raising the minimum wage to $9 restores the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage back to where it was in 1981." If the minimum wage had simply kept up with inflation since the 1960s, it would be over $10 per hour today. Currently, the minimum wage does not lift a family of three out of poverty and its covering a much smaller percentage of health care and education costs than it used to. Raising the minimum wage also disproportionately helps women and minorities, since they make up a majority of low-wage workers. Now I will begin to Address your points: Conservatives usually oppose minimum wage increases on the grounds that they will hurt small businesses and job growth. However, study after study has shown that raising the minimum wage does not have a negative effect on employment. In fact, an analysis of state minimum wage increases showed that those state boosting their wage "had job growth slightly above the national average." This holds true even when the economy is weak. Following Obama's State of the Union address, business representatives and conservative media pundits echoed the same talking points. Analyzing Obama's speech for Fox News, Nina Easton, an editor for Fortune magazine, repeated the claim that increasing the minimum wage is a "job killer." Michael Saltsman, research director at the business-backed Employment Policies Institute, told Fox Business News that "minimum wage hikes lead to job losses." Bill Herrle, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business' Florida affiliate, told Sunshine State News that Obama's plan was a "job killer." But such dire predictions have never materialized. That's because they're bogus. In fact, raising the minimum wage is good for business and the overall economy. Why? Because when poor workers have more money to spend, they spend it, almost entirely in the local community, on basic necessities like housing, food, clothing and transportation. When consumer demand grows, businesses thrive, earn more profits, and create more jobs. Economists call this the "multiplier effect." According to Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum wage hike to $9 would pump $21 billion into the economy. Moreover, since most minimum wage jobs are in "sticky" (immobile) industries -- such as restaurants, hotels, hospitals and nursing homes and retail stores -- that can't flee overseas, raising the level doesn't lead to job flight. Not surprisingly, the National Restaurant Association is, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the fiercest opponents of a minimum wage hike. In recent years, the nation's job growth has been concentrated in low-wage sectors, led by Walmart, the nation's largest private employer, whose pay levels are so low that many employees are eligible for food stamps. More than one-quarter of all jobs pay poverty-level wages. According to a National Employment Law Project study, the majority of new jobs created since 2010 pay just $13.83 an hour or less. This has contributed to the nation's widening economic inequality. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz recently said, "Increasing inequality means a weaker economy" for all of us. Overall we can see that a minimum wage increase is needed and beneficial.

Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised Let me start off by stating that the minimum wage was ordained in 1938 at 25 cents per hour, which adjusted for inflation would equal to over $4 today. Minimum wage jobs are by no means meant as a career. A minimum wage job, for the most part, demands a low skilled worker, which usually equates to the younger population. The very first topic you brought up is the fact that people with families should not be subjected to low pay. These people know willingly that they are making little money, and that they have no skill or education to make more money. They still decide to have a family, and then demand higher wages to fit their inadequate decision making/ Firstly, raising the minimum wage on a federal level would result in the loss of over 500,000 jobs. In an economy that is getting more dependent on the skills of a worker, which almost always equates to their level of education, minimum wage jobs are in decline. We have technology that can very well replace minimum wage workers, and these machines have already sprung up in cities that have increased their wages tremendously. Raising minimum wage inadvertently forces small business to cut jobs as well as hours for those that remain. It also drives up prices tremendously, as employers have to pay more money to their workers, which cuts back on overall profit. The main argument that you can, and that you will make is that people who work these jobs cannot afford necessities. Most "necessities" are created by people who work minimum wage jobs. These products would increase in cost, as the employers have to match wage costs with increased profit. This not only hurts the company, as it creates unnecessary and unwarranted competition that is legislated by a supreme ruling body, but it also hurts the employees. Private businesses and industry is already raising wages. Many businesses pay more money then the required minimum, such as IKEA, which is a multi-billion dollar company that employs dozens of thousands of people. It"s not clear that it"s constitutional. The Supreme Court, in its opinion in the 1923 case Adkins v. Children"s Hospital of District of Columbia, made a strong argument that a minimum wage was a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of contract embedded in the Fifth Amendment"s language about due process and the deprivation of liberty and property: "To the extent that the sum fixed exceeds the fair value of the services rendered, it amounts to a compulsory exaction from the employer for the support of a partially indigent person, for whose condition there rests upon him no peculiar responsibility, and therefore, in effect, arbitrarily shifts to his shoulders a burden which, if it belongs to anybody, belongs to society as a whole. " You talk about people who live in poverty. First, many people who live in poverty do not work, and would thus be unaffected by an increase in the minimum wage. In addition, workers who earn the minimum wage are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. They are secondary earners " an elderly parent earning some retirement income or a spouse with a part-time job. Or they are young people living with their parents. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that while workers under age 25 make up only about 20% of those who earn hourly wages, they constitute about half of all workers earning the minimum wage or less. Raising the minimum wage is therefore an ineffective anti-poverty proposal. You see, there is only one argument to make for minimum wage increases, and that is people living in poverty. By increasing wages, which then increases overall income, it would make eligibility for certain programs almost nonexistent. There is a program here in Chicago, called After School Matters, and it is a charity based program created to compensate poor youths for work that they do. The most you can make (household) to get accepted is 60,000. Granted that both parents are working, a minimum wage increase would take away all possibilities into these programs. Not only that, but it would bypass the federal income tax level. People would then make more money, which would force them into paying more in taxes. They would always have to pay more in products, as I mentioned previously. Social programs such as Medicare and Welfare would become useless, as many would pass the threshold and would not receive any more federal or local benefits. Sources: . http://www.politifact.com... . https://www.aei.org...

The minimum wage should be raised The minimum wage should not be raised because: 1) Price-Demand chart shows that when the price of a good or service increases, consumers will demand less of it. In this case, laborers offering to sell their labor to an employer now must be worth at least the mandated minimum to the employer otherwise the employee is now unemployable and will not be able to work the job even if he would have done so for less than the mandated minimum. Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment for unskilled workers, just as raising height requirements decreases the amount of short passengers for a roller-coaster. 2) The current minimum wage is in fact "livable", as by the criteria of "livable", nobody working at the current minimum wage could do so if it were not. Since the minimum wage is in fact already "livable", then the minimum wage has already achieved what it is set out to achieve and thus, does not need to be raised any further. 3) Only roughly 4% of the labor force actually works at the mandated minimum wage. And out of that 4%, 50% are under the age of 25. [1] People who are this young tend to be dependent on other members of their families and so there is no reason to be raising the "livable" wage for those which are not dependent on the wage itself being "livable". 4) Since only 2% of workers could be said to be dependent on the minimum wage, and the minimum wage is federal policy which is contingent on the current political atmosphere and not sound economic policy, other methods besides the minimum wage should be pursued to better the lives of that 2%. [1] http://www.bls.gov...

Raise Minimum Wage Thanks, Pro.R1) Life NecessitiesOn the surface, this argument may seem like a good one. However, there are many problems that are tied to it and really no evidence that raising the minimum wage will actually help this cause, only theoretical assumptions. The reason some workers receive the minimum wage as pay is because their contribution to the labor market is the smallest possible to be recognized as something worth paying for. The money paid to a McDonald's worker represents precisely the value that they are adding to the economy. Suddenly doubling their wages for doing the exact same amount of work before and after creates an imbalance in society. These workers are being paid a lot more than they're working for, and so the money being given to the workers rises above the amount of effort they are putting into the system. Consider the following scenario: a man gets a job screwing caps onto tubes of toothpaste. The man is paid bare minimum for doing his job, but it's not enough to support his family. Instead of seeking the education to get a better job, the man goes and strike and starts advocating for a minimum wage increase so that he can receive more money for doing the exact same amount of minimal work. The point of this example is to show that workers who need to earn more money shouldn't rely on the government to raise the minimum wage, but to receive a higher income they should instead work for their money and contribute to the economy instead of protesting to receive more for doing less.Pro claims that raising the minimum wage will reduce poverty, but doesn't show any historical evidence of this happening. As the challenger of the status quo, Pro must demonstrate that raising the minimum wage will benefit society, not just in theory, or else there is no reason to change the status quo. Economists have studied whether or not a minimum wage increase would reduce poverty and have concluded that it would have no effect on the poverty rate[1]. This makes sense, because few minimum wage earners are actually poor. In fact, the average minimum wage earner has a family income of $50,000 per year, with less than one-fifth at or below the poverty line[1].To add, the cost of living varies from state to state, so if the federal minimum wage were to be increased, it would create an unfair situation for many states as they would be forced to comply to the increase regardless of whether their cost of living is cheap or expensive.R2) IncentiveThis is Pro's logic: if a worker is given more of a livable wage, then that worker would be more inclined to climb the income ladder even if they are financially satisfied. This is clearly false, because dissatisfaction drives workers to earn more. By raising the wage, a worker would think "since I'm earning enough now then I don't see a point in working to earn more". This is a burden for not only businesses but the economy as well because less good jobs are being taken, and less money is being pumped into the system. This issue is also important because the majority of minimum wage earners are between the ages 16 and 24[2], so they are at a critical point of choosing their jobs and decided whether they want to receive more education or not.R3) EmploymentMy opponent's proposal to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to $16.97 would be detrimental for many companies because it would force them to pay their employees over double the amount they were originally being paid. Clearly this would cause businesses to cut job openings and lay off more workers, resulting in higher unemployment. We must remember that a small minority of hourly paid workers earn minimum wage: 4.7% to be exact[3], so there a lot of businesses that would remain unaffected by whether the wage was increased or not. That makes the opinions of many businesses irrelevant to this issue.Pro concedes that unemployment would increase due to a higher wage. Since it would mainly affect the 4.7% of minimum wage workers, the unemployment rates would not seem big in comparison to the rest of workers. However, the unemployment rates would have a much more drastic effect if we focused on those workers, the workers that matter, alone. Job rates would significantly decrease for them. As I showed in Round 1, there is higher unemployment in states with higher minimum wages.Additional NotesPro makes a few other assertions that are not backed up by evidence, such as "increasing the wage provides benefits" and "not increasing it creates a burden on the taxpayer". How exactly? These assumptions can be logically dismissed since they were randomly inserted into the argument without actual evidence.My final point: If the minimum wage were to be increased from $7.25 to $16.97, that would negatively affect workers who were earning above the original wage, like those earning $12 an hour. Does this mean that they will now be paid the exact same as original $7.25 workers who are doing less work than the higher $12 earners? This will create an unfair situation for workers earning between the original federal wage and Pro's proposed increase.Sources[1] http://www.heritage.org... [2] http://www.heritage.org...[3] http://www.bls.gov...

The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised The argument that raising the federal minimum wage would cost business owners more money, and thus force them to either lay off workers or not bring on additional workers, seems to assume that the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce. Instead, raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. As the federal minimum wage stands, there are people who feel it is not worth their time to work for the minimum wage, and instead would be able to sustain a lifestyle they are comfortable with by continuing to stay on welfare for as long as they can. The argument that raising the minimum wage would increase "overall costs" seems to be reasonable in the short-term; in that, business owners would likely try to compensate for the increased wages of their employees. However, there are many other factors that have a direct impact upon the "overall costs," and such a discussion seems to be beyond the scope of this debate. As far as your statement that raising the minimum wage would have a "negative ripple through the economy," I will note that the very purpose of the enactment of a federal minimum wage is to increase consumer-spending power in order to stimulate the economy. That said, due to the inflation of our dollar over time, it would be reasonable for the federal government to raise the minimum wage in accordance with economic inflation, to preserve the intent of having a federal minimum wage in the first place. Without doing so, due to the already increase in "overall costs" of the standard of living in our country, minimum wage workers will continue to fall behind and the very purpose for a federal minimum wage would eventually become compromised. Lastly, I agree with you that if states want to raise their minimum wage that is their decision. However, if the federal government feels the need to step in and set a floor for what it believes the minimum wage should be, it has every right to do so. (Darby)

Minimum Wage Should Increase From $7.25/hr to $10.10/hr My position for this debate is that minimum wage should not increase. Currently, minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. I believe that it is a terrible idea that would prove to be no benefit to America or her people. First off, this is a sustainable salary. For a 40-hour week, that is about $1,250 a month, before taxes. This is obviously enough to survive with. If you do the math, housing, bills, food, and other necessities can be handled with $1,250/month. Now I will state that life on minimum wage is difficult, but it is possible. Second, (I am aware that this will draw some offense.) minimum wage paying jobs usually do not require much skill. I know this simply because I used to work at minim wage. In most cases, there is not much prior education/training needed for most minimum wage jobs. Since the labor is elementary, (once again, in MOST cases, not all. I understand that some off the jobs are labor intensive and difficult) the workers do not necessarily deserve more than $7.25/hr. The easier the job, the smaller the pay. It is that simple. Thirdly, and most importantly, a raise in minimum wage would severely damage the economy. If minimum wage was to increase by $2.85, then the value of the dollar would decrease substantially. Inflation would occur. The economy would be a wreck, money's worth would deteriorate, and we would be back to square one: wanted a raise in minimum wage. Every time there is an increase in minimum wage, the cost of living increases. This would continue in a never ending cycle of raising the salary of blue-collar workers. Yes, an increase in minimum wage looks like a great idea on paper, when you look at the reality of it, there are essentially no long term benefits from it. I do not support the raise in minimum wage. This is the end of my one, and only, argument of this debate.

The federal minimum wage should be increased The minimum wage has been raised in several areas already, and has shown some harmful side effects. Take Oakland, California as an example. The minimum wage there has rose to $12.25 hourly. A CNN report was shocked to find the usually affluent Bay Area had a high level of child poverty. Economists there thought a wage hike would help decrease the poverty, but it did the exact opposite. The 2003 wage increase was supposed to have an immediately positive effect on people there, but that was not what happened. According to the City and County of San Francisco"s Office of Economic Analysis, The food service industry saw a -2.3% job loss and the former booming manufacturing industry saw a -8.5% job loss. Now, looking at the community demographics, about 14.1% of the families there live in poverty. This wage hike hit single mother families hard. Single mothers with a child/children under five had about a 42.3% poverty rate. The minimum wage law increased the number of children in poverty, it did not help families! This is a perfect example of a time where the minimum wage increase did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. As you can see, it hit single mother families hardest, which are the ones who need the most help. The economy in Oakland took a sharp nose dive. As you can see, increasing the minimum wage did not help break the low income cycle. In fact, it made the whole situation worse. Many places in California have had similar experiences, too many to describe them all here. The state in general is pushing for increased minimum wage, which as you can see, has not benefited many of the cities it was implemented in. For these reasons, I believe it would be best for everyone AND the economy if the federal minimum wage did not increase. I fear it may have the same effects it did in Oakland nation-wide. Source- Americanthinker. com, Minimum-wage.

should the government raise minimum wage what pro fails to mention is that though I don't mention evidence to support my argument but he don't either he doesn't rebut my claims either. Should the U.S. government increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $15? The issue is nuanced: Raising wages would boost employee paychecks, but it could also cause cost-conscious companies to reduce hiring. But with many states taking independent action to increase wages"and with a $15 federal minimum wage "over time" added to the Democratic Party platform last week"we asked three faculty experts to discuss the implications. Boost jobs through an earned income tax credit, better education, and reduced licensing requirements Erik Brynjolfsson We"ve seen median wages stagnate for almost 20 years in the United States. How can we increase them while also boosting jobs? Here are three ideas: One: expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC; Two: reinvent education; and Three: reduce occupational licensing. Here"s how the EITC works. Suppose that someone is earning $12 per hour, and we"d like to them to earn $15. With an EITC, they"d get an additional $3 per hour worked from the government. The money to pay for this would come from general tax revenue including income taxes, or ideally increased taxes on carbon dioxide" emissions, congestion, and other things we"d like to discourage. One of the benefits of the EITC is that it encourages employers to hire more workers, unlike increasing the minimum wage. That"s important because I"ve been convinced by sociologists like Bob Putnam that work has value beyond the dollars it provides. It"s good for society to keep people engaged in the workforce, and we should be rewarding entrepreneurs and managers who come up with jobs. Another way to increase both wages and jobs is by increasing the educational levels of our workforce. The wage gap between the most and least educated workers has grown enormously since the 1980s, and better-educated workers also have much lower unemployment rates and higher rates of workforce participation. But it"s not enough to simply do more of the same. We need to reinvent education for an age where machines are increasingly doing cognitive tasks"the second machine age. That means a greater emphasis on skills like teamwork, project management, persuasion, leadership, coaching, and creativity. I believe these can be fostered in the right educational settings. Last but not least, we need to reduce unnecessary occupational licensing. Over 25 percent of workers now require a license to do their jobs, a five-fold increase since the 1950s. While some licenses are important for safety or other reasons, research has shown that excessive licensing requirements reduce employment and mobility. Requirements vary widely across states: Michigan requires three years of education and training to become a security guard, while most other states require 11 days or less. Having more people working and earning good wages is good not just for the people we help, but for all of us: People who work are more engaged in community, creating a virtuous cycle. If we do these three things, we"ll be on track to becoming a richer, more engaged, and more dynamic nation. -- ErikBrynjolfsson, professor of information technology and director of the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy A higher minimum wage, by region Simon Johnson I"m in favor of an increased minimum wage, but there is a valid question of "by how much?" Would you lose jobs as a consequence of increasing the minimum wage above some level? Labor economists have studied this carefully, and while there is no consensus, it"s not difficult to support an increase to $12 per hour on the basis of the available evidence. In areas with higher living costs, a higher minimum wage can make sense"and some states are already planning to phase in $15 per hour over several years. However, especially in less heavily urbanized areas with a lower cost of living, a higher national minimum wage could have unintended consequences, in the sense of reducing hiring and potentially increasing unemployment. -- Simon Johnson, professor of global economics and management A modest, stepwise increase over time Thomas Kochan It"s clearly beyond time to increase the minimum wage. But it"s a political stalemate: It has less to do with economics than politics. Congress has not acted positively on labor legislation for a long time. They block essentially all changes in labor policy, whether it"s increases in wages, updating hourly wage legislation, or in other areas of labor relations law, all of which badly need to be updated. The stalemate has led states to take action on their own. Half the states have recognized the need for an increase. It"s time to catch up. We"re at $7.25, which is ridiculous. My view is that $15 is a reasonable target for the future, but we should raise it in steps at the federal level. An immediate jump to $15 would be too abrupt a change. It could have significant negative employment consequences. If we increased it step-by-step with a goal toward $15 over a period of years, it wouldn"t have significant employment effects. We could start at $10, then go up to $15 over four years. President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign against "income inequality." In his most recent State of the Union Address, he called for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over the next 3 years. He also announced plans to unilaterally increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. Meanwhile, numerous governors are also pushing to increase their state minimum as well. No doubt such proposals are politically popular. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage would do little to reduce poverty or inequality. On the other hand it would almost certainly reduce employment opportunities, especially for those low skilled, entry level workers for whom a job represents the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. Over the last several years, Cato scholars have written on the pitfalls of raising the minimum wage. Studies Mark Wilson, "The Negative Effects of Minimum Wage Laws," Policy Analysis No. 701, June 21, 2012. Richard V. Burkhauser and T. Aldrich Finegan, "The Economics of Minimum Wage Legislation Revisited," Cato Journal, Vol. 13, no1 (Spring/Summer 1993). Clifford Thies, "The First Minimum Wage Laws," Cato Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Winter 1991). President Obama has made raising the minimum wage a centerpiece of his campaign against "income inequality." In his most recent State of the Union Address, he called for raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over the next 3 years. He also announced plans to unilaterally increase the minimum wage for federal contractors. Meanwhile, numerous governors are also pushing to increase their state minimum as well. No doubt such proposals are politically popular. But the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage would do little to reduce poverty or inequality. On the other hand it would almost certainly reduce employment opportunities, especially for those low skilled, entry level workers for whom a job represents the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. Over the last several years, Cato scholars have written on the pitfalls of raising the minimum wage. The debate over raising the minimum wage has been a hot topic after President Obama explained in his 2014 State of the Union Address that he intends to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour, an increase of over 40 percent. While the President and his supporters claim that this increase would greatly benefit the economy and result in no loss of jobs, the opposition claims that this would be detrimental to minimum wage employees, resulting in 500,000 fewer jobs. In the following article, we"re outlining the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage.

The Us should raise th minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour. Mc9 has sadly forfeited but never the less I will argue, Worker Rights: if you a working in a society you do not deserve to live in poverty nor should you be homeless on the streets and working. Something is wrong if you have people working that don't have enough money to live off of. Do you really have to be in the middle class or the upper class to have a fair standard of living? Let me paint a picture for you: Imagine A walmart worker they usally make around 9$ an hour that is still not enough to live off of. In order to have a fair living wage every worker should be paid at a minimum 15 dollars an hour. Don't you think that it is saddening that people who are working and who are working hard live in poverty? 28% of workers earn Poverty level wages, (http://stateofworkingamerica.org......) This is not a third world country, people who are working deserve a living wage (15 Dollars an hour) Does minimum wage increases hurt jobs? No they don't at all actually I am going to display a graph that shows 13 states that have increased the minimum wage actually saw jobs increase! (http://feelthebern.org......) Also economists dismiss the idea that it decreases jobs, A key finding by an report on wether it decreases jobs found that a minimum wage hike does not decrease jobs:http://www.integrityflorida.org......; Would their be in increase of a use of governmental assistance? No actually since a 15 dollar minimum wage lifts people out of poverty their will be less of a need for food stamps and welfare. According to the Economic Policy Insitute Rasing the minimum wage by just a few dollars would cause 1.7 million americans to no longer relay on public assisstance. And note this is only raising the minimum wage by a few dollars! Not 15 in this study imagine how many people won't need public assistance if we raised the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour! What would be the price increase? According to a video by Slate magazine there would only be a 1 cent increase on a box of mac and cheese if we raised the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour! You can watch the video here if you don't believe me:https://www.youtube.com...... Was the minimum wage ever higher than it was today? Actually yes it has! In 1968 adjusted for Inflation the minimum wage was $8.54 an hour! Link:http://www.pewresearch.org......; Also in 1968 the unemployment rate was only at 3.6 Percent! And in 1969 it was even lower at 3.5 percent unemployment lower than it is today. Link:http://data.bls.gov......

Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy My opponent likes to throw around the claim that the congressional budget office (CBO) is projecting a definite 1,000,000 job losses if the federal minimum wage is hiked to $10.10. But this is partisan hyperbole on his part. The CBO is in fact projecting (with high confidence) that job losses will range from VERY SLIGHT to--WORSE CASE SCENARIO--an increase in unemployment of 1,000,000 [1]. In fact the CBO is projecting "there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect" would be in this range [1]. The CBO's central estimate (which I have circled in the chart below) is that 500,000 workers would lose their job as a result of implementing the minimum wage hike [1]. The office's own numbers indicate that raising the minimum would mostly benefit the US economy and workers, by providing additional billions of dollars and pulling 900,000 people out of poverty [1]! This doesn't include other benefits, like decreasing the number of low wage earners that depend on public assistance such as food stamps and the EITC to get by [2]. As I stated in ROUND 3, a recent study by the University of California-Berkeley concluded that raising the minimum wage would allow 3 million people to quit the government assistance program known as SNAP (previously known as food stamps) [2]. Not raising the minimum wage to eliminate the hurtful effects of inflation on the low wage earner would only deepen the economic crisis presently facing them and would increase the number of people in poverty. As a result, even more people would be forced to rely on public assistance programs as the income gap continues to expand and as inflation gradually increases. Therefore not doing anything for America's low wage earners isn't an option! Allowing the minimum wage to lose even more of its purchasing power over time and ignoring the plight of low wage earners will further erode the quality of life that was once commonplace to America's working class [3].Inflation has many causes, which is why the Federal Minimum Wage should be Indexed to InflationMy opponent argues that raising the federal minimum wage would be pointless, as inflation would eventually eat the gains caused by increasing the minimum wage. And on this point he is moderately right; however, inflation has many causes, as economists point out, and it's a healthy economic trend in any growing economy--as long as it stays within limits [4]. Inflation is caused when demand for a product or service outstrips supply, which causes prices to go up; it can also be caused when new popular technology is introduced--some brand names demand higher prices; but it can also be caused by the depletion of natural resources, by natural disasters, by an increase in production costs, by the deregulation of banks, by government regulation and taxation, by business monopolies, by the expansion of the money supply, and various other reasons [4]. Inflation is natural and unavoidable in any economy. But too much of it can present problems, which is why the federal government tries to regulate it wherever it can [4]. Increasing wages can also create inflation if a business passes on the wage increase to consumers, but this doesn't always happen [5]. Recently, inflation has caused even pay raises among middle class workers to be fruitless, as the modest pay increases simply aren't enough to deal with the deleterious effects of inflation, especially as the income gap grows between well-to-do employers, who are increasingly keeping more of their profits, and all other wage earners [6][7]. As I demonstrated in ROUND 2, the nation's wealthiest Americans are generating income comfortably exceeding the rate of inflation; the middle class has seen either stagnant wage growth or negative wage growth when accounting for the effect; the lower classes have seen the worse decline in income over this last decade [7]. Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 would eliminate the accumulated deleterious effects of inflation over the years for low wage earners; linking (or "indexing") it to inflation would ensure the effects are prevented in the future. Four states--Florida, Oregon, Washington, Vermont--have already indexed their state minimum wage to inflation, and Minnesota is currently proposing to do so [8]. After raising the state minimum wage and indexing, the state of Washington saw no negative impact on employment some initially feared would be there [10]. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10, and then having it adjusted every year to keep pace with the rising cost of living [11]. It is a congressional bill President Obama endorses and continues to endorse [12], particularly in light of the recent executive order he enacted which hiked the federal minimum wage for federal contractors from $7.25 to $10.10 [13]. Pro’s closing remarksMy opponent wants to paint a picture about market forces and national economies that suggest they are capable of remedying themselves, with little to no human meddling--that economies, driven by the human impulses for profit and purchasing, are both natural and effective and require practically no government interference/regulation to do their job well. It is the view that the market forces of supply and demand will correct every temporary economic problem in the end, and that the government has nothing to fear by taking the path of inaction; but this is a wildly naïve view [14]. Nature is notoriously inefficient at what she does. Despite the miraculous breakthroughs achieved over long periods of time, nature is sloppy, destructive, deadly, viral, frequently very, very patient, and consistently correcting previous errors or enacting new ones--this is how nature achieves stability and breakthroughs in the world [15]. For all the success we observe in nature, there exist even more examples of biological dead-ends, mistakes, lousy genetic mutations, and genuine pain that we completely overlook in Earth's history [16]. Take the human body. When provided with adequate fuel (food, water) and exercise it can survive quite well. But there are some conditions where it clearly requires outside (or emergency) aid. When a human gets sick or when he gets injured, he often requires medical assistance to improve; in many cases failure to provide that medical assistance will lead to the humans rapid decline and death. Nature just hasn't equipped humans to do everything on their own. Specialized medical treatment is required to improve the human's life (or to keep him away from death) in many situations. A type-2 diabetes patient, for example, may require medication to control blood sugar levels; otherwise his health can rapidly deteriorate [16].And so it is with a nation's economy. The US Federal Reserve constantly observes (and if necessary, adjust) the nation's money supply and interest rates to promote sustainable growth, high levels of employment, and stability of prices to preserve the purchasing strength of the US dollar; frequently this requires it to regulate the nation's banks too [17]. In the same spirit it's time for the US government to increase the minimum wage, to restore the purchasing power lost to US workers. A full-time minimum wage earner today takes home wages that are even less than what an equivalent worker took home in the 1960s, because of inflation. The purchasing power of the minimum wage is so low today that American fast food workers receive more than $7 billion in public assistance [18]; in many states, Walmart employees, which are paid the minimum wage starting out, are the largest group of medicaid recipients of any business; they are also the single biggest group of food stamp recipients in the nation, recieving on average $1,000 in public assistance [18].The smartest solution is to raise the minimum wage. 1 Round 2, Source 12 Round 2, Source 53 Round 2, Source 44 ( http://useconomy.about.com... )5 ( http://www.wisegeek.com... )6 ( http://www.washingtonpost.com... )7 Round 2, Source 38 ( http://www.ehow.com... )10 ( http://seattletimes.com... )11 ( http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com... )12 ( http://www.nytimes.com... )13 Round 2, Source 1114 ( http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org... )15 ( https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...;)16 ( http://www.mayoclinic.org...;)17 ( http://www.cnbc.com...;)18 ( http://www.bloomberg.com...;)

Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people I am in strong affirmation of the resolution, which states that the national minimum wage should be increased. I will now give my contentions. Contention 1: A $15/hour minimum wage won't result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it -- thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. In 1996, we raised the minimum wage, and businesses predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history. (Robert Reich, Professor of Public policy, California University Berkeley) Contention 2: Working full time should produce enough money to support a family. In 1968, the minimum wage was high enough to keep a family of three out of poverty. In 1980, the minimum wage was at least high enough to keep a family of two out of poverty. Today, the minimum wage leaves a working parent with one child in poverty. This is fundamentally wrong. (Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus) Contention 3: By under-paying workers, corporations are shifting the real costs of doing business to the general public. According to a study released this October by the University of California and the University of Illinois, 52 percent of America's fast food workers receive assistance from public programs like food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Medicaid, thanks to their poverty-level wages. As a result, taxpayers are contributing $7 billion per year to pick up the cost of supporting these fast-food workers. These taxpayers are paying enormous amounts to support the impoverished employees of Wal-Mart and other giant companies. (Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus) This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution.

March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Point IThe actual purchasing power of workers' wages has been stagnating (and in some cases, even decreasing) due to the effects of inflation[1]. The de-facto loss in wages' purchasing power can be confirmed through the Bureau of Labour Statistics' website [3].An analysis by the Pew Research Center found that the actual purchasing value of the current minimum wage is much lower than that of the minimum wage in 1968[2]. In order for the minimum wage to have the same purchasing power today as it did in 1930, it would have to be raised to at least $10.20 per hour [4].Point II: Economic stimulationA minimum wage hike would give workers more money to spend. Due its disproportionate effects on lower-wage workers, nearly all of the new money would be guaranteed to be spent. Data has confirmed that a higher minimum wage would boost consumer spending, which would in turn increase demand and stimulate economic growth:In 2011, the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank examined[5] 23 years of household spending data and found that every dollar added to the minimum wage resulted in $2,800 increase in individual consumer spending.Additionally, the Economic Policy Institute found[6] that increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 dollars per hour "would result in a net increase in economic activity of approximately $32.6 billion over the phase-in period and would generate approximately 140,000 new jobs."Point III: Good for native workersIt is well[9] established[11] that a higher minimum wage leads to a decrease[11] in low-skill immigrants. In fact, this is very likely why Switzerland debated raising its minimum wage to $25[10].Some may argue that (at least, legal) immigration is beneficial to the US economy, citing popular economic opinion. However, more in-depth analysis has revealed[7] fundamental flaws in economic studies which found no negative economic impact from increased immigration:"If you assume that all low-education workers are potential substitutes for each other—the 23-year-old recent arrival from Guatemala with the 53-year-old who proceeded from high school to the Army—then your model will show a less dramatic effect of immigration on wages. If, however, you assume that the 23-year-old Guatemalan is competing with 20- and 30-something native-born workers who lack diplomas, then your model will show a very big effect." "A model based on unrealistic assumptions can still achieve perfect internal consistency. It just won’t describe the real world very accurately. Which seems to be precisely what is happening with immigration economics." The negative impact immigration has had on the prospects of native workers can be confirmed by looking at government employment data[8]: "In March 2015 the working age population had grown by nearly 15 million to 204,026,416, which is in line with the 10.6 million new immigrant workers, but population grew to nearly 320 million and the EPR fell to 59.3.That works out to 120,987,665 jobs, which is a mere 24,367,681 fewer jobs than the NBER model predicted. From 2000 to 2015, 16.4 million new immigrants have created a grand total of 5,832,319 new jobs, which means that either a) over 10 million native Americans have lost their jobs to immigrant labor or b) over two-thirds of the new immigrants are collecting welfare. Either way, these 16.4 million immigrants have not been a boost to the economy." Native workers would not only see their wages rise, but would have a much easier time finding work. This would particularly beneit low-skill workers.Amidst concerns of intervention in the functioning of the free market, it must be kept in mind that it would be absolutely ridiculous for a pseudo-democratic government to act against the best interests of its people. If a government will not protect its people, what exactly is it good for?Conclusion:I have demonstrated that raising the minimum wage would correspond with inflation, help low-earning workers, provide economic stimulation, and increase the purchasing power of actual wages. Additionally, the case for a minimum wage can be extended beyond the purely economic, as it functions as de-facto immigration control.Sources:[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.pewresearch.org...[3] http://www.bls.gov...[4] http://www.mybanktracker.com...[5] http://www.chicagofed.org...[6] http://www.epi.org...[7] http://www.theatlantic.com...[8] http://voxday.blogspot.com...[9] http://www.economist.com...[10] http://voxday.blogspot.com...[11] http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to C1: Poverty Premise 1: The ‘increased’ minimum wage reduces poverty “About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are “near-minimum-wage” workers. ” [6] This is appalling. The minimum wage at the moment is extremely important in order for us to decrease poverty. Increasing the minimum wage can only continue to have the same effect. The following quotation proves that even a small minimum wage increase reduces poverty significantly. “Specifically, raising the minimum wage 10 percent (say from $7.25 to near $8) would reduce the number of people living in poverty 2.4 percent. ” [5] If an increase this low can have such a huge effect then what will a larger increase do? Evidently, it will create a decrease in the amount of poverty even more than the small increase did. “Using this as an estimate, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as many Democrats are proposing in 2014, would reduce the number of people living in poverty by 4.6 million. It would also boost the incomes of those at the 10th percentile by $1,700. ” [5] This furthermore proves that an even larger increase would prove to be successful. Premise 2: The ‘increased’ minimum wage helps the poor “higher minimum wage is a substantial response to the challenges of inequality. Opponents of a higher minimum wage focus on the idea that it largely won’t benefit the worst off. ” [5] The quotation is supported by the following graph: “A higher minimum wage will lead to a significant boost in incomes for the worst off in the bottom 30th percent of income” [5] This is extremely significant because by reducing poverty we can ensure that the US can fulfill human rights to its greatest extent possible. Human rights makes direct references to having minimum wages [7]. It also makes references to reducing poverty to the furthest extent possible [8]. By not increasing minimum wages you are stopping people from receiving their human rights. This leads me on nicely to my final premise of this contention in regards to human rights. Premise 3: The current minimum wage violates human rights As introduced previously, the current minimum wage does not properly enforce laws upon poverty. The minimum wage states that we must stop poverty as much as possible without going to unreasonable measures [8]. By increasing the minimum wage this much we will see a huge economic benefit as well as a huge reduction in help for the poor and those living in poverty. The economic benefit proves that increasing the minimum wage to this extent is not unreasonable and the reduction in poverty shows that we must do this in order to bring the US to a place that meets the criteria set out by ‘Human Rights’. Conclusion We must raise the minimum wage in order for us to succeed in reducing poverty as much as possible in order for us to meet human rights criteria. Therefore the minimum wage ought to be risen in regards to this contention. C2: Productivity Higher wages result in greater worker productivity and this theory is demonstrated by a lot of as my source shows Economic Research [1]. As well as the reasoning being an increase in determination which evidently coming from higher pay raises, workers who have greater income security also see a negative correlation in poverty and financial stress, this ultimately increases work productivity as a result [2]. On to of this when they are paid more, workers are less likely to change jobs, meaning that employers have to waste less money and time attempting to attract more workers / employees, and they also receive obvious benefits such as having workers that are more experienced, long-term employees that can help develop and boost their company's overall [3]. In terms of economy, it is shown by multiple studies that businesses will see at least a $228 billion growth in revenues from a minimum wage increase due to productivity [4]. Contention 3: Religion and general agreement Christianity: Christianity is the world’s largest religion [9] at the moment including atheism and non-theistic religions. The Christian case for raising the minimum wage is relatively simple. I now quote: “While there are multiple avenues through which the poor and struggling can be supported — cash transfer programs and wage subsidies, for example, might boast the same outcomes — the delivery of income through wages, rather than benefit programs, has traditionally interested Christians because it secures relationships at the local level. In this vision of Christian society, interdependence between employers and employees is encouraged as a healthy societal bond. In other words, society becomes stronger and more cohesive as employers rely on workers for their labor, and workers rely on their labor to provide the material necessities of family life. At a broader level, the entire community also depends upon their labor for the production of goods and services needed to support society. It's a vision in which family life, community, and worship are paramount — but it takes a living wage to realize. ” [10] This case is very important since it shows that an absolutely huge amount of people support the minimum wage (ie. most Christians). This quote comes from Christian politicians so they are arguably bias however it is undeniable that one of the most notable Catholics is not going to express his opinion in a bias manner (only in favour of Christianity and the Bible): “A number of well-known Catholics, including Father John Ryan, were early advocates of a higher living wage, pressing the issue even during the era of the New Deal. In Father Ryan's 1912 dissertation A Living Wage, he argues that not only does everyone have a right to live from the bounty of creation, but that they have the right to attain it through work. ” [10,11] This argument is powerful since it derives from such a notable Catholic figure. This view is represented, expressed and agreed upon by many Christians, Catholics in particular as the quotation correctly demonstrates. General Agreement: 73% of Americans said that they’d support a minimum wage increase [10,12]! 36% when given the comment to comment said the minimum wage system is generally fair to most Americans and should be increased to make this a fairer system. 60% did not provide a comment and the remaining 4% made a comment against the rising of the minimum wage [12]. Only 4% made comments against the minimum wage! It is evident that there is huge support for the minimum wage among the US general public based on this. Conclusion I have proven with strong and well sourced evidence that the minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hour and now I hand it over to my opponent for their neg. case. I affirm the resolution that the minimum wage should be raised. Over to Con! Sources [1]. http://www.nber.org...[2]http://www.worldbank.org...[3]http://www.nber.org...[4]http://www.jstor.org...[5]https://www.washingtonpost.com...[6]http://www.pewresearch.org...[7]http://www.ilo.org...[8]http://www.undp.org...[9]https://en.wikipedia.org...[10]http://theweek.com...[11]A Living Wage, Father John Ryan[12]. http://www.latimes.com...

Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased Extend

Minimum Wage Should Increase From $7.25/hr to $10.10/hr I'm going to extend two main points to you in order to argue in favour of a higher minimum wage: I'll talk about the benefits to the American (or any) economy of a workforce with a greater disposable income, and I'll explain the social benefits of a minimum wage, extending beyond the purely economic ones. Before I get there however, I'd like to offer a few points of extraneous rebuttal against the argument extended by the other side, specifically against James' view of inflation. Any further rebuttal will be interwoven into my speech. James' argument against a higher minimum wage is that any rise in the minimum wage would be purely inflationary. I presume that the reasoning here is that Aggregate demand would rise, people, would want more things, and the price of these things would rise to keep up with demand. James' argument neglects to realize, however, that workers earning more will be more motivated, more efficient, and more willing to put work into their jobs, thus raising productivity. This means that the effect of inflation here is overstated. Even if it weren't, I feel that equality is more beneficial, when balancing benefits. A minimum wage increases the disposable income of poorer workers, allowing them to purchase more expensive goods and services. This means that people on welfare have a greater incentive to find work, and that there is more money to be spent on often more expensive American products, rather than cheap foreign imports. Money will flow around the economy, rather than being holed up in banks. Things like Health insurance, College tuition, and fresh food become more affordable when the people at the bottom aren't forced to live at the bottom: The savings in medicaid, the amount of extra tax raised, and the side benefits, such as better education, lower incentive to commit crime, and longer life expectancy are immeasurable. The benefits of a higher minimum wage clearly outweigh the cons, and thus, I propose.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Alright! Rebuttal time! I see you have some contentions which I will address in turn. First you claim minimum wages cannot be fairly proportioned to accommodate the city dwellers and the smaller townspeople. Actually that is not true. Fuel, groceries restaurants and rent, taxes all costs are often higher in small towns. This is because of the lack of competition it drives prices up. http://www.insidesources.com... so wages balance here. Therefore the city dwellers will make money with wage increase and the townspeople will also. Also because of the lack of stores the townspeople will flock too the city to do their shopping which will add moola to the city which will pay the minimum wage for many workers. Also again it will help stimulate the economy. http://www.investopedia.com... Next you claim Raising the minimum wage will negatively affect businesses. However studies say you are wrong. "Raising wages reduces costly employee turnover and increases productivity. When the minimum wage goes up, employers can enjoy these benefits of paying higher wages without being placed at a competitive disadvantage, since all companies in their field are required to do the same. Raising wages also puts money in the hands of consumers, boosting demand for goods and services............For these reasons, nearly 1,000 business owners and executives, including Costco CEO Jim Singeal, U.S. Women"s Chamber of Commerce CEO Margot Dorfman, Addus Health Care CEO Mark Heaney, Credo Mobile President Michael Kieschnick, ABC Home CEO Paulette Cole, and small business owners from all 50 states, signed a Business for a Fair Minimum Wage statement supporting the last increase in the federal minimum wage. As their statement explained, "[h]igher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation." http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com... The site also shows numerous studies that link higher wages to better business. Next you claim raising the minimum wage will kill many peoples jobs. However the United States Department of Labor has regard this as a myth. Due to extensive research they know it will benefit the economy when wages go up. They say, "In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."" You say businesses won't have the money to pay wages. The Department of Labor says, "A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."" You say increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy. US department of labor says, "Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised." You say Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support. Department of Labor says, "Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase." You say Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a "last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired" scenario. The department of labor says, "Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs." http://www.dol.gov... I personally believe everything you have brought to the table has been addressed on the link above. From negative affects on the economy to higher crime rates because of unemployment. Another thing is Huffington Post you have been using is not a very accurate site to use. https://en.wikipedia.org... TO CAP THIS ALL OFF... I have explained how wage increase will benefit the economy, benefit workers, and ultimately benefit the world. I have shown how it is moral to raise wages because no one should work their butts off and still live in poverty, "An employee working a 40-hour week at the federal minimum wage would earn $15,080 per year. This income would leave a two-person household -- say, a single parent with one child -- just below the federal poverty threshold of $15,130." http://www.salary.com... I have explained well how raising the minimum wage will add money to businesses and add money to groth for the economy. For this reason vote Pro. I look forward to my opponents response.

The Minimum Wage The resolution is whether or not the minimum wage ought be raised. To 10 $ 1. In reality, the minimum wage should be at least 10 that is if the federal minimum wage was indexed to inflation and to our times. However the issue is it is not. (1) 2. That’s first order. 10$ isn’t exactly demanding a monumental pay raise. It’s more of just keeping what should be. The Federal minimum wage hasn’t been raised in over six years, given that if it had kept up with inflation since its peak in the 1960s it would be well over 10$ an hour.(1) Many fast food workers have been protesting and calling for a 15$ minimum wage-Not to say I endorse or support this – just stating this is more inline with what civil rights activists demanded in the 1960s (2) 3. improve the economy. Contrary to falsely held views, research very strongly supports and indicates that given it passed , it would likely help businesses through augmenting demand , lowering turnover , increasing prices and thus significantly improving the economy , due to greater spending money for consumers. (3) (4) 4. It would catapult millions out of poverty Full time minimum wage works in our current economy earn a mere $14,500. That is $3,000 below the poverty line. The wage simply isn’t nowhere near enough to pay a suitable rent in any state. Just a bump to 10 bucks, would catapult 6 million out of poverty. 5. Americans are overwhelmingly in support of it. A poll reported that 80 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10. (5) Sources 1. http://thinkprogress.org... 2. http://thinkprogress.org... 3. http://thinkprogress.org... 4. http://thinkprogress.org... 5. http://www.occupy.com... 6.

The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour Just want to remind everyone that this addresses the current minimum wage proposal for $15 an hour. The current U.S. minimum wage is $7.25 an hour.I. The Minimum Wage Increase Leads to Job LossesA study by the American Action Forum analyzed minimum wage increases under different proposals. Many people argue that the minimum wage would help those in poverty, but the truth is that it doesn't: "For the $15 federal minimum wage, when assuming moderate negative employment consequences, we find that the policy would cost 6.6 million jobs. On net, it would raise the earnings of low-wage workers by $105.4 billion, at most. Again, however, only a small minority of that additional income would benefit families in poverty. In particular, only 6.7 percent of the increase in earnings would go to workers in poverty. Overall, the income gains from raising the minimum wage would come at a significant cost to the large number of workers who would become jobless. In effect, raising the minimum wage transfers incomes from the low-wage workers who are unfortunate to become jobless to the low-wage workers who remain employed. It accomplishes this without effectively helping those who are most in need." [1]History is on the side of conservatives in this debate. George W. Bush was the last president to raise the minimum wage and it had bad results as described by David Brooks in The New York Times:"Recently, Michael Wither and Jeffrey Clemens of the University of California, San Diego looked at data from the 2007 federal minimum wage-hike and found that it reduced the national employment-population-ratio by 0.7 percent percentage points (which is actually a lot), and led to a six percentage point decrease in the likelihood that a low-wage worker would have a job." [2]Other research by Robert Cherry and Chun Wang finds similar results. A $15 minimum wage increase sabotages advancing careers for young men, particularly minorities:"While these adverse employment effects may be quite modest, they can only add to the already low employment young workers are experiencing, especially less-educated black men. The lack of early sustained employment has adverse long-term effects on this vulnerable group. For young black men with low educational attainment, without a sustained work experience, it is likely they will face serious employment difficulties as they age. Among 25-to-29-year-olds, when those incarcerated are included, Neal and Rick estimated that the employment rate for black and white men, respectively, is 57 and 78 percent. It is, however, less than 30 percent for the almost one quarter of black men in this age group who have no more than a GED." [3] An older study from the Southern Economic Journal backs up the argument that minimum wage increases hurts jobs among young adults and blacks:"We use monthly data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Current Population Survey to estimate the effect of the minimum wage. Minimum wage increases significantly reduce the employment of the most vulnerable groups in the working-age population—young adults without a high school degree (aged 20–24), young black adults and teenagers (aged 16–24), and teenagers (aged 16–19). While we also find that minimum wage increases significantly reduce the overall employment of young adults and teenagers, these more vulnerable subpopulations are even more adversely affected." [4]II. The Minimum Wage Increase Slams BusinessesIf the minimum wage really did stimulate the economy, it wouldn't be hurting both big and small businesses, but it does just that. The new $15 minimum wage threatens economic expansion and growth.A study from the Economic Policies Institute by Joseph J. Sabia shows how a minimum wage increase affects GDP:"Turning to GDP effects, the results suggest that minimum wage increases are associated with small, often statistically insignificant declines in overall and private sector GDP; however, there is some evidence of larger adverse GDP effects in a number of industries that employ relatively larger shares of lower-wage workers, including wholesale trade, manufacturing of durables, warehousing and storage, rental and leasing services, and administrative and waste services. Falsification tests suggest that minimum wage increases are unrelated to contemporaneous output in industries that employ more highly skilled workers. Difference-in-difference-in-difference models that control for unmeasured state-specific time trends common across industries suggest that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2 to 4 percent decrease in state GDP generated by lower-skilled industries." [5]The simple reason for this is because a minimum wage hike raises labor costs: Businesses will not stand and take a hit in profits. They will need to adjust in order to survive, especially those with narrow profit margins:"Employers have more flexibility in the long run and will find ways to economize on the higher-priced labor. New technology will be introduced along with labor-saving capital investment, and skilled workers will tend to replace unskilled workers. Those substitutions will occur even before an increase in the minimum wage, if employers believe such an increase is imminent. There will be fewer jobs for low-skilled workers and higher unemployment rates—especially for minorities—and participation rates will fall as workers affected by the minimum wage drop out of the formal labor market." [6]Robots making food and powering restaurants are an easy replacement for businesses that will lose profit from higher labor costs: "It’s possible that new inventions could start to eliminate positions faster than they have in the past. The labor-saving technology that has so far been rolled out most extensively — kiosk and ­tablet-based ordering — could be used to replace cashiers and the part of the wait staff’s job that involves taking orders and bringing checks. Olive Garden said earlier this year that it would roll out the Ziosk system at all its restaurants, which means that all a server has to do is bring out the food." [7] III. Looking at other Minimum Wage IncreasesOther countries and states are moving to raise their minimum wage policies. Thanks to comparative politics, we can see the differences between different policies. Let's take the states first. Economists Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, Rex A Sinquefield, and Travis H. Brown published a book on the wealth of states in 2014. They compared 31 states that kept the federal minimum wage and the 19 states that have a higher state minimum wage using equal-weighted averages as of 1/1/2013. From 2002 to 2012, the 31 states with the federal minimum wage had population growth of 9.6 percent, net domestic in-migration growth of 1 percent, nonfarm payroll employment growth of 5.3 percent, personal income growth of 54 percent, and gross state product growth of 55.3 percent. During that same period, the 19 states with a minimum wage higher than the federal law had 8.9 percent population growth, 0.6 percent net domestic in-migration growth, 2.3 percent nonfarm payroll employment growth, 46.2 percent personal income growth, and gross state product growth of 45.9 percent. [8]Seattle is raising their minimum wage to $15 an hour, but it doesn't seem to be working as they hoped: Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute describes the problem:"Starting in the spring of last year, there has been a noticeable downward trend in the year-over-year growth rate of Seattle area restaurant jobs (quarterly averages), which fell below 3.6% in each of the last three months (May, June and July) for the first time since July of 2012, three years ago." [8]The United Kingdom has a minimum wage that's close to what American liberals are proposing, but it isn't working there either. Companies are not taking a hit in profits, but they are raising prices on consumers are creating automated jobs. [9]Unemployment rises there too: "The number of young people from ethnic minority backgrounds who have been unemployed for more than a year has risen by almost 50% since the coalition came to power, according to figures released by the Labour party. There are now 41,000 16- to 24-year-olds from black, asian and minority ethnic [BAME] communities who are long-term unemployed – a 49% rise from 2010, according to an analysis of official figures by the House of Commons Library. At the same time, there was a fall of 1% in overall long-term youth unemployment and a 2% fall among young white people." [11] This concludes my case for rejecting a $15 minimum wage increase. I await my opponent's case.Sources1. http://americanactionforum.org...2. http://www.nytimes.com...3. http://www.realclearpolicy.com...4. http://econpapers.repec.org...5. https://www.epionline.org...6. http://www.forbes.com...7. http://www.washingtonpost.com...8. Laffer, Arthur B., Stephen Moore, Rex A. Sinquefield, and Travis H. Brown. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States How Taxes, Energy, and Worker Freedom Will Change the Balance of Power Among States. Hoboken: Wiley, 2014. Print.9. https://www.aei.org...;10. http://www.forbes.com...11. http://www.theguardian.com...

February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage Here are my arguments.I. Lift many out of poverty and improve living standards (or well-being.)The cost of living in America for a minimum wage earner(for a family of at least two) is too high. They will be in poverty according to Figure A[1]. As a consequence, these families will have greater living standards. Furthermore, the results of SAMHSA's national survey[2] "provide extensive evidence that unemployment and poverty are highly associated with suicidality, depression, and serious mental illness. While correlation is not the equivalent of causation, it makes more sense to be further examining variables that actually are associated with suicidality, depression, and serious mental illness rather than focusing on variables such as chemical imbalances which are not even correlates".[3]II. Reducing inequities in gender- and race-based wages"While raising the minimum wage would benefit both women and men, it would disproportionately raise pay for women. As shown in the pie chart inFigure F, women make up 55.9 percent of affected workers. In comparison, women make up only 49.2 percent of the total U.S. workforce."[4]"As shown in the pie chart inFigure G, the majority of workers who would benefit from increasing the minimum wage are white, non-Hispanic workers, comprising just over half (53.2 percent) of all those who would receive a raise. Hispanic workers of any race make up the next largest share, at just under a quarter (24.3 percent) of the total affected population. Black or African American workers are 15.4 percent of the total, and Asians and workers of other races/ethnicities make up 7.1 percent of the total."[4]It follows that gender- and race-based wage inequities is reduced.III. Increases domestic consumption thus the economy growsin 2013, "an increase to $10.10 would either directly or indirectly raise the wages of 27.8 million workers, who would receive about $35 billion in additional wages over the phase-in period." thus "across the phase-in period of the increase, GDP would grow by about $22 billion, resulting in the creation of roughly 85,000 net new jobs over that period."[1] Theoretically, we see the economy moving forwards with the marginal boost of GDP and jobs created.ConclusionIf the USFG decides to raise the minimum wage, we will see minimum-wage workers escaping poverty and improving their well-being, a reduction in gender- and race-based wage inequities and an overall increase in domestic consumption leading to a growing economy.Sources:[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.alternet.org...[3] http://www.samhsa.gov...[4] http://www.epi.org...;

The Minimum Wage should be increased. The Minimum Wage must be increased. Republicans claim it to be a "job killer", but they obviously do not know anything about how the American economy works. No person working full-time should have to live in poverty. It is most unfortunate that this is occuring right this instant. Entry-level employees make a certain amount of money an hour, they work full-time, they come home and try to support themselves and their families. With a Minimum Wage of $7.25 an hour (it is higher in some states), supporting yourself and your family would be nearly impossible. This is only my main point. Please allow me to elaborate in the next round.

The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 My argumentsMinimum wage should be left up to more local governmentsNot only would I argue that the federal minimum wage should not be raised, but it should not exist at all. Minimum wage should be up to more local governments, such as states. 1) Every state has a different situation, where each one has a different cost of living. 12.50 might be a good fit for some states, but it's not enough for states like California or Hawaii, and it 's way too much for states like Mississippi and Indiana. For a source on the cost of living in each state, here is one[1]2) In addition to every state having a different situation, whenever the federal government passes a law, it affects more people than if the state government did. This means there are more people who would be opposed to the law than if a state government did it. For the purpose of making more people happy, and doing what is popular, it would be better to leave the minimum wage up to states or even more local governments. The more local the government that is making the law, the fewer people you have overall who will be dissatisfied with that law. I am concerned for the opinions of other people, even if they may have an opinion different from mine. I don't like the idea of forcing my views on other people, and the fewer people that I enforce my views on, the better. Why should South Carolinians, who, for the most part, are opposed to the minimum wage, be forced to have the minimum wage by the federal government? Minimum wage increases limit the freedom of workers to choose their wageNow, believe it or not, some workers may want to choose to be paid less than the minimum wage. I can think of at least one reason why: to be competitive. If you feel you can't get a well-paying job, you may make yourself more competitive to businesses by saying you'll work for less than someone else. Why should someone be denied the ability to ask to be paid less than a certain amount? I could name several times where I would have chosen to have a job that pays less than minimum wage. Not only would I get at least a little bit of money, but I would get work experience that I otherwise couldn't have. That would have lead me to get other jobs in the future that do pay well. Instead, what happened in reality because I couldn't find a way to be competitive for jobs, I didn't get a real somewhat permanent job until 4 years into job searching. Imagine how much sooner I could have gotten a somewhat permanent job if I was able to tell employers that I would work for 2 dollars an hour. I could have stayed at that job for a year, then maybe move onto a better job that paid 4 dollars an hour. Then one that pays 6 after a year, then one that pays 8 after another year. This is possible because I would have had work experience behind me from each previous job, and that would have added competitiveness to me. Over all, if I was able to start a job at $2 an hour, I would be earning more money now, in theory. Because I couldn't offer to work for a small amount, it likely hindered my ability to get a job until 4 years into job searching. I bet many other people have this problem: they can't find a job, and would love to work for less just to get work experience so that they can be competitive in the job market. Rebuttals to opponent's argumentsI will put any quotes I use from my opponent in italics, but otherwise I will put in bold the subject.Re: A person working full time should not live in povertyIt should first be noted that the poverty threshold in the United States is $12,082 for a single person[2]. If someone is earning 7.25 an hour and working full time, their yearly salary would be $15,080(I got this number by multiplying 7.25 by 40, the number of hours a week worked, and then multiplied by 52, the number of weeks in a year). A person living on their own is already above the poverty threshold if they work full time on the current federal minimum wage. Now, where they come into poverty is when they are trying to provide for 2 or more people. If we are to have a minimum wage, I think it should just be high enough to keep a single person out of poverty. Minimum wage, low-skill jobs aren't meant for providing for a family. You shouldn't be in a minimum wage job your entire life. If someone is in a minimum wage job for longer than a couple of years, they are probably doing something wrong, and this would be their own fault. Now, I do admit that it's not always the person's own fault for not having a higher-than-minimum wage job, perhaps the job market is very bad. In that case, the solution is for the governemnt to put policies in effect that will help the job market, not necessarily to increase the minimum wage. It should be noted, also, that there are a lot of high-paying careers which have shortages. Why aren't people going into those? Some of them include STEM fields, and the medical field. Granted, they do require education, and I do like the idea of public education to be tuition-free in some way. So, a solution to the problem would be to get education to be tuition-free in some way so that everyone has an equal chance at education. Going back to the issue of a single mother trying to provide for her and children, I would argue the mother was stupid for having children before she could provide for them. Sorry for being so blunt and politically incorrect, but people need to be smart about things. You shouldn't have children if you can't provide for them! What kind of monster brings a life into this world that they can't provide for? Why aren't they thinking about how the child's quality of life will be before having it? If they can't make the child's quality of life to be good, then they shouldn't have children. Why should other people be punished for the mistake of a mother who decided to have children they can't afford? Other people, such as me, are punished with a minimum wage. As I said before, I probably could have gotten a job a lot sooner if there was no minimum wage. I bet a lot of other people feel the same way. Now, I won't be completely unsympathetic about the mother, but I think the solution to the problem where a mother is in a situation where they can't afford to provide for herself and her children would be charities. People should voluntarily help her out. Other people shouldn't be punished for the decisions of that mother, which I have the view that other people are punished for it by having a minimum wage. Furthermore, a low minimum wage leads to gross underemployment, which is when workers don't earn enough money to cover all of their necessary expensesActually, I don't believe underemployment means that. I always thought it meant you have a job that you're too qualified for, and would be better fit for a job that is better than that one. This is basically what wikipedia says underemployment is[3]Also, all of the problems my opponent talks about can be solved on the local level, keep this in mind. I would like to ask my opponent: why does the federal government need to do minimum wage? Why can't the states handle it? Whether the states have a minimum wage or the federal government does doesn't seem to make a difference in terms of the problems you're talking about. Sources:[1] https://www.missourieconomy.org...[2] http://www.irp.wisc.edu...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...

The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised The current Federal Minimum wage if raised would increase unemployment, increase overall costs, and cause a negative ripple through the economy. Many states have their own minimum wage laws which are higher now. I say leave the federal minimum where it is. If individual states want to raise their rate, that is their decision. But the federal minimum must not be raised.

$15 Minimum Wage Contention 1: PovertyIt should go without saying that the current minimum wage is a poverty wage which one cannot make a sustainable income on. In order to reduce poverty, it should, therefore, follow that the wage should be raised to a level that people can live on. According to former Secretary of Labor and economist Robert Reich: "a full-time worker with two kids needs at least $30,135 this year to be safely out of poverty. That’s $15 an hour for a 40-hour workweek."Therefore, in order to reduce poverty, the minimum wage must be increased to $15 an hour.Contention 2: $15 should be the wage when adjusted for inflation AND productivityIf the minimum wage was adjusted for inflation, it would be around $10.90, however, workers today are also more productive today than they were in 1968, and if the wage was adjusted for productivity the wage should be around $19 an hour. $15/hour is a fair wage when both of these factors are taken into account.Contention 3: Increasing the minimum wage increases consumer spendingAccording to the Economic Policy Institute, increasing the minimum wage would result in consumer spending, as it would result in consumers having more money to spend. As the US economy is based on consumer spending, and this is the main mode of job creation in the market, increasing the minimum wage would, therefore, benefit the overall economy.I will address the Con's arguments in round three, as this round has been set aside for arguments, with round 3 meant for rebuttals.http://www.newsweek.com...;http://www.cnbc.com...http://www.epi.org...http://www.epi.org...

Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour According to Heather Boushey, Executive Director and Chief Economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, raising the minimum wage is an important anti-poverty measure. A person earning the current minimum wage and working a 40-hour week makes $15,080 per year, which is barely above the poverty line for a single adult and is well below it for someone supporting children. The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage would have raised it to $10.10 per hour, though it didn"t pass. More than half of the states (including the District of Columbia) already have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum wage. The District of Columbia is currently the highest at $10.50/hour. There has been discussion lately about increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, which would bring a family relying on a single wage-earner above the poverty line. Minimum wage laws in the states as of January 1, 2016 so therefore, it should not be increased

Increase the Minimum Wage P1: Minimum wage, in many households in the U.S., does not cover the basic cost of living. ( http://www.cbsnews.com... ) P2: Increased purchasing power of low-wage workers will help stimulate the economy. C: The government should increase the minimum wage.

Raise the minimum wage. Rebuttals: While the McDonald's scenario was clever, it was entirely unfounded. First of all, you made the mistake of suggesting that any of the McDonald's food was made from farm-fresh produce when in actuality it's gained from factories belonging to large producing corporations, but for simplicity's sake I will continue with your scenario and pretend it comes directly from farmers. You made the assumption that because McDonald's raised the pay of their workers, the farmers would also want a pay raise. This makes sense, but then you continued with yet another assumption that because the farmer raised the costs of beef for McDonald's, he also would raise the price of all other produce. In reality if a farmer were to be providing the beef for a fast-food company as large as McDonald's, that would probably be his primary customer. The entirety of all the McDonald's sells 75 hamburgers every second, so you can imagine that a single restaurant would need quite a bit of beef to supply all of its customers. So a beef farmer might charge more to supply the McDonald's, but it would not do anything significant to the economy, or cause any vicious cycles. Also, McDonald's made a $1.5 billion surplus in 2013 (1). They could probably afford it. And as a relevant yet irrelevant addition, certain studies (2) show that if you were to double the salary of every McDonald's employee, from the $7.25 of the cashier to the $8.75 million of the CEO, Big Mac prices would only rise around 68 cents. This study has been disputed, however, and some people say that the current $3.99 price could go up to above five dollars, while others say that it wouldn't go up at all. Regardless of this, the raising of the minimum wage would have more benefits than ramifications for reasons I will get into shortly. Arguments: 1) Over 45 million people are impoverished in one of the richest countries in the world. (3) When you compare the 45 million in poverty to the total population of 310 million, it's a startling comparison. Approximately one in every seven people lives under the legal poverty line, with it increasing in certain states such as Arkansas, where it is more than one in five. But that's not all--of the 45 million in poverty, 15 million of these are children under 18. By increasing the minimum wage, this allows families and individuals to receive more money and be able to pay for food, shelter, and their children's education. 2) The minimum wage is supposed to be much higher than it is now. If the minimum wage had tracked U.S. productivity gains since 1968, it would be $21.72 an hour (4). This differs greatly with our current $7.25 federal minimum wage. By not raising the minimum wage, it is swindling workers and laborers of the monetary compensation they deserve for their efforts. 3) Raising the minimum wage would reduce crime. As of right now, the top fifth of US families control 89% of all wealth in the US (5), leaving the remaining four fifths of the population to split the remainder among themselves. It is a logical assumption that this wealth inequality produces crime as impoverished individuals might have to resort to extra-legal means to gain money, such as burglary or drug-dealing. Raising the minimum wage would help to reduce this wealth gap and subsequently reduce crime. 4) Women, especially women of color, are most affected by the minimum wage. (6) Women are more likely to hold a minimum-wage job than their male counterparts, studies show. In 2011, 63% of all minimum-wage jobs were held by women. Raising the minimum wage would therefore benefit women significantly, directly or indirectly. 5) Having such a low minimum wage actually costs the government (and taxpayers) money. Going back to the McDonald's example, I said that McDonald's experienced a $1.5 billion profit in 2013 (1). This is close to the $1.2 billion taxpayers shell out each year to help pay public assistance to the McDonald's workforce, who do not receive enough money from their salary to pay for all their expenses. The public assistance came in the form of welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and other federal programs. McDonald's isn't the only company whose workers need this--the employees of other chain fast-food places such as KFC, Taco Bell, Subway, Burger King, Sonic, Domino's, and Wendy's all need billions of dollars in welfare just to cover the costs of their lives. By raising the minimum wage, the government would be saving these billions of dollars to be given to a better cause because the workers would now be able to independently support themselves. Sources: (1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2) http://thinkprogress.org... (3) http://www.feedingamerica.org... (4) http://www.bloombergview.com... (5) http://www.pewresearch.org... (6) https://www.americanprogressaction.org...

Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial ForfeitUnfortunately Pro has forfeited every round of this debate. This merits a loss of conduct points, but I will leave that at the discretion of the voters. At this point, I will offer my own case which will go unrefuted. Resolved: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage would be economically beneficial The definitions, to my knowledge, are self-explanatory, so I don't feel a need to clarify any at this point. I'll jump right into my argument. Note: I had several images, but kept receiving error messages when I tried to submit. So I'm going to instead link to the images.I. Adjusting for Sticky WagesAs we all know, economic gains are not broadly shared; over the past thirty years, the bulk of economic gains have gone to the very affluent. In spite of the fact that productivity has doubled, median wages have flatlined for many and fallen for some. Who has been the most hurt by this? Minimum wage workers; the minimum has not been and is not indexed to inflation, meaning that nominal wages do not rise with inflation. Even though the nominal minimum wage has increased over time, real wages nevertheless decline, meaning falling purchasing power. Let's examine this in several graphs. The first graph comes from a piece Robert Reich wrote in the NYT (1). http://www.debate.org...Initially, this looks like a rather confusing graphic, so allow me to briefly elucidate it for you. From 1947 to 1979, productivity increased by 119%. As a result, hourly compensation increased by 100% and hour wages increased by 72%. This looked, overall, pretty fair: generally speaking, pay rose proportionally with productivity. This hasn't been the case recently, however. From 1979 to 2009, productivity increased by 80%, whilst average hourly compensation only increased by 8% and average hourly wages only increased by 8%. How have wages practically been flat, though, if productivity has increased? As the opponents of a minimum wage increase often argue, people are "paid what they are worth." That, of course, is an utter crock. I'm going to provide a few more graphics proving this point soon, but there's more to see. Observe next the change in income distrubtion to households by income groups. This comes from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (2). Note the same occurence: rising shares of income for those at the very top, and flat or falling shares of income for those struggling to make it. http://www.debate.org...We should view this in context, though. What has happened to incomes of the top 1 percent over this time period? Let's review this following graph (3). http://www.debate.org...To make a long story short, the top 1 percent has done exceedingly well, with income gains surpassing productivity gains. To provide more context, consider this: in 1980, CEO's earned 42 times what the average worker made, but in 2012, they earned 380 times (4). Opponents of a minimum wage increase will argue that workers are merely paid "what they are worth," which is rooted in their productivity. However, if the minimum wage kept pace with productivity, it will be about $21.72 (5). If it even kept pace with inflation, it would be $10.52 (5). We can observe this disparity with an analysis put together by Pew of nominal versus real values of the minimum wage (6). Notice that the real value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968, and hasn't been higher since. http://www.debate.org...II. ProductivitySo we now know, judging from empirical data, that the notion that people are paid in accordance with their equilibrium wage or their marginal product of labor if a canard: it simply hasn't happened, which is largely because the entire concept is entirely theoretical and arbitrary. That is, if I'm an employer, I can artificially increase your productivity by making sure that you have access to the best machinery. I could also artificially lower your productivity (this is obviously hypothetical) by breaking your leg. Does this mean I should alter your pay? Of course not, nor would I. This isn't to say that productivity and compensation are entirely incompatible, as there is some merit to the argument that pay, generally speaking, does or should increase with productivity. It simply hasn't happened as recent, and thus having a minimum wage acts a counterweight against lack of bargaining leverage in the workplace. The point of this contention, though, is that raising the minimum wage can actually increase worker's productivity. Wayne Cascio from the Harvard Business Review explains: "In return for its generous wages and benefits, Costco gets one of the most loyal and productive workforces in all of retailing, and, probably not coincidentally, the lowest shrinkage (employee theft) figures in the industry...Costco’s stable, productive workforce more than offsets its higher costs.These figures challenge the common assumption that labor rates equal labor costs. Costco’s approach shows that when it comes to wages and benefits, a cost-leadership strategy need not be a race to the bottom." (7) We also have a statement from over 1,000 business owners expressing their support for increasing the federal minimum wage: "[H]igher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation" (8). These statements are consistent with empirical work conducted by U.C. Berkeley economists which revealed that an increase in the minimum wage up to $13 per hour has "no measurable effect on employment" (9). It also demonstrated how businesses react to the increase in labor costs. Lynn Thompson of the Seattle Times explains: "Businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover, small price increases at restaurants, which have a high concentration of low-wage workers, and higher worker productivity, the researchers found." (9) III. Outsourcing? Another canard we often hear about the minimum wage is that it will lead to "outsourcing." Not only is this claim unsound logically, as it insinuates that labor costs are the be-all-end-all and the sole determinant of employment opportunities. If that were the case, why wouldn't businesses relocate to -- I know libertarians are going to cry "strawman!" but I promise you, if you look at the data, this is a relevant example -- Somalia? You could pay workers whatever you'd like if there aren't any regulations. Why don't businesses do this? There are a few reasons. First, minimum wage jobs are most often in the restaurant or service sector such as retail -- about 60%, in fact, as Paul Krugman notes (10). Obviously service sector jobs cannot be readily exported, so on this front, the claim falls flat. Literally relocating businesses to X country with lower labor costs would cost businesses even more money than increasing the minimum wage, and would exacerbate the next problem I'm about to point out. The second problem with the outsourcing canard is that one businesses's employees are another's businesses -- or, even that same business's -- customers. Low-wage workers have a higher marginal propensity to consumer than more affluent people, meaning they consume with about 100% of their income. Therefore, any increase in the minimum wage will merely result in those dollars going back into the economy. As people spend more money, the AD curve shifts to the left. Businesses would want to supply more, and now can because their profits have increased, meaning we would see a shift along the AS curve as well as an increase in the demand for labor. This is the reason that AD, not AS, is the key to the economy -- and I am not only saying that because John Maynard Keynes happens to be the economist after which I have modelled my username. Businesses are sitting on literally trillions of dollars in cash right now that they aren't investing. It's intellectually dishonst to insinuate that merely reducing their taxes, deregulating them further, abolishing the minimum wage, etc. would provide an economic boost. They aren't going to increase their supply, and thus hire more workers, if there isn't any demand for their products their selling. That, my conservative friends, is called a glut. Rising inventory costs are literally toxic to businesses, and should be avoided when they can. This acts as a check by ensuring that businesses have an active, vibrant customer base. IIII. Jobs I've already essentially proven this case, but with the few remaining characters I have, I'll address this as well. There have been several meta-studies conducted on this subject, and the conclusion far and wide has been that raising the minimum wage has "no discernable effect" on employment (11). Let's go to John Scmitt from the CEPR: "[T]wo recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers." (11)Even the CBO study that conservatives often cite -- falsely, might I add -- grants that a hike in the minimum wage provides an economic stimulus: "The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate."ConclusionThere isn't much else to say. Vote Con. Sources(1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) http://tinyurl.com... (4) http://tinyurl.com... (5) http://tinyurl.com... (6) http://tinyurl.com...(7) http://tinyurl.com... (8) http://tinyurl.com... (9) http://tinyurl.com... (10) http://tinyurl.com... (11) http://tinyurl.com...

March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Argument 1: Increases to unemploymentCon states that raising the minimum wage would lead to job loss, arguing that businesses will have to respond to new costs posed by higher wages with cutting jobs. A reasonable concern, and seemingly valid as well. However, it falls apart on several levels upon further examination: - To begin with, there are multiple ways in which raising the minimum wage alows for business to save money. A study on the Harvard Business Review by MIT Professor Zeynep Ton [6] found that higher wages boost productivity and decrease employee turnover rate. Another study found a reduction in employee turnover rate within nine months of a state-wide minimum wage hike [7]. - Additionally - as a National Employment Law Project analysis [5] on Census Bureau data found - most low wage employees work for large companies, which can certainly afford the costs of higher wages.Con supports his argument with a report from the Congressional Budget Office, which found that raising the minimum wage would lead to some unemployment. What he neglected to mention, was that the very same report found that a minimum wage hike would result in massive econmic benefits, which outweigh potential costs. The projected effect on employment was essentially insignificant: a mere 0.3% reduction [1].I did say "projected" for a reason; the CBO's estimates on the unemployment increase shouldn't be taken to be conclusive. Economist Michael Reich wrote an analysis at ThinkProgress[2], noting that:"The method used by the CBO to estimate job loss is never clearly explained. According to the Appendix, the figure appears to come almost entirely from its “synthesis” of the research literature — which it concludes implies an elasticity of teen employment of -0.075 percent. This estimate is a bit below the low end of estimates in papers by Neumark and Wascher or Sabia and Burkhauser, but higher than those in various papers by Dube, Reich, and others. No details are provided concerning how the CBO arrived at this number, except that it discounts some older studies slightly because of publication bias.""Some of the studies that the CBO relied on are also problematic. As is explained in detail in a 2013 paper by Allegretto et. al that the CBO cites, the Neumark and Wascher paper and other studies that find negative employment effects suffer from methodological flaws that bias their estimates." Additionally, Con claims historical wage hikes have increased unemployment. He argues that with the introduction of the minimum went several thousand jobs, which is true. However, it suffices to say, comparing the introduction of the minimum wage to an increment makes for a false analogy. Particularly when empirical data does not support his conclusions.He later attributes job losses in Puerto Rico to the minimum wage hike implimented shortly prior. However, this is a misattrubation of the cause. As an analysis demonstrated, much of Puerto Rico's job losses had absolutely nothing to do with the minimum wage increment [3].Ultimatly, Con's case falls apart at an empirical level. Multiple studies have found minimal to no negative impact on employment prospects as a result of minimum wage hikes:- A 2013 report which analyzed the past 2 decades on minimum wage research found that minimum wage increases had next to no negative effects on employment [4].- A 2011 study found that raising the minimum wage did nothing to reduce employment rates, and boosted average income levels. Additionally, it reviewed and criticized past bodies of research that attributed increases unemployment to a higher minimum wage [8]- A 2010 study compared employment levels accross neighboring counties with differing minimal wages from 1990 to 2006, and found that higher minimum wages had no negative effects on employment. [9]Argument 2: Ineffective at decreasing povertyCon argues that, since a minority of living poverty are unemployed, they will not benefit from a minimum wage hike, which is true. However, in addition to repeating the unemployment argument (which was addressed above), he states that the minimum wage will be ineffective at combating poverty.Nonetheless, multiple studies show that raising the minimum wage does, in fact, do exactly that.For just one example, the very CBO report which Con cited in his first argument found that an increment to $10.10 would directly benefit over 16 million families [11]. Additionally, these benefits would raise millions from below the poverty line. Even if we use the report's likely flawed estimate for unemployment, can it really be said that half a million recuperable jobs are more valuable than the livelihoods of several million people?Other studies and analyses have documented the counter-poverty effects of raising the minimum wage [10].ConclusionRaising the minimum wage would not result in significant job losses (if any at all), and it would be effective at decreasing poverty. Even assuming that minimum wage hikes would kill jobs, Con would have to demonstrate that the costs would offset the benefits for his case to stand.Sources:[1] https://www.cbo.gov...[2] http://thinkprogress.org...[3] http://thinkprogress.org...[4] http://cepr.net...[5] http://www.nelp.org...[6] https://hbr.org...[7] http://www.irle.berkeley.edu...[8] http://www.irle.berkeley.edu...[9] http://www.irle.berkeley.edu...[10] https://www.washingtonpost.com...[11] https://www.whitehouse.gov...

The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I will be arguing for the US federal government to increase the minimum wage every year by one dollar. My opponent will argue that the government should not increase the minimum wage.

The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Why the Federal minimum wage shouldn't be raised to $15.Since this debate is specifically about the Federal minimum wage, my arguments will focus on that. Since I missed a round, I will also provide my rebutalls to my opponents arguments.Cost of LivingThe cost of living varies across many states, and establishing a $15 federal minimum wage would either hurt a state, or overpay it's workers. We can use this tool provided by CNN to analyse this. Say we were to establish a $15 dollar federal minimum wage in place such as Des Moines, then the cost will be different in a state such as New York. For this example I will be using the $10.10 minimum wage, but all you have to do is extrapolate the data to see what will happen if we implement a 15 dollar minimum wage. For example, if Des Moines, Iowa, had a minimum wage of $10.10, that would only equal a $4.12 per hour rate when measured by the real costs of working and living in New York City. On the other hand, it would take $24.77 to equal the Des Moines rate." These changes can be seen if we continue to compare other states. A federal minimum wage is just ineffective, because it's hard to pinpoint the right wage on a federal standpoint. Something such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities. Many states already have minimum wage laws that are set higher than the federal standard, and it's best if we let them take control of this, because they are accomodate their needs better.Will lead to job lossThink about the following senario. An employer has a worker, who generates him 20 dollars renvenue every hour. The owner pays him 15 dollars/hour, and makes $5 profit every hour. Now, the owner hires another worker, but he only generates 12 dollars revenue every hour. The owner pays him 7 dollars/hour, and generates $5 profit. Now, suppose a 15 dollar minimum wage is implemented, this would effect the owner very much. The worker was only generating 12 dollars, will know be paid 15 dollars for his work. What does that mean? It means the owner is losing money. No owner will want to keep losing potential profit, so he will likely fire the new employee. This is basic supply and demand law. And this According to several studies done by economists, they have come to the conclusion that minimium wage hikes will lead to job loss. This would also be significant since 64% of job creations come from small buisnesses.Here is some more evidence that proves minimum wage constitutes job loss. According to Federal Reserve bank of Chicago, “10 percent increase in the minimum wage lowers low skill employment by 2 to 4 percent and total restaurant employment by 1 to 3 percent.” According to the American Economist, 61% of economists were against the idea of a minimum wage raise. All this evidence indicates that the minimum wage hike is a job killer, and that it shouldn't be increased to $15 especially. Alan Kruger, a economist who once did a study on minimum wage effects in New Jersey, opposed a $15 dollar minimum wage stating a $15-an-hour national minimum wage would put us in uncharted waters, and risk undesirable and unintended consequences." Here is a graph showing the rise of teen unemployment after the minimum wage increase. Nearly after every minimum wage increase, unemployment rates have increased. Does very little to help the poorEmperical dates indicates that a minimum wage hike doesn't really effect the poor, because 60% of those in poverty are not even in the workforce. So, this would make it harder for them to get a job, because employers will try to hire those who are most experienced and more equiped for the job, even though the minimum wage job was meant for youngsters to get job experience. "Research from economists at American University and Cornell University in 2008 showed the many state minimum-wage increases between 2003 and 2007 did nothing to reduce poverty rates. And economists at Ohio University found the federal minimum wage didn’t decrease poverty, and may actually have increased poverty for certain subgroups."EITCThe earned income tax credit is a refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples, particularly those with children. This method is far more feasible as means of reducing poverty than increasing the minimum wage. EITC does not have such detrimental employment effects such as unemployment and outsourcement of job but works the other way around for it really is a subsidy to employers to employ low value labor. Here is a graph showing the wages of employees without their EITC, and with their EITC. As you can see, the EITC boosts wages, and this will help reduce the wage gap between the rich and poor. The best part is, the unemployment disadvantages that minimum wage creates are not present. Other studies also prove that EITC decreases unemployment. Hoynes and Patel also find that the EITC has significantly boosted employment. A $1,000 increase in the credit translates into a 7.3 percentage-point increase in the employment of single mothers. This means that as a result of the boost in 1993, hundreds of thousands of women have entered the workforce. Notable people such as Warren Baffett have said expanding EITC is the right thing to do.ConclusionA $15 dollar minimum wage is not the way to go, because it's ignores the cost of livings by state, increases unemployment, does very little to reduce poverty, and other solutions such as EITC are much more effective.RebutallsFrom reading Pro's arguments, I feel like he is focusing more on the idea of a minimum wage, rather than $15 dollar figure. I'd like to mention the debate wasn't really about that, and Pro is most certainly aware of that, especially since he accepted the debate saying he would argue for a $15 dollar minimum wage.C1: David Card's studyFor Pro's first argument, he says that the Conservative narrtative about minimum wage killing jobs is false, because a study done by David Card and Alan Krueger demostrate that this isn't the case. First we need to look at what their actual study was about. It was comparing the minimum wages of two cities which compared the fast food prices of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It's important to note that this study was done by comparing two cities with similar costs of living. Also, the increase did not show any data that the minimum wage was a positive thing, rather there wasn't much of an impact with the unemployment. However, this debate is about a $15 federal minimum wage. So, this example is apples and oranges in many instances, because comparing minimum wage increases among cities is much different than minimum wage increase nationwide. Interesting enough, Alan Kruger himself said he was against the idea of increasing the minimum wage to $15.C2: Price Increases and everything elseI'll admit I'm a bit confused now, because Pro makes some arguments against the minimum wage, which are increased food costs. Not sure how I'll refute this.Pro's arguments about the bias in minimum wage articles, is rather defensive. Even if those arguments are biased, it doesn't give any reason why the $15 dollar minimum wage should be there. This is more of a rebutall than an argument.Regarding the link of the Department of Labor, many of those arguments are just cherrypicked examples of some studies which show a net positive in minimum wage. For example, the first rebutall by the DOL shows that hundreds of economists agreed with Obama, but these don't represent every ecnonmist. Most economists are against the idea of the minimum wage, so this is just a cherrypicked argument. Also, Obama's proposal is not a $15 increase, but a $10.10 increase. There is not gurantee all those economists would still support a $15 minimum wage.Finally, Pro's gives an argument states that gradually increasing it would give us good data to draw conclusions, but that isn't reallly an argument for an increase. That's like saying we should just ban all guns, so we can see how it effects the crime rate, but ignoring all the colleral damage caused by it! Minimum wage increases will increase unemployment as I have shown, and is ineffective in reducing poverty.My sourceshttp://www.degruyter.com...http://wheniwork.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://reason.com...http://www.republicanreader.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.vox.com...http://www.degruyter.com... https://www.epionline.org... http://www.krusekronicle.com...;

The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr CON Many economists argue that raising the minimum wage won't alleviate poverty and would shake an already fragile economy. We can raise the minimum wage to $11 but if no one chooses to hire people or hires fewer people then we have effectively raised unemployment. Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and an expert on wage policy. He says that employers would likely chose to scale back jobs. Increasing the minimum wage could result in a lot of people who have been earning the minimum wage earning less than the minimum wage. How is that possible? Mall employers, farmers, lots of occupations are exempt from the minimum wage. So the last time we raised the minimum wage, lo and behold, the percentage earning less than the minimum wage rose to 4.2 percent of the wage and salary workers - three million. You basically have more people trying to compete for grape-picking jobs, or working in selling hot dogs in the street or day laborer or babysitting and that sort of thing. Fast food restaurants typically pay more than the minimum wage. When you talk minimum wage, it's really entry-level, and it's usually young people trying to get that first job. And if they do pretty well, three months, six months down the road, they get a little raise. That would effectively end if employers are starting people at $11. Actually there really aren't very many people who are working full time who are poor according to Reynolds. Maybe one percent. People are poor very often because they can't work for one reason or another. Disability, unemployment, so on and so forth. Obviously, doing something that will raise unemployment isn't going to help poverty. People who can't get work at 7.25 an hour aren't going to find work at 11.00 an hour. By such a dramatic jump they know there'd be a big hike in youth unemployment. The youth wouldn't get the experience they need to get the second job, which is a better job. And it's just basically a bad idea all the way around. To push the minimum wage to $11.00 at a time when the economy is facing high energy prices and rising inflation seems outrageous to me. I think it's probably a very bad idea to try to help the poor by raising prices. Liberal arguments for increasing the minimum wage have a fundamental flaw: They restrict the set of policy choices to either a minimum wage increase or doing nothing. That means they overlook the single most important federal policy for the poor: the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is a measure in the federal tax code to support the living standards of the poor without creating a "welfare trap" by diminishing the incentive to work. Economists widely consider the credit a success for reducing poverty while increasing employment. Created in 1975, the credit has been successively expanded in five times since. It is now the nation's largest anti-poverty transfer program. In its latest iteration, for families with two or more children, the credit is 40 percent of the first $10,750 of earned income. After earned income exceeds $15,040, the credit is phased out at a rate of 21.06 cents per marginal dollar, and it goes away fully at the point when earned income reaches $35,458. (The EITC code is similar for smaller families, childless married couples and singles.) 1) Cato institute 2) Bloomberg.com 3) NPR.org

Increase the Minimum Wage P1: I'm not talking about the unemployed I'm talking about low wage workers. That includes people in poverty who DO work, for minimum wage. "More working-age adults picked up low-wage jobs in the slowly improving economy but still struggled to pay living expenses. " (http://www.nydailynews.com... ) According to the cost of living calculator provided by the Economic Progress institute, a single person with no children would have to make $11.93 to cover the cost of living. Monthly costs including housing, food, transportation, medical, etc. total $1,662.00 ( http://www.economicprogressri.org...) and that's in states in the U.S. where the cost of living isn't as high as someplace like New York City. If you have a child, then you have to throw in child care expenses, you have to raise the amount you would spend on food and medical. In NYC minimum wage ranges from $7.25 (federal) and $8.00 (state). That's roughly $4 lower than the amount needed for a single person with no children. P2: Consumer spending makes up 70% of the economy. By increasing the minimum wage, you would have more workers making more money. The more money a person makes, the more they have to spend. If they have extra money to spend, more money gets pumped back into the economy. (http://www.cnn.com...) C: The government should increase the minimum wage.

Living Wage Thank you, Con. I'll look forward to a robust rebuttal.Arguments concerning the minimum wage should be based on real world evidenceThe arguments for and against raising the minimum wage are simple.On the side opposing minimum wage increases, you have a simple, supply-and-demand argument straight out of Intro to Economics: Raise the price of anything, and get less of it. Artificially raise the cost of labor, the argument goes, and employers will be forced to hire fewer workers - harming employment - and/or raise their prices - harming consumers, including low-wage workers. On the other side, favoring increases to the minimum wage, are reams of actual, objective evidence - discussed in detail below - that show comprehensively that raising the minimum wage has no discernible effect on employment, little to no impact on prices, and dramatically raises the standard of living for the working poor.So why the disconnect between the textbooks and the real world? The simple answer is that the Econ 101 view is based on a radically simplified model of human behavior, casting all people into the role of homo economicus, the perfectly rational wealth maximizer, a species which does not exist outside of Austrian economics and Ayn Rand novels. This homunculus is the perfectly-round-sphere-in-a-vacuum of social science - a model which removes any inconvenient perturbations of behavior in order to make a basic conceptual point. Economics doesn't work that way in the real world, because people don't work that way in the real world. As always, the true economist - the social scientist who wishes to obtain genuine insight into the way the world really works - must always look first and foremost to the factual evidence. When Austrian economic theory predicts a different response than the real world produces, the theory must yield to the facts.The minimum wage does not harm the employmentThe nearly universal consensus of economists is that modest increases to the minimum wage do not have an ill effect on employment. The conservative Economist magazine, while acknowledging that "[s]cepticism about the merits of minimum wages remains this newspaper’s starting-point," has acknowledged that because "real labour markets are not perfectly competitive...[a] minimum wage, providing it is not set too high, could thus boost pay with no ill effects on jobs." [1] The article lists a proposed US minimum wage of $10.10 as one of its examples.Since the 1990s, researchers investigating real-world minimum wage increases have concluded that they have little to no effect on employment. Why not? How do employers compensate for the extra labor expense? The research generally suggests four factors are most significant: reductions in labor turnover (an unsurprising benefit of raising wages); improvements in organizational efficiency (people do better work when they are paid better); reductions in wages of higher earners (wage compression, which reduces income inequality); and small price increases (which are negligible and widely distributed to rich and poor alike). [2] Indeed, the experiences of retailers like Costco or Quiktrip that invest heavily in their employees find that the investment pays of - the benefits of employee loyalty and productivity allow these businesses to keep prices low and profits high even while keeping employees paid fairly. [3]All told, "two decades of rigorous economic research have found that raising the minimum wage does not result in job loss." [4] Indeed, economists argue that because the minimum wage has not effected unemployment, it should be raised even higher in order to capture more marginal benefit. [5]The minimum wage raises the standard of living and improves the economy for allAll economists to have studied the question empirically, including economists who oppose raising the minimum wage, have concluded that raising the minimum wage does effectively reduce and alleviate poverty. [6] An increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 would raise nearly 5 million people out of poverty. [7]This has substantial benefits, and not just for those families no longer subsisting. For one thing, people earning a higher wage are less likely to need government assistance - an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 would save taxpayers $4.6 billion each year on food stamps. [8] Right now, the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing the poverty wages paid by large minimum wage retailers. A minimum wage increase requires the private sector to pay its workers fairly instead of expecting taxpayers to make up the gap.Finally, people with higher wages have more money to spend - helping absorb the cost of any minor price increases, and generally increasing the amount of economic activity. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would generate a $32.6 billion increase in GDP, creating more than 140,000 new net jobs to support the increased commercial activity. [9]ConclusionThe arguments against raising the minimum wage are based on a simplistic and unrealistic model. Here in reality, we have decades of rigorous research and objective data sufficient to demonstrate to any unbiased person - including many conservative economists who have changed their minds in the face of the undeniable evidence [1] - that reasonable minimum wage hikes do not harm employment. [2] Furthermore, both proponents and opponents of the minimum wage acknowledge that it is an effective anti-poverty mechanism. [6] I therefore stand in favor of a reasonable minimum wage increase to at least $10/hr in the United States.[1] http://www.economist.com...[2] http://www.cepr.net...[3] https://hbr.org...[4] http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...[5] http://www.businessinsider.com...[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[7] http://www.cbsnews.com...[8] http://www.epi.org...[9] http://www.epi.org...

The minimum wage should be increased Con's arguments are largely unfounded. Note that there is no evidence backing up his (her? I apologize, but your profile doesn't give your gender!) assertions. Let's look at the two assertions in his round 1 arguments.1. Raising the minimum wage will cause inflation.2. It will tell students that, straight out of high school, they will be able to earn a living wage of $15. ( Note: This claim is inaccurate, because the resolution calls for a minimum wage increase, but not necessarily a living wage of $15 per hour. So this argument is unfounded.) First, the inflationary impacts of raising the minimum wage are negligible (1). A myriad of research has been done on this, and there is simply no evidence that raising the minimum wage would raise the gallon of gas to $4.50. For goodness' sake, do you truly think low wage workers have that type of power? Gas prices are determined not even by the Federal Reserve's QE, but by global demand. Gas prices tend to fluctuate with global events, and are high at this moment because of increased demand from China and India. There is no evidence whatsoever that a slight hike in the minimum wage would raise gas prices to the degree you're suggesting. Next, you act as though inflation -- even if it were possible for the minimum wage to cause inflation -- is a bad thing. It is not. In fact, we had mild inflation during the golden years of U.S. years -- the three decades following WWII -- and about 4 percent inflation during Ronald Reagan's second term. Inflation, in moderate levels, is a good thing because wages and prices adjust, and thus it doens't impact purchasing power, and it eats away at debts. If inflation were ever to reach an exorbitant level, the Federal Reserve would simply raise interest rates and downsize its balance sheet. The threat of inflation is an unheard of, unfounded apparaition. The current inflation rate is 1.6%, below the Fed's 2% target. Yes, there was a higher inflation target under Ronald Reagan's Fed Chair than there was under Bernanke (that remains today under Yellen).Next, the inability to inflate is a severe cause of the downturn in Europe. The ECB can only purchase government bonds on the secondary market, and is thus subject to the whims of investors. As a result, it must pay extremely high interest rates in even a feeble attempt to hold down rates and boost aggregate demand and investment. At the same time, the same kind of deflationary drive running rampant in the US -- amid a liquidity trap, mind you -- is increasing nominally denominated debt shares and forcing through austerity. It turns out, debt deflation leads to lower wages, leads to less demand, leads to higher unemployment, leads to less demand, etc. and the cycle continues. Now, moving onto my arguments:1. The minimum wage is good for the economy. If the minimum wage kept pace with productivity since 1960, it would be about $22 per hour (2). Right now, it's a measely $7.25 per hour. What happened to the rest of the money? Productivity has nearly doubled after all, yet wages have been flat -- or, if you factor in the Great Recession, median wages have fallen. The answer is quite simple: they've gone to the top. Even since the 2009 recovery, 95% of income gains have gone to the top 1 percent. 2. Any job losses for raising the minimum wage are negligible vis-a-vis the net gain. The CBO recently released a report on the minimum wage in which they said raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would cost anywhere from 0 to 1 million jobs, though the best estimate is about 500,000. Note the massive disparity. They simply can't put a number on it. At the same time, it would lift over a million people out of poverty, and they even acknowledged that it would spur a rather large demand stimulus. This stimulus would more than offset any loss of employment, and macropolicies alone could care for low-skilled workers who may lose their jobs as a result. The point is, the benefits would outweigh the cost.3. It is a myth that the majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers. My opponent has fallen into this trap with his second argument, which I will now address. First, the CBO also told us that only 12% of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $10.10 would be teenagers. That means that a whopping 88% are not teenagers. This is simply the truth. A majority of minimum wage workers are breadwinners. They depend on the minimum wage for their livelihoods. And, at the same time, because these people are literally living below the poverty line, they must spend 100% of what they earn in order to survive. Increasing their incomes by way of a minimum wage increase would significantly boost demand, and thus provide a stimulus to both businesses and the economy at large.Conclusion:My opponent's arguments are unfounded. He has not provided a single argument against the minimum wage. 1. http://truth-out.org...;2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;3. http://www.cbo.gov...;

Minimum Wage In 1934, Henry Ford wrote "Low wages are the most costly any employer can pay. It is like using low-grade material"the waste makes it very expensive in the end." Ford"s observation is as right today as it was then. When workers struggle to make ends meet, productivity sags, absenteeism increases, morale suffers and turnover rises because workers are constantly hunting for better opportunities. At the same time, as employees" pay stagnates or declines, fewer households have money to spend, meaning businesses see fewer customers. Consumer spending"which makes up 70 percent of the U.S. economy"is weakened, and more people go into debt or turn to government assistance just to get by. Sadly, millions of Americans are facing this situation. Over the past 45 years, average worker productivity has more than doubled, while pay for middle- and low-income workers has either flatlined or fallen after being adjusted for inflation. This is due, in part, to our failure to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage is the floor upon which the entire wage structure is built. Unless it is periodically raised, a larger and larger segment of the population sees its living standards decline, in spite of a growing economy. Today"s minimum of $7.25 an hour is worth 25 percent less than the minimum in the late 1960s. A full-time, minimum-wage worker earns about $15,000 per year, which is below the federal poverty line for a worker with just one child. When there"s a significant gap between the wage floor and what it actually takes to live, not only do workers suffer, but good employers are penalized. Businesses that may want to pay a livable wage fear being undercut by "low-road" employers who pay dismal wages for even the slightest price advantage. We need to raise the minimum wage to the point where the lowest-paid worker can afford their basic needs. An increase to $10.10 an hour as proposed by President Barack Obama would restore the wage floor to the same value it had in the 1960s. In doing so, it would lift earnings for nearly 28 million workers nationwide"roughly 1 in 5 U.S. workers. Opponents claim that raising the wage floor will do more harm than good, forcing businesses to reduce staff, cut hours or hike prices. But research has shown that modest increases"like the proposed raise to $10.10"have little to no effect on employment and that affected businesses can absorb them with negligible price adjustments. As the country struggled to pull itself out of the Great Depression, America"s business leaders saw what many employers are coming to recognize today"that paying dismally low wages has significant costs for businesses. To build a thriving economy, workers need to be paid wages upon which they can build a life. --David Cooper, economic analyst, Economic Policy Institute No one criticizes the salaries at Google, where the average employee makes more than $140,000 a year. Yet many complain about what McDonald"s pays. Average wages in the fast-food sector run around $9 an hour. Many Americans think this makes Google a "good" employer and McDonald"s a "bad" one. They propose fixing this through a minimum-wage hike. They seldom notice how this would hurt McDonald"s workers. Google employs very skilled and educated workers"usually diligent, motivated self-starters. They come to the job with the skills necessary to succeed. By contrast, McDonald"s employees often lack work experience and the soft skills needed on the job: grit, motivation, reliability and teamwork. Google would not hire them. McDonald"s teaches its workers how to function on the job, breaking down the work into tasks they can easily perform. This enables them to gain those soft skills. Their time at McDonald"s makes them more employable; most leave shortly for higher-paying jobs. The average McDonald"s employee leaves within a year. Google does none of these things. The company pays a premium to hire workers who are already highly skilled. McDonald"s could pay like Google if it transformed its business model. It could replace its cashiers with touch pads and its cooks with mechanized burger cookers. Inventors recently came up with a machine that cooks almost 400 gourmet hamburgers an hour with no human intervention. McDonald"s could install these devices, fire its line workers and hire a few skilled engineers at "good" salaries to keep the machines running. Would such a transformation benefit low-income workers? Or would it deprive them of entry-level job opportunities? In fact, most Americans started off working within a dollar of the minimum wage. Few stayed there long. Two-thirds of minimum-wage workers earn raises within a year, typically of about 24 percent. Minimum-wage jobs provide a gateway to higher-paying work. Raising the minimum wage will price less productive workers out of such jobs. Companies pay for productivity. Neither McDonald"s nor Google nor any other firm will pay its employees more than the value they create. Higher minimum wages make it harder for unskilled workers to get started in the job market. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that most minimum-wage workers have not yet turned 25. Three-fifths have no more than a high school diploma. Many of these young adults cannot yet produce $10 an hour of value for prospective employers. Raising the minimum wage effectively saws off the bottom rung of their career ladders. It prevents them from gaining the skills that would qualify them for higher-paying jobs. That hardly helps their prospects. Higher minimum wages change who companies hire and how they structure their businesses. They do not cause businesses to pay workers more than the value they produce. McDonald"s could operate like Google, but that would hurt the low-income workers minimum-wage advocates want to help. --James Sherk, senior policy analyst, labor economics, The Heritage Foundation - See more at: https://des-edit.shrm.org...

The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Framework:The burden of this debate should be shared by both sides. As Pro, my opponent must prove the United States ought (implying obligation or necessity by logical consequence) to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pro should present the reasons for this on both pragmatic and moral grounds to fulfill the burden. Likewise, it is my definitive duty to prove, on moral and pragmatic grounds, the US ought NOT raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. With this out of the way, let's move to the actual arguments.Contention I: A $15 Wage Hike is Either Unfair or IndeterminableThe goal of a wage hike is to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. It's widely and commonly seen as a wage off of which one can live accompanied by the necessities in an acceptable standard of living. However, achieving this end is indeterminable. Whether it be $10.10, $15, $17, et cetera, there is no plausible or fair way to numerically calculate a just minimum wage on a federal playing field. The Huffington Post provides an article which reads, "Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that [individuals], both conservatives and liberals, aren’t well qualified to determine what’s an acceptable lifestyle for other people.” [1] Federal governments cannot adequately instigate a just or fair living wage for their citizens. It's simply unjust for a government, federal or otherwise, to impose a wage requirement deemed unjust by the employers and/or community.In many instances, this would be the case. Small communities, especially in areas where the cost of living is far lower than the norm. These areas, as well as others, suffer because of what the American Enterprise Institute notes, "disproportionate effects by location." [2] The cost of living differs from small, rural cities as opposed to bustling suburbias. Institutionalizing a "one-size-fits-all" system is bound to detriment at least one of the extremes. Contention II: Effects on Small BusinessesIf it were plausible to instigate a $15 living wage, we'd see dire circumstances shadow small businesses. The effects are compounded on these smaller businesses who can't effectively absorb the increase. Karen Heisler, co-owner of Mission Pie Bakery in San Francisco, California explains how her business would be affected. "Our business is dedicated to proving high quality food at as low a price as we can, but we won’t have room to achieve that. The most expensive meal on the menu is $8.50, a stew with vegetables and rice. Raising the minimum wage will have a huge impact, not this year but ultimately. It will probably require us to hire more experienced and skillful people. We will see a decrease in the number of businesses in the 20-employee range because it’s becoming impossible to make it because of the cost of operation." [3] A host of other businesses would be remarkably harmed, as noted by National Federation of Independent Business. [4] These results are even more significant when it is recognized that 48.5% of private-sector jobs are employed by small businesses, according to the US Small Business Administration. [5] Moreover, as the American Legislative Exchange Council asserts, small corporations have to stay competitive to stay open. They do so by keeping lower prices. [6] Adding to their burden would push them under, a potential detriment to nearly 50% of private-sector jobs.Contention III: A wage raise to $15 an hour displays a host of flaws.Perhaps one of the most important negative consequences to a minimum wage increase is unemployment concerns. Numerous studies indicate an increase in wages, especially one that more than doubles the current minimum, will facilitate job loss. The Congressional Budget Office claims that a potential 1 million jobs could be lost with only an increase to $10.10, which would only be furthered if the wage was increased nearly another $5 dollars. [7] With basic consideration of simplistic economic theory and logic, flaws become increasingly evident. The money to pay those workers a higher wage HAS to come from SOMEWHERE. If companies were already making plenty of profit, they'd adhere to labor unions demands of higher wages. I understand some large corporations could honestly support a higher wage with little harm, but as a utilitarian and federal policy, the minimum wage hike is a bad idea. Smaller corporations, especially, would have to do one of three things to compensate for paying higher wages: a) raise prices, b) cut hours, or c) cut workers. For option a, we know that wouldn't be a good thing. Logically, this entirely removes any benefit from a wage hike. If you get paid more money, but suddenly products are all more expensive, what is the gain? More money flowing, which can lead to inflation. Other than that, there isn't a benefit. You're back to where you started, without enough capital to pay for your necessities and comforts. For option b, we know this isn't a good things. Less hours equals less wages, so once again, you don't actually see the benefits of the wage hike in the first place. For option c, perhaps the most ominous, you see unemployment grow. Who, one might ask, is going to lose their job? It's obvious that a corporation wants to keep its best, most skilled, and better educated employees, and would be willing to pay higher wages for them. But what about the less skilled and uneducated employees? To the company, all things considered, they wouldn't be worth $15 dollars an hour. These would be the ones to lose their jobs, and they are the impoverished. More people without jobs would facilitate more reliance on welfare, which obviously isn't beneficial.Other studies indicated job losses, including ones from Miami and Trinity Universities [8], economists David Neumark and William Wascher [9], and a plethora of others. [10] [11] [12] Conclusion:I've provided a primarily logical and consequential argument as to why the federal minimum wage should not be raised. First, it's indeterminable. Second, it has location issues. Third, it harms small businesses, particularly. Fourth, it facilitates unemployment. Tying back, all of these things negate the resolution because of logical consequence. However, since the goal is to reduce poverty and stimulate economy, this means achieves no positive end. Thusly, it's immoral to implement a policy which reverts its intentions towards an ultimately immoral end. For this reason, vote Con.Sources:[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2] http://www.aei.org...[3] http://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://www.nfib.com...[5] https://www.sba.gov...[6] http://www.alec.org...[7] http://www.cbo.gov...[8] https://www.epionline.org...[9] http://www.nber.org...[10] http://www.nber.org...[11] http://www.ncpa.org...[12] https://www.aei.org...

Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "one would expect America"to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour." 2Nearly half (48.2%) of the 3 million hourly workers who were at or below the federal minimum in 2014 were ages 16 to 24. An additional 22.4% are ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant over the past decade. That 3 million represents about 2.3% of all wage and salary workers. (See more about the demographics of minimum-wage workers.) 3States With Minimum Wages Higher Than the FederalTwenty-nine states, plus the District of Columbia and nearly two dozen cities and counties, have set their own higher minimums. State hourly minimums range from $7.50 in Arkansas, Maine and New Mexico to $9.47 in Washington state, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Together, these states include 61% of the nation"s working-age (16 and over) population, according to our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. Among the cities that have enacted even higher local minimums are San Francisco ($15 by 2018), Seattle ($15 by 2021), Chicago ($13 by 2019) and San Diego ($11.50 by 2017), according to the National Employment Law Project. 4About 20.6 million people (or 30% of all hourly, non-self-employed workers 18 and older) are "near-minimum-wage" workers. We analyzed public-use microdata from the Current Population Survey (the same monthly survey that underpins the BLS"s wage and employment reports), and came up with that estimate of the total number of "near-minimum" U.S. workers " those who make more than the minimum wage in their state but less than $10.10 an hour, and therefore also would benefit if the federal minimum is raised to that amount. The near-minimum-wage workers are young (just under half are 30 or younger), mostly white (76%), and more likely to be female (54%) than male (46%). A majority (56%) have no more than a high-school education. 5The restaurant/food service industry is the single biggest employer of near-minimum-wage workers. Our analysis also found that 3.75 million people making near-minimum wages (about 18% of the total) worked in that industry. Among near-minimum workers aged 30 and younger, about 2.5 million (or nearly a quarter of all near-minimum workers in that age bracket) work in restaurants or other food-service industries. But because many of those workers presumably are tipped, their actual gross pay may be above $10.10 an hour. (Federal law, as well as wage laws in many states, allow tipped employees to be paid less as long as "tip credits" bring their pay up to at least the applicable minimum.)

Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens. Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front." Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage. Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities." Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants. Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour ï¿½ before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015. Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses. Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour ï¿½ before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase. Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum. Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally. Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage. Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers. Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips. Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses. Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy. Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised. Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase. Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices. Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office. Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support. Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a ï¿½last-one-hired-equals-first-one-firedï¿½ scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it. Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.

The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour The Cost of Living The problem with Pro's accusation is that he assumes I was arguing for abolishing the minimum wage. This is wrong, because I said no such thing. All I said was that it was ineffective, and it was better handled at the state or local level. Pro also seems to think that it was outside the scope of this debate, but no where in my resolution did I mention such a thing. All that is being argued is me opposing the $15 FEDERAL minimum wage. I can present any argument that I want, that shows that the United States of America shouldn't implement it. Pro says that I provided no data that shows a $15 dollar minimum wage causes unemployment, but how could I do that, when there isn't a National minimum wage? Instead I have shown minimum wage increases have resulted in unemployment, but Pro is ignoring that. Again, Pro is mistaking my arguments, and saying that a Federal Minimum wage isn't not decided by the states. That wasn't the point of my argument. It was to show that increasing the federal minimum wage is inefficient, but it something such as minimum wage is better handled at a state level. Pro is stating that the minimum wage is is designed to get a people to have a better standard of living, but he forget this is done at the expense of employees, who will soon be forced to pay people more than they are worth. Pro completely concedes my analogy with Des Moines and New York, on how a $15 dollar minimum wage doesnt take the cost of living into factor. Will lead to job lossPro is insisting that I provide an example of an employers. who fired people. When Wal-Mart hiked the minimum wage, it was expected it would fire 1000 employees. In another study, it showed that 38% of employers would fire workers if they were to hike the minimum wage to $10.10. Now you just need to imagine what that number would be if it were $15. Pro is saying that 52% of economists in that study support increasing the minimum wage , which is a complete lie. In the study itself, it only says 38% support increase the minimum wage. Now, we need to relook at this. What exactly is Pro proposing? A Federal $15 dollar minimum wage. If we use that criteria, only 16.7% support increasing by more than $1 per hour. However we don't actually know how high that number is, just it's more than $1. So it's likely that number is less than 16.7%. Having already refuted this argument, Pro clings onto the fact that several ecnonomists have supported President Obama's propsal to increase the minimum wage. I already mentioned that Obama's plan was to increase to $10.10, not $15. Pro's point ultimately falls flat because he has no evidence that shows ecnonomists would support a $15 minimum wage. Throughout the whole debate, he has cherry-picked economists that only either say increasing the minimum wage wouldn't cause substancial loss or have said they support increasing it to a number much smaller than $15. Finally, Pro gives us some examples of employees who get paid a minimum wage somewhat closer to his proposed $15 minimum wage. I can relate to this much better than the examples he provided earlier, although this is technically an argument, and not a rebutall. So, what Pro provided us is a minimum wage increase on a local level. As I have said before, I'm not opposed to a minimum wage increase in local levels, because I already acknowledged that the cost of living is quite different in different states and cities. In a state such as San Francisco, it makes a lot of sense, because the cost of living there is quite high, compared to other cities. The problem is that if we were to implement it nation-wide, other states or cities with low cost of livings, will suffer from things such as unemployment and inflation, because their workers will be paid more money than they are generating money. Pro is now saying that there is no evidence for job loss from a $15 dollar minimum wage. That is true, but I have shown there is evidence for job loss during minimum wage hikes with several studies done by economists. I even showed that Alan Kreuger, an ecnonomist who did a minimum wage study in New Jersey, opposed the minimum wage to $15. Does very little to help the poorIn this argument Pro is stating that I support abandoning the minimum wage because it does very little to help the poor. But this isn't the point of that argument. I showed with evidence that a minimum wage hike actually does make it harder for the poor to enter the workplace, which Pro doesn't adresss. Somehow, me saying we shouldn't raise it to $15 translates to "WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH" On top of that, Pro says it's a fallacy, but he doesn't he take the time to tell what kind of fallacy I committed. So, Pro fails to refute the negative impacts of raising the minimium wage, and instead resorts to calling my argument a fallacy. Which in fact, is a fallacy itself. EITCWhile I'll agree that this isn't a minimum wage, it doesn't mean it is outside the scope of the debate. I didn't just say we should expand EITC, but I also said it works better than a minimum wage, because it doesn't bring along the negative impacts of the minimum wage. Con concedes that, and is saying we should expand both. David Card’s studySo, earlier I said that the study didn't show proof that the minimum wage was a good thing. His reply is that those with the increase were happy with it. This isn't an acceptable rebutall, because who would be sad when they receive a pay raise? Why not just increase the minimum wage to $100, and those people will be even more happier. Does that mean it's a good thing? Not really. First of all I never said it was good science, and I'm not sure where Pro seems to get this from. And the point of my comment directly ties in with the comparision I made earlier with Des Moines and New York. The changes wouldn't be substancially different when compared to New Jersey and Pennslyania, but when we make it at Federal level, we see the problem it might cause. Pro has not refuted this. Pro says that I gave no reference to Alan Kreugers comment, but I clearly did. I gave a link to the comment, and I quoted his exact words. Also when Alan Kreguer made that comment, he was referring to Bernie Sander's proposal of $15. Bernie Sanders is running for president in 2016, so this comment is not outdated. Pro lies once again, and tries to present wrong information by saying he will assume this took place in 1992. Price IncreasesThis is precisely why I was confused in the beggining. I'm not sure why Pro is making arguments in my favor. But I'll go with it. Pro shows the prices of food items will go up, and this definetly doesn't indicate we should increase the minimum wage. Arguments Pro has concededA $15 Minimum wage create unemploymentThe minimum wage doesn't take the cost of living into factorEconomist such as Alan Kreuger are against it a $15 increase specificallyEITC will help people more than a $15 Minimum wageIncreasing the minimum wage will drive costs up in fast food restaurants60% of those in poverty aren't even workingThe majority of economists are against a raise, and support Abolishing itSources:. http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...http://www.zerohedge.com...http://www.breitbart.com... I urge voters to vote Con, because I have shown the harmful impacts of raising the Federal minimum wage to $15, and I also provided a much better solution in the form of a tax break, which would work better than a minimum wage in reducing poverty.

Raising the minimal wage Thank you for accommodating to my inexperience, and I again apologize for the forfeit I want to start by rebutting some of my opponents arguments. Con argues that people with lower wages will have more incentive to work harder, and people with high minimum wage will have less. However, in numerous studies done by Harvard and The Center for Economic Policy Research and the Center for Law and Social Policy found that people who were paid more worked harder and were happier. 44% showed that moral went up, 35% showed that they worked harder, and wasted substantially less time. When a business owner sees the benefits from increasing wages, they will want to implement it. My opponent also claims that businesses will loose money, but because of basic economics, this is not true. Simple equation: Employee works to make goods, employee gets paid, uses money to buy goods, employer has more money. If somebody has more money to spend, it will help the economy because they will use that and the money will end up back in the economy. Now, if the employer also works more because increased incentive to work, then the business will have even more goods to sell. My opponent brings up that not everything can be fair to everybody, which is a ridiculous argument. Just because not everybody is going to get fair treatment all the time, doesn't mean we should allow people to not get the wages they deserve. These people work hard and still don't get a living wage, and its not fair. You are right, not everybody will get the same thing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. My opponent also says " I haven't seen any real reason why rich people making lots of money is actually a bad thing" Well, let me educate you. When a small percent of a population is making so much more money than everybody else, that is bad economics. A successful society is one where wealth doesn't only belong to one group of individuals. Ever heard of Rome? Rome fell because the rich had all the food and the poor starved, and this is an example of poor economic stability that leads to the end of a civilization. I want to bring up a point I mentioned in my first round. It was that the government can save money. If people are able to get paid more, and the economy grows due to more purchasing of goods, then those who relay on government money and health care can have enough income to become economically independent, which allows the government to save money and not spend so much money because these people are more financially sound. We can use this saved money to pay for public education and other things that would help people get better jobs because they have a better education. People work hard everyday and don't get the living wages they deserve. They are getting ripped off by a small handfull of people that have all the money but don't share it. We need to give these low income people something to work for, and a way to rise up out of the poverty line and show that they can work hard and make it in this country. Raising the minimum wage will help these people feed their children and family. Help those in need of hope, and give them something to do their job besides the non-living wage of 7 dollars.

Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised For one, much of your argument is copied directly or altered in some way from your first source. This can be deemed plagiarism. Nonetheless, allow me to continue on with my rebuttal. Stating that 600 economists agree will be analogous to global warming. Few scientists state that it is not real, and many state that it is real and man made. You see, when minimum wage is increased by any percentage, that not only kills job growth in the working class sector, but it also makes it awfully hard for an American company to compete with, let's say, a Chinese company. China has very little regulation on business, which is why they are now becoming the world's best economy. Our GDP growth has actually halted, and it is now going down. Jobs have already been leaving as China devalues their currency and we don't. It is very difficult to set a fair national minimum wage. "For example, if Des Moines, Iowa, had a minimum wage of $10.10, that would only equal a $4.12 per hour rate when measured by the real costs of working and living in New York City. On the other hand, it would take $24.77 to equal the Des Moines rate." [1] A study that came out a couple of years ago showed that over 60% of the people in poverty do not work at all. The ones that do work, however, do not work full-time. If you increased minimum wage, it would be exceptionally difficult for any man or woman living in poverty to find a job under any circumstances. Higher wages will kill wage competition, which is a big part of business. Ideally, if one business pays more then the other, those will flock to that one business. Like I have stated previously, a raise in minimum wage would destroy jobs throughout. Minimum wage was created for teenagers and college students that were looking to make some money on the side. It was no means meant for adults with families. If you are stupid and lazy and are working at McDonalds, that is primarily your fault; but, I digress. Not only will it hurt jobs, but it is a direct government legislation of the freedom of contract. "He argues that if even the most basic of jobs were able to support individuals without any additional effort or improvement, there would be no incentives for many to endure the effort to rise above their position. In other words, the low compensation should serve as an incentive to progress and a disincentive to accept the status quo." [1] The higher prices that come with a minimum wage increase hurt the lower classes tremendously. Prices have doubled in cities across the nation, including Chicago, as their minimum wage increased. Minimum wage is regional. If you have lots of poverty in one city and many minimum wage jobs, then maybe it would be smart to raise it. But on a federal level, you would effectively be legislating dozens of millions of jobs that do not need unnecessary legislative action. A federal minimum wage of $10.10 would destroy over 500,000 jobs; a federal minimum wage of $10.10 would effectively force most local businesses out of business and would force almost every single industrial sector job into a different nation, such as China. Also, I just do not see that 10 or even 15 dollars is a deserving compensation for someone loading groceries or flipping burgers and taking orders. If everything is guaranteed by the government and then given to you, there will be no need to improve. Additionally, let me add that some college jobs make $13 an hour as starting salary. If minimum wage is increased, you would have to bump every single job in total to compensate as a form of competition as well as price increases. I would certainly not go to college to make $13 an hour when I could be making 15 without any education. It would make college almost useless, because if you can live with a certain wage, you will be content with that wage. Sources [1]http://www.republicanreader.com... [2]http://www.forbes.com... [3]http://www.valuesandcapitalism.com...

The federal minimum wage should be increased I know some people are forced to work minimum wage, but many dropouts have the opportunity to keep going in their education and chose not to because of the enticing pay and easier work. You mention people would be paid more, but you either get paid more or get paid nothing since many people end up getting laid off. I think it would be better if more people had jobs, but the jobs paid less then less people getting work but those who do get paid more. You mention we would get 9.5 billion dollars into the economy, but the quality of the economy itself would decrease, considering there would be less jobs and the jobs lack the quality they used to. This would make it harder for anyone to find jobs in the first place, hurting the economy further. It would be like pumping money into the economy, but getting nothing back in return. You seem to be focusing on just the benefits to the poor, while in doing so you are hurting everyone else. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about 5% of US hourly paid workers for for or below the federal minimum wage. Out of these, most are young, unskilled, high school dropouts. Consider this situation- the wage increases, and since they have to pay more the corporation has to fire some employees. Who are they going to fire; unskilled, younger people with a lower education, or educated people with more experience and skills? The choice is obvious! This would hurt the poor more than help them, because instead of a lower paying jobs they would end up with nothing. I get they can't get out of the poor cycle and some are unable to attain good education, but now they are completely unable to obtain a job rather than get one, albeit with low pay. But some money is better than none. So, we've established that minimum wage jobs are usually taken by unskilled and generally uneducated people who are poor. Since they are poor, they can't get a good education, so basically they are forced into a lower paying job. But why should they get paid more? Sadly, they are unskilled so they should do a basic job. Is there a reason to give these people more money for bagging groceries and flipping burgers? What i'm trying to say is the amount of money they get is proportional to the amount of work they do and how hard the job is. We'd be giving them more money for doing a basic job that doesn't take much intelligence to complete. Once again, this higher wage would hurt small businesses more than help them. Since they aren't a large corporation, they aren't as affluent and usually have lower pay for workers. Now, they have to pay their workers more. This would make it a lot easier for small businesses to go bankrupt, and they wouldn't be able to give their workers usual job benefits. Again, the quantity and quality of jobs would go down. Your main point is that a higher minimum wage would help people get out of a low income cycle, when it would do just the opposite. Many people who made low income would end up with no income since they had to get laid off, and small business owners who make less as it is would struggle to get by. Smaller/family businesses would definitely suffer. Sources- fff.org, Huffington Post News website

Minimum wage should be increased in the US. My opponent claims that those working on a minimum wage deserves an increased pay. But why so? What my opponent has failed to realize is that a simple increase of one dollar causes an increase of about 1.327 million dollars (per hour) for the US as a whole. Now let's be realistic. The US has a debt nearly the size of its GDP. The US is using basically stealing money from its citizens as it uses money from social security already piled up. Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage? Frankly, no. Even though it may be beneficial towards those working on minimum wage, as a whole, it would greatly impact the US. Furthermore, if so many people are working on minimum wage, the most effective way to better the income issue would be to increase the education of individuals, therefore increasing the amount of opportunities coming their way. Instead of using whatever insufficient, excess money that the US has on increasing minimum wage, why not better the public infrastructure? When increasing public infrastructure, it allows individuals to have better access to education (for example schools and libraries), ultimately increasing the capability of citizens in the US. Obviously, once public infrastructure is bettered and mean tested welfare programs are back and running, we cannot allow for there to be any leeway for the increasing of minimum wage. Maybe, when the US gets it debt substantially lower than its GDP, then there may be a chance for minimum wage to be increased. Even then, it would most likely be better not to increase minimum wage annually but maybe every couple of years. But until then, no course of action should be taken.

Raise Minimum Wage Thank you ConceptEagle for instigating this debate. Pro has the burden of proof for challenging the status quo and making the positive claim. As Con, my job is to cast doubt on his case. I will present my own arguments and a rebuttal.C1) EmploymentA higher minimum wage would increase the financial burden of companies to support their workers. Because companies will need to pay their employees more, some will be forced to lay off more workers and cut job opportunities for future laborers. More layoffs would lead to higher unemployment, with less money circulating through the economy. There is a positive correlation between higher minimum wage and unemployment rates [http://dailycaller.com...]C2) IncentiveWorkers who are being paid with a lower minimum wage will be more prompted to work harder and receive more education in order to get a higher paying job and climb the income ladder than those who are being paid at a higher minimum wage. Burger flippers will have more of an incentive to look for a better job if they are just being paid at $7.25 versus being paid at $10.10. Better jobs and more education will not only help the lower and middle classes but the economy as well, since jobs contribute to the labor market and further education will bring more money into colleges. A higher minimum wage prevents workers from wanting to moving up, since they are being paid more at a lower job.R1) Life necessitiesPro claims that a higher minimum wage will provide more money for workers to live on and to survive on better. As mentioned above, raising it will cause less workers to actually find the job they are looking for to survive in their country. If the minimum wage is raised, less workers will be motivated to move up and earn even more money for their family to live off of. If people need to earn the necessary money, then we need to give them motivation to do it, not spoonfeed them. A minimum wage of $16.97 will encourage people to not move up, but instead be a burden for businesses.

Raising Minimum Wage "In the end, the trade-off is clear. People who keep their jobs get more money; those who lose their jobs, or fail to get new ones, suffer."Pretty much. "According to recent research by Richard V. Burkhauser and Joseph J. Sabia if federal minimum wage were increased from $7.25 an hour to $9.50 an hour, only 11.3% of workers who would gain from the increase belong to poor households. [1]"So raising the minimum wage doesnt just help out the poor, it helps out everyone. Got it. "Raising the minimum wage is therefore an ineffective anti-poverty proposal."But raising the minimum wage benefits more then just those living in poverty as you said earlier. It helps lower, middle, and in some cases even upper classes alike... It still helps those 11.3% of people who do live in poor households as well, and not many other economic moves/forces can potentially reduce poverty by 11.3% "One of the more effective methods to helping those in poverty is a tax credit for those in poverty"They also have to be paid by the federal government with money it clearly doesnt have, whereas the minimum wage doesnt cost them nearly as much.... While tax credits do help the poor, that doesnt deny that the minimum wage still has its benefits and overall can be a net positive if used correctly. "A great example of what would happen if the minimum wage was raised is my very own workplace...... (30 minutes later)... Plenty of small businesses across the country would go under. "Most minimum wage jobs though ARE owned by big service industry giants like McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King, etc. In fact of the 3.8 million people who work on the minimum wage in the US, well over half of them work in service industries that are primarily food services, namely restaurants and fast-food chains. http://www.bls.gov...That means that raising the minimum wage would primarily effect workers who work for companies that make millions, even billions of dollars a year... Companies that could afford to take a hit like that and still operate business as usual without a tremendous loss of jobs that were poorly paid anyways. In addition to the 50% who work on the minimum wage in the food service industry, another 30% who work on the minimum wage work for retail stores such as Macy's, JCPenny, Walmart, Target, etc who also make millions a year and could more then afford to pay increased wages without being driven into bankruptcy. http://www.bls.gov...==========================================================================================Yes, raising the minimum wage costs job, no one in their right mind will dispute that. But a majority of people who do work minimum wage work for corporate giants who can afford to pay out increased wages without being driven into ruin, and raising the minimum wage helps more then just those living in poverty, it helps the lower and middle class alike. There is also one last argument for raising the minimum wage: curbing inflationhttp://www.financialramblings.com...Inflation has chewed away at the buying power of the dollar so much, that the $7.25 minimum wage today is the market equivalent of making $1.25 back in 1956......So lets look at 2 scenarios:If the minimum wage stays at its current level and inflation continues to grow, then the buying power of the dollar will only decrease over time and cause more people who do work minimum wage to fall into poverty or deeper into poverty. There arent enough tax credits in the world to counter such prospects, especially since those come right out of the federal budget which has a problem with not being balanced. So people go into/deeper into poverty, and the government spends a sh*tload of money it doesnt have to help these people get out of it assuming it chooses to, when it easily could decide not to. Thats what we end up with if we dont raise the minimum wage by just a smidge.On the other hand, if we DO raise the minimum wage it helps out both lower and middle class families, it helps a considerable number of people who are living in poverty get out of poverty (depending on how much it is raised by), and most of these minimum wage jobs are jobs that are owned by massive companies that could afford to pay for such wages without being driven into bankruptcy while other non-retail and non-service sector business do take a bit of a hit. The minimum wage will cause some jobs to be lost yes, but jobs can be added and created just by having a healthy economy and letting the free market be free. What cant be curbed naturally is poverty and inflation, which are the two main things that a raise on the minimum wage can impact the most. That is why I feel the minimum wage should be raised at some point in the future by a reasonable amount.

The Government should not raise the Minimum Wage Thank you for the case ProLet me point out a few things that led up the the Legislation of minimum wage that Roosevelt instituted back in 1938. You have the Federal Reserve starting in 1913, lax borrowing that Americans used to gamble on Wall Street (creating the Roaring 20's). Let by a recall of the loans, sucking the money out of the market, leading to the crash, leading to the confiscation of American's wealth (outlaw gold), followed by many progressive types of legislation (including the minimum wage). You have to keep in mind that with the legislation of a minimum wage, there were also minimum hours required too. The U.S. federal minimum wage was first established during the Depression, and it has risen from 25 cents to $7.25 per hour since it was first instituted in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Despite the increases, inflation has eroded its value; returning it to the value it held in 1968 would require an increase to nearly $10 per hour. - See more at: http://journalistsresource.org...Keep in mind, I'm stating that the minimum wage must be increased (to basically keep pace with inflation). Not saying I'm in favor of any specific dollar amount (ie. $10, $15, $20 a hour), but in due time, it will have to reach these dollar amounts eventually. To support my argument, I will be focusing on inflation (monetary).Based on our current fiat monetary system, the money supply is dependant on the creation of debt to create new money to put into circulation. We didn't see practically an inflation (aside from a few wars), until the creation of the federal reserve in 1913. So the ideas of minimum wage couldn't have even been contemplated until we started to have a decrease in our purchasing power. Of course, with Bretton Woods and the stealing of our gold by the federal government, resulted in a 57% drop in the value of our dollar overnight. In your last two paragraphs, may I mention that those individuals are basing their estimated projections from setting the minimum wage at a set dollar amount ($15). I cannot argue with their projections, I however am taking the stance that (Minimum wage in General, will have to increase).

The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Since we are now in our last round, I would like to avoid a tax debate with you. It is a very deep and interesting topic and I would be more than happy to discuss it in a separate debate. For now, allow me to make my final point. Minimum wage is an excellent way to stimulate the economy. in fact, it is one of the only ways to do so without federal spending, which increases national debt. Economic theory tells us that if wages were to increase, consumers would buy more products, pay off debts, and/or start saving more money. In all three of these instances more money is being put into the economy. Since businesses are taxed and regulated so heavily in America, much of this capital is being sucked out of circulation via the multitudes of business taxes. If the minimum wage were to increase, we would see stimulus in the economy. The Circular flow model Since I am unsure how to post pictures on this site, I will try to illustrate this concept to the best of my ability with words. In the product market, firms sell goods and services which are purchased by households. Households in turn, provide labor, capital, natural resources, and entrepreneurship on the resource market, which is purchased by firms. In the product market, Households provide expenditure, which is turned into revenue for firms. Firms then convert that revenue into wages, rent, interest, and profit. These things are turned into income for households. Although record high worker productivity has allowed businesses to earn more revenue, we have not seen similar growth in the wages of workers. If you can imagine that the circular flow model functions as a wheel (capitalism) an increase in any one section should lead to an increase in all of the others, but instead wages increasing corporate profits are receiving this benefit. This is why much of this extra revenue is sucked out of circulation by taxation. If wages increased to meet, or at the very least be closer to, worker productivity, this would allow the wheel of capitalism to turn even faster. While this theory is widely accepted by economists, there is empirical evidence that shows this same truth. There was a study done by Eric French and Daniel Aaronson, economists at the federal reserve bank in Chicago, that showed the effects of raising the minimum wage on aggregate household spending. They estimated that a $1.75 increase in the minimum wage would increase consumer spending by $26 billion dollars. Finally, I would like to cite one last piece of empirical evidence. Economists Alan B. Kreuger and David Card conducted a study that analyzed the Full time employment effects on the fast food industry in 1992, when Pennsylvania had it's minimum wage at $4.25, and New Jersey's minimum wage was at $5.05. New Jersey experienced an employment increase in the industry, Pennsylvania experienced an employment decline. If this were to happen on a federal level as well, the employment increase would definitely lead to economic stimulus. I hope this debate has enlightened you just as much as it has myself, and I hope I convinced at least some of you that raising the minimum wage to $12.50 would benefit the economy. I'd like to close by thanking my opponent for an excellent debate and I am anxiously awaiting our results. Thank You! sources: Chicago Fed Letter: How Does a Federal Minimum Wage Hike Affect Aggregate Household Spending? By Daniel Aaronson and Eric French Minimum Wages and employment: A case study in the Fast Food industry of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. By Alan B. Kreuger and David Card Microeconomics: A Contemporary introduction. By William A. McEachern Special Thanks to my mentor, whose name I am hesitant to publish on the internet, for guiding me in myriad ways throughout this journey. I wouldn't have debated nearly as effectively without you.

The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 It seems my opponent also dropped all of my round 3 arguments, so each of them still stand. My opponent has brought up only new arguments in this round, which is usually seen as poor conduct, but I'm okay with it because I still get to respond to it since I'm second to post arguments. Now, I will address points by my opponent:Although record high worker productivity has allowed businesses to earn more revenue, we have not seen similar growth in the wages of workersActually, we have been having wage growth. A look at the past 50 years or so shows that the only times we didn't have much growth were during recessions. Otherwise, we've been averaging around a 4-5% increase in wages every month. [6] There was a study done by Eric French and Daniel Aaronson, economists at the federal reserve bank in Chicago, that showed the effects of raising the minimum wage on aggregate household spending. They estimated that a $1.75 increase in the minimum wage would increase consumer spending by $26 billion dollars.There's more than just one way to increase consumer spending. Lowering the prices of products would also allow people to purchase more. Raising the minimum wage, as I showed, would result in prices of products rising. So, while people would be spending more, they still would likely only be able to afford the same amount of products they did previously. It doesn't really change anything. Because of the fact that employers would have to pay their employees more, it means their profit margins go down, and that results in them raising their prices. It doesn't have any net effect on the purchasing power of consumers. Spending more doesn't necessarily stimulate the economy, what really does is to increase the purchasing power of people so that they can buy more things. Simply making them spend more doesn't necessarily do anything, because how they are spending more is due to prices rising. What really does something to the economy is increase purchasing power. To increase purchasing power, getting rid of those taxes I mentioned would do so. There is another number of ways of increasing purchasing power, such as having wages go up when prices remain the same or go down, and when prices of products go down while wages stay the same or go up. Having wages go up but prices go up at the same time and rate does nothing for the economy because it doesn't increase purchasing power. A minimum wage increase would result in prices going up, as the study I provided earlier, which you didn't refute, showed.Finally, I would like to cite one last piece of empirical evidence. Economists Alan B. Kreuger and David Card conducted a study that analyzed the Full time employment effects on the fast food industry in 1992, when Pennsylvania had it's minimum wage at $4.25, and New Jersey's minimum wage was at $5.05. New Jersey experienced an employment increase in the industry, Pennsylvania experienced an employment decline. If this were to happen on a federal level as well, the employment increase would definitely lead to economic stimulus.This only proves correlation. For one, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are two completely different states which have different state government policies. A number of things could have affected the employment level of the two states. To claim the minimum wage increase is the reason for it is a logical fallacy. Unless you rule out all other potential reasons for the employment difference, this study doesn't prove anything except for correlation. In fact, logic would tell us that minimum wage increases would result in a lowering of employment, because employers wouldn't be able to afford to have as many employees. To claim that the employment rose due to the minimum wage difference is an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinary evidence. Showing correlation doesn't prove it. As the congressional budget office points out, a raise in minimum wage would likely elliminate jobs[7] So, because logic tells us that a minimum wage increase would result in the loss of jobs, there was likely some other reason why New Jersey saw an increase in employment and pennsylvania saw a decrease in employment. This study also suggests that raises in minimum wage decreases job growth[8]. They originally were going into the study with the belief that minimum wage had no effect on employment levels, but discovered that it negatively affects job growth. In conclusion, I believe since there were several important points that I brought up which my opponent dropped, and that I believe I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments, you should vote con for arguments.Sources:[6] http://www.tradingeconomics.com... [7] https://www.cbo.gov... [8] http://people.tamu.edu...

The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I will be arguing that he Federal Goveronment should not raise the minimum wage for a number of reasons: Reason #1 - The intention of the minimum wage - The minimum wage is just a entrance wage, thus it should not be something you can live comfortably off of, because the idea is you're supposed to work, invest, and get a better job over time. Furthermore, the minimum wage was invented to protect workers from corporate greed. Reason #2 - The Constitution - The Consdtitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a Federal minimum wage, rather, under the Tenth Amendment, as this power isn't prohibited to the states, the power to establish a minimum waste should be given to the states respectively (state minimum wages), or to the people (labour unions) Reason #3 - Economics - In the United States, we are having an inflation rate of 8-13%, and raising the minimum wage will only make it worse. Besides, raising the minimum wage will harm small businesses the most, and since 60% of new jobs come from small businesses, this will significantly raise the unemployment rate.

Raise Minimum Wage Thanks for the debate Pro!ObservationsMy opponent has attempted to change his initial arguments. This is unethical because it forces me to change some of my arguments and means that Pro concedes all the points I made against a $16.97 wage, including much of the life necessities contention. By switching goalposts, he is backtracking his opening statement and argument. Not only was I not notified about this change, Pro decided to make it in the very last round. Judges, please note that this is unfair and poor conduct on Pro's part.As challenger of the status quo, my opponent must show is significantly beneficial to raise the minimum wage. If our arguments are equal, then my side wins as it is already the status quo.PovertyThe life necessities and poverty arguments go hand in hand, since the poverty rate decreasing is proof that impoverished workers are actually getting what they need and making their circumstances better off. This is the most important argument as it is the base of Pro's initial contentions.The minimum wage increase would have little to no effect on the poverty rate because few minimum wage workers come from poor households, meaning there are hardly any of these workers that the change would actually affect. It cannot bring hardly anyone out of poverty, because hardly anyone is impoverished! An increase would only affect the small amount of MW workers, of which a tiny amount have financial struggles. We must also acknowledge that poor people in America are quite richer than many other countries.Those second and third claims from the poverty rate study I brought up do support the claim that raising the minimum wage wouldn't reduce poverty, because (1) not enough poor workers exist that the raise could have an actual effect on, and (2) raising the wage does not help for the majority of poor workers who don't even work for any wage, so it makes no difference to them. Also, "having little impact" does not mean that the effect is positive, it means that the poverty rate may or may have not have changed due to the raise, which we cannot assume helped it since the poverty rate is affected by several different factors.Since few MW workers are poor and most of them are pretty young, then we can logically assume that affording education should not be a big problem for them, especially since it doesn't take much education to get a job that pays higher than the minimum wage. Many MW workers only get a high school diploma, so keep the limit at bay will be a good push for them to go to college, even if it's community college, to learn, earn, and climb the income ladder.We must note that Pro has not provided any evidence of his own to show that a raise would reduce the poverty rate, so his case just isn't strong enoughEmploymentPro contradicts himself twice, first by making arguments for a $10.10 wage yet citing economists who advocate a much higher wage: $15 an hour by Nick Hanauer; and second by stating that the CBO indicates a 500k to 1 million loss of jobs due to the raise of the minimum wage while the CEBR states the opposite with less jobs in states with lower minimum wages. He accounts for the job loss prediction of the CBO by saying that it doesn't account for a longer job growth span. Obviously job growth will even out again over time since the US dollar is constantly losing value to due inflation, making it so that a minimum wage increase would have a more significant effect at first but would become more accustomed to the economy later. However, the job loss would be greater overall. When the US minimum wage was raised in three increments from 2007 to 2009 ($5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour) , the effect was not job growth but instead a devastating economic recession that killed millions of jobs. True, we have gained jobs since then, but no one can admit that we would have been better off with a recession. The short-term effects are what matter most as they tend to be more of a shocker than long-term effects.My opponent commits two logical fallacies to try to overturn my evidence. The first is the Genetic Fallacy [http://www.nizkor.org...] where Pro accuses my source of being "right winged". He is attempting to dismiss my source because the economists are of a different ideology than him, instead of actually looking at the data and numbers I provided. He also commits the Appeal to Authority Fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org...] by stating that his source is probably right because his economists have more PhDs than mine do. This is not a rebuttal because he is relying on irrelevant factors to try to discredit my sources without even attempting to show why it is wrong. The data from the American Action Forum actually comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so I can't see how it's biased anyways.Pro's reliance on predictions and economist guesses aren't strong enough to make an endurable argument. He attempts to make the case that states who raised the minimum wage have more job growth, but cherry picks the data. According to the graph in his CEPR source, the two states who had the highest job growth did not raise the minimum wage, while the state with the lowest job growth raised it. The scattered data of the states in between don't show any strong correlation between employment and a higher MW. This evidence only shows data from growth over 10 months and from 2013 MW hikes, but ignores state wage increases from 2012 and 2014 that could also influence the data.The data I provided in Round 1 (which Pro ignored) shows a clear increase in unemployment and job reduction in states with minimum wages above $7.25 versus states at or below the federal wage. In fact, raising the MW by just one dollar still has a significant effect on the unemployment rate. "Raising the minimum wage to an amount that is closer towards a livable wage(one that does not force the earner to rely on public generosity and or government assistance; independence) would not cause the earners to lose their drive to climb the financial ladder" - ProIt actually would because workers who are more satisfied with their incomes would not have as much of a desire to get themselves out of financial problems. Pro's logic for this doesn't really make sense, because dissatisfaction fuels incentive. If I'm getting a D in a class at school, I am more inclined to work harder than if I am earning a B.ConclusionPro's main argument is that raising the minimum wage will help workers earn what they need. However, I have proved that few MW workers are actually poor and that raising the wage really does not have an effect on the poverty rate, so this idea just does not hold. Unemployment would increase as a result of raising the wage, along with less incentive to work. The cons simply outweigh the pros. My opponent's opposing arguments are full of speculation, fallacies, cherry picking, and guesses, and do not provide solid evidence like mine does. Thus, he has not been successful in holding his end of the BoP. Judges, vote to negate.

Should Minimum Wage Be Raised To 15 Dollars Point A: "A job that requires no skill or risk should not be paid like a job that requires skill."I have two primary arguments to this:1. All jobs must must sustain, or there is no purpose for the job in the first place.If a job pays a wage that cannot sustain a family or even an individual, the job serves no reputable purpose for the society. If an inhumane act enhances society, it is counter-inuitive. A job that consistently pays an inadequate wage cannot be just. The societal welfare, as the primary value, can only be upheld if justice is kept.Editorial, THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 12, 2014"As for New York City, $13.13 an hour is well below the self-sufficiency standards that budget experts use to gauge how much families need to meet basic daily expenses. These standards show that a family in the Bronx in 2010 with two adults and two young children needed each adult to make at least $15.69 an hour; higher hourly minimums were needed in most of Manhattan and the other boroughs."2. Many individuals cannot afford college.My opponent trys to allude to the notion that individuals should pursue college rather than entering the workforce. However, many individuals simply cannot afford the expense of college. By no fault of their own, a substantial quantity of individuals are in poverty. Thus, they cannot afford college. Discriminating the job market against those who are poor is unjust and immoral. Therefore, we should raise the minimum wage to compensate for such disparity.Point B: "People have an opportunity to go to college whether it is through a 529 plan or debt and this can allow them to receive a skilled job"I have three primary arguments to this:1. Once again, many individuals cannot afford college.As I have explained multiple times before, some people cannot afford college. In case my opponent fails to understand this, I will provide another credible source as evidence to back up my claim.Mark Trumbull, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, November 6, 2014"This is not a partisan issue for working folks, but a practical one," said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP). "People understand that $7.25 is not nearly enough to make ends meet."If people are in poverty, and can only achieve an education worthy of a fast food job, they should be justified to have a job. They are citizens and human beings just as everyone else is, and should be able to get a job that pays them enough to sustain themselves and their family.2. People exist in poverty by no fault of their own.There are people who are in poverty by no fault of their own. Often times, this is a result of either a lackluster parent or past economic trouble/recession. Because of these complications, they are often left in poverty, and are not plausibly able to help themselves in a reasonable manner. They need a job. But they often find they are worse off than before getting the job. They don't receive unemployment, but have to work for little pay, that often is less than welfare. This results in a vast populace "fudging the system" so to speak, or not working. This is in no way beneficial to the government when we have people taking money, without doing anything to help the circulation and production of more money (bettering the economy).3. Fast-food workers do more than fill drinks.Although most fast food jobs are not difficult, they also are jobs that skilled workers would not want. If we didn't have these people working these jobs, we would be without the benefits of hamburgers and french fries. However, we must ensure that these people can make enough money to get out of poverty, as the status quo does not provide.Michael Lerner, TIKKUN, Spring 2014"At the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, a full-time worker makes only $15,080 in a year--well below the poverty line for a family of three."Plus, these fast food workers also a) cook food, b) wait on customers, c) work the cash register, d) run the drive-thru, e) clean the tables, and finally d) clean the restrooms. These jobs, especially the dirty ones, warrant at least a livable wage.Point C by my opponent has already been covered.Point D: "How is it that we are able to grow our economy with increased wages."I have three main arguments to this point:1. Extra earnings = extra spendingIf people have more money, the nature of man will spend it for him.Bryce Covert, Economic Policy editor, Think Progress, December 19, 2013"Because low-wage workers are much more likely to spend extra earnings, raising their wages can boost economic activity when consumer spending is low. The report finds that 27.8 million workers would get a raise with a higher wage. Author David Cooper looked at this boost in spending while accounting for any increased labor costs for employers and potentially small price increases for consumers and still found that an increase would give growth a bump. Other studies have found that raising the minimum wage would be good for growth, such as one from the Chicago Fed."As we can see, we have credible evidence and studies that support the notion that economic growth will be found when distributing higher wages. 2. More distribution of money creates a more open marketWith more money circulating through the system, we find other countries more willing to trade, as they see individuals in our country are doing well and sustaining themselves. This will also allow a more diversified field of study for individuals wishing to enter the job force. It also encourages a more open job market, giving incentive for people to work. If they know they will have enough to sustain themselves, and perhaps a bit more, they will be more willing to work.3. Outsourcing is solved As I have already brought up evidence to prove, raising wages will combat outsourcing. I will once again bring up that piece of evidence for crystallization and clarity.Rachel Harvey, Bachelor of Science in Foreign Science, Georgetown University, University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2003“The living wage movements responds to the trend of outsourcing, in which governments contract out government services to private firms. The private firms pay lower wages in order to have the lowest bid and win the government contract. Thus, by contracting out work to private companies, the city saves money at the expense of low-wage workers.Living wage advocates reason that, because low-wage workers’ wages fall so far below the poverty level, these works must turn to the government for support. However, with a living wage, these workers could have supported themselves.The living wage campaign aims to halt this process and prevent workers from living in poverty and having to rely on the government programs in order to survive."If we use this system, it is bound to be not only beneficial, but better than the status quo.My opponent has failed to refute or even argue any of the points that I brought up. That leaves me with the following arguments still standing:1. A living wage hosts vital economic benefits.a. Living wages bolster the economy and doesn't result in unemployment.b. Higher wages ensure quality jobs2. Inflation is not a reasonable counter to higher wages.3. Higher wages will uphold societal welfare and is pragmatic.

The US Minimum wage ought to be raised substantially. My apologies to Pro and the readers. I won't sully the argument with excuses. The US Minimum wag should not be substantially raised. Economic Reasons The reasons for this are, largely, economic. For one, as anyone who has studied basic economics knows, when you set a floor of a price, it creates a gap between supply and demand. Labor is a supply that workers create as demand for labor increases. For example, if you are offered a job at 40 hours per week at $10 per hour, you would agree to give your time as labor or search for a better offer. Employers set their demand based on the amount of labor they require to create products demanded. When demand for a product is high, demand for labor is also high to create the product, as well as the inverse. A good example of this can be found here: https://www.boundless.com... (I'm not sure how to post graphics, I apologize.) MOST MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS WORK FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS Labor costs are one of, if not the largest source of cost for any business. Fast Food franchises are hardly an exception, and spend between 30-35% of their costs on average on salary alone (1) Mostly, fast food "restaurants" employ minimum wage workers. These are largely franchises who pay a fee to the corporate structure to license their name and buy their food from them. They make, on average, $50k per year (2). A $1 increase per hour per unit of labor would increase the cost drastically. A Forbes article calculated that a franchise owner would lose approximately $20k per year from a $1 increase in cost (3). THE AVERAGE MINIMUM WAGE WORKER IS NOT SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSEHOLD INCOME About 3% of workers over the age of 25 make the minimum wage or less (not counting tips for tipped workers, such as servers or valet). This undoubtedly accounts for much of the lack of strong evidence of minimum wage effects on the economy as a whole. It is also worth mentioning that those receiving Social Security benefits are capped at how much money the are allowed to make before financial penalties kick in (4). Pro's argument will rely on data from some noted economists (Krugman et al) that purports to show no negative consequences to employment, or at best no consensus. However, a literature review conducted by Neumark and Wascher (5), shows that most analysis are borderline negative at best. True, there is no clear consensus, but, at a time of record unemployment and instability in the low-skill market, is it wise to add more instability? Also, it must be mentioned that, while employment numbers alone may not be calculated discernibly negatively, overall economic factors, such as hours worked, raises, benefits, prices of product, etc are often negatively impacted (6). With the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), small business owners are already eyeing their bottom line and considering whether or not they can afford to hire. 48% in a survey said they have frozen hiring and 19% have reduced their number of employees as a direct result (7). It is important to note that many of the studies showing lack of elasticity at minimum wage levels for employment are conducted during the 1990's and mid 2000's, both times of economic expansion. When economic conditions for growth are already small or stagnant, anything that could slow the pace of growth is not necessarily a good idea. MINIMUM WAGES DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT VARIANCE IN COST OF LIVING. The cost of living varies wildly by location in the US. The most extreme examples are comparing Manhattan, NY to Harlingen, TX, the most and least expensive places to live by average cost of living. The cost is nearly triple (8). Considering the poor pay a significantly higher portion of their income on housing and utilities, it makes sense that adjustments to the cost of living should correlate to any minimum wage (9). ANY MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD BE DONE ON THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL As my previous point alludes to, contrary to Pro, I believe in minimum wages being set at the municipal level, based on local cost of living. If minimum wage is set to $10, it won't cover basic minimum in New York, but will be more than enough for significant disposable income in Texas. This is not a major point of my argument, but more to show my point of view. In conclusion to opening salvo, I emphasise that, in a wildly varied economic society, national minimum wages will stifle economies in poorer areas while not contributing to economies in larger ones. I hope voters will get past my 1st round snafu and accept my argument for what it truly is. Vote Con 1: http://www.cbsnews.com... 2: http://work.chron.com... 3: http://www.forbes.com... 4: http://www.ssa.gov... 5: ftp://ftp.iza.org... 6: http://www2.gsu.edu... 7: http://www.cnbc.com... 8: http://money.cnn.com... 9: http://www.businessinsider.com...

We should raise the Minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour I also look forward to how this debate will shake out in the voting. So the debate begins! Worker Rights: if you a working in a society you do not deserve to live in poverty nor should you be homeless on the streets and working. Something is wrong if you have people working that don't have enough money to live off of. Do you really have to be in the middle class or the upper class to have a fair standard of living? Let me paint a picture for you: Imagine A walmart worker they usally make around 9$ an hour that is still not enough to live off of. In order to have a fair living wage every worker should be paid at a minimum 15 dollars an hour. Don't you think that it is saddening that people who are working and who are working hard live in poverty? 28% of workers earn Poverty level wages, (. http://stateofworkingamerica.org...) This is not a third world country, people who are working deserve a living wage (15 Dollars an hour)Does minimum wage increases hurt jobs? No they don't at all actually I am going to display a graph that shows 13 states that have increased the minimum wage actually saw jobs increase! (. http://feelthebern.org...) Also economists dismiss the idea that it decreases jobs, A key finding by an report on wether it decreases jobs found that a minimum wage hike does not decrease jobs:. http://www.integrityflorida.org...; Would their be in increase of a use of governmental assistance? No actually since a 15 dollar minimum wage lifts people out of poverty their will be less of a need for food stamps and welfare. According to the Economic Policy Insitute Rasing the minimum wage by just a few dollars would cause 1.7 million americans to no longer relay on public assisstance. And note this is only raising the minimum wage by a few dollars! Not 15 in this study imagine how many people won't need public assistance if we raised the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour! What would be the price increase? According to a video by Slate magazine there would only be a 1 cent increase on a box of mac and cheese if we raised the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour! You can watch the video here if you don't believe me: Was the minimum wage ever higher than it was today? Actually yes it has! In 1968 adjusted for Inflation the minimum wage was $8.54 an hour! Link:. http://www.pewresearch.org...; Also in 1968 the unemployment rate was only at 3.6 Percent! And in 1969 it was even lower at 3.5 percent unemployment lower than it is today. Link:. http://data.bls.gov... If you raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour you give those workers more spending power! Which in turn stimulates the economy! Productivity of workers: America has one of the most productive workers in the world but for some reason we are still not making enough to not live in poverty! Not to mention with a 15 dollar minimum wage there would be less income inequality with the poorest americans making at least 15 dollars an hour! Do small bussinses agree with raising the minimum wage? YES! there was a poll conducted that asked Bussiness owners if they would like an increase in the minimum wage! 61 percent of Bussiness owners support an increase in the minimum wage and adjust it for the cost of living! Source:. http://feelthebern.org... I am done with my opening remarks I look forward to a great debate! Good luck to con! And thank you voters in advance!

The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. First of all, though the constitution can be amendment, no official amendment was passed allowing the Federal government to create a Federal Minimum wage. And the supreme court was never given the power to amend the constitution, and even if it was, they never even ruled that this was constitutional, thus the Federal Government does not have the power to establish a minimum wage. Secondly, I do believe I proved that Switzerland, as a result of not having any minimum wage, has increased the average wages of its workers through competition. This actually happened in the US during WW2, the reason is that there were more jobs than employees, thus employers competed over employees by offering benefits, higher wages, safer conditions etc. Furthermore, labor unions during the progressive movement were able to get better wages as of the 1890's, the Federal Government couldn't increase wages until 1941. This means that labor unions are much better at achieving a better wage than the federal government. Thirdly, I never said there are benefits to a 7.25$ a hour minimum wage, only that it isn't necessary because states have proven to be much better at increasing their minimum wage than the federal government. And the same is true about labor unions, thus, the federal government increasing the minimum wage wouldn't do much because it would be incapable of consistently updating it with inflation, which is severely miscalculated.

On the authoritative minimum wage. Assumptions: (1) That this debate is structured around the current going-ons of society ; (2) The United States can be the subject of this debate ; (3) This debate can refer to both a State imposed as well as a National minimum wage, as the Instigator has not stated otherwise. Introduction: My opponent has laid out a very nice argument for you obviously taken straight from an Economics class, as my opponent is correct in stating that the minimum wage, on paper, is economically unsound. However, many times other factors in a particular culture or society have implications that affect the way a system is supposed to work. For example, the current economic recession, the issue of outsourcing , America's problem with millions of undocumented workers, etc., have all factored into my reasoning as to why I am PRO in this debate. Contentions: 1. Abuse of the Labor Market A) Opponents of the minimum wage claim that its existence costs the labor market thousands of jobs, i.e. a business will hire less staff members because they can only budget a certain amount of money towards wages. This is an example of something that sounds good on paper, but in reality simply isn't true. The fact of the matter is, a business needs a certain amount of employees to run effectively. Legally, an employee can only work 40 hours a week without having to be granted Overtime compensation. Thus, it's highly unlikely that a manager would work his employees round the clock. Instead, he's going to hire the proper amount of people in order for his business to excel and be efficient. While maybe a FEW jobs may be lost, the likelihood of this is not nearly enough for you to concede to abolishing the minimum wage entirely. B) Without a minimum wage, management can abuse their workers by offering extremely low compensation. Sure the response to this is, "Well nobody would work for a wage that was inappropriate." This is complete nonsense. History shows us (see: The Great Depression) that people will work for what's available to them when they are desperate. Imagine if the minimum wage was abolished right now, and every major corporation decided to pay those already making minimum wage just $2/hour. Surely that is unfair and inappropriate in comparison with the overall Cost of Living today. So what would my opponent suggest? Everybody quit their jobs until demand forces employers to pay more? That is not necessarily an accurate response, one because job availability is already so scarce (see: Recession), and two because there are many undocumented workers or foreign workers with little to no skill who would be willing to work for a fraction of what typical Americans would. Thus, employers have the ability to completely abuse the job market. Further, with so many employees out of work or making so much less money, the economy would suffer GREATLY (as people would have no money to spend) and the recession would only get worse. 2. The minimum wage is necessary for many families. A) There are millions of adults who work for minimum wage in this country. These people rely on these jobs (sometimes having two) in order to pay the bills and raise their families. If the minimum wage were abolished, thereby reducing wage rates, surely these adults would be unable to afford basic necessities like homes, clothing , food, etc. Teenagers who don't have any expenses (or have their basic needs met by their parents) would be willing to work for less compensation, because it is not as crucial of an income to them as it would be for adults and adults with families. 3. Abolishing the minimum wage puts an unfair burden on many Americans. A) Unable to take care of themselves, families would be forced to receive government aid like Welfare and Unemployment. In addition to this being a huge kick in the face to many people who WANT to work (for their psychological and social well-being), it also puts a huge drain on tax payers and the economy at large. Those who have usurped the minimum wage paying jobs and who now pay taxes with their very low wages will contribute very little towards taxes. Instead, middle income families (those who don't make minimum wage) will be effected the most. The wealthy will pay very high taxes, it's true, but will not feel the effect as much as the middle class. B) Additionally, inflation would surely occur due to less people being able to be active in the market. Therefore, the rising prices to balance out costs and whatnot would put additional burdens on the middle class. C) On that note, competing nations would not have the same economic burdens, therefore being able to sell their products for less money. This would completely destroy the American economy, and further advance the very real problem of job Outsourcing. 4. The face of politics/tax distribution. A) Obviously, political legislation would have to greatly be revamped and modified in order to sustain the new economic situation. Keeping many people extremely poor while a few (presumably business owners, CEOs, etc.) prosper exponentially can lead to a massive class separation even greater than the one that already exists. This is repressive and counterproductive to American ideals of equality (or rather equal opportunity) and can hinder many advancements that this country can have socially, technologically, etc. B) More taxes going towards helping people survive means less money for social programs, scholarships, research, medical and technological advancements, urban planning , etc. 5. The facts. A) Studies have also shown that higher wages reduce employee turnover, raise productivity, and increase product quality and customer satisfaction. Four out of five small business owners say that a ten percent minimum wage increase would have either a positive effect or no effect on their business. The Fiscal Policy Institute agrees that raising the minimum wage is good for small businesses. As the study says, "There may be a Henry Ford effect at work here. If you pay workers more, they can buy more, boosting the overall economy, especially among small retail businesses." [1] B) "The federal minimum wage increase of 1996/97 was followed by the best low-wage labor market outcomes in decades. When that proposed increase was under discussion, opponents predicted massive job losses among those affected by the increase... Instead, the employment rates of the least advantaged workers soared to unprecedented levels, poverty rates fell to historic lows, particularly for minority populations, the least skilled workers, and single mothers. Low wages rose in step with productivity growth for the first time in almost thirty years. Note that I do not claim that the federal minimum wage increase was solely responsible for these outcomes… But Congress should take note: the 1996/97 increase complemented these conditions; it did not preclude them." -- Econmist Jared Bernstein [1] Conclusion: Like I said, economically speaking , an imposed minimum wage is non-sensical. However, in consideration with the current times, I think it's safe to say that a minimum wage is not only practical, but necessary. American workers, small businesses, and economists all agree that increasing the minimum wage is good for America. You should too. Sources: [1] http://www.dmiblog.com...

Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased Extend all arguments.

The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour I accept. The US federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.

Raising the minimal wage Thanks you con I want to use this round to summarize my arguments My first contention was that the middle class will benefit. As I stated earlier, middle class is dying, but the unemployment rate is not high. However, the people who work minimum wage jobs don't earn a living wage that would allow them to survive due to the inflation that has happened since we last increased it. We need to help these people so they don't fall to the lower class and are able to feed their families. It will also help income inequality. We have the rich earning so much money but the poor are not. I am not saying the rich have to throw all their money away, but the wealth needs to be spread a little more evenly and increasing the minimum wage can help those lower income households rise out and grow financially. Businesses should want the minimum raise to be increased because when employees earn more money, its been proven that they are happier and work harder and create more money. Also, if they earn more money, they can buy goods and services and the money circulates back into the economy. It's simple economics and it was proven to work when in 1968, we had an unemployment that was over 10 dollars when adjusted for inflation. The unemployment rate in 1968 was 3%. History has shown that when minimum wage is high enough to keep up with inflation, our economy does not crumble into anarchy, it thrives. We need to look at history and see that it has worked and will work. Lower class needs a living wage, and 7.25 an hour just wont do it. The government can save money. Sure, there are better ways to save money, but increasing the minimal wage not only saves the government money, it also helps lower class, increases productivity, and doesn't increase unemployment. It's hard to get by in hour modern day economy. The rich get a majority of the money, the poor get virtually none, and the lower class is just getting bigger. Raising the minimal wage can help people and help our economy. Let's not miss this great opportunity for growth and to improve the lives of millions of people just trying to get by. Thank you.

Raise Minimum Wage R > R1 & C2) Life’s Necessities A budget of $15k a year($7.25 an hr) is extremely tight, while requiring government assistance and public generosity(services such as soup kitchens and church feasts, where meals are free) in order to afford cheap costs of living. Raising it to $21k per year($10.10 an hour), would still not allow the minimum wage earner to afford any cheap forms of luxury -the incentive to get a better job in order to afford more things would still exist and would not decay. It would increase independence and possibly standard of living and or efficiency. Hence, raising the minimum wage to an amount that is closer towards a livable wage(one that does not force the earner to rely on public generosity and or government assistance; independence) would not cause the earners to lose their drive to climb the financial ladder -it would only reduce poverty as well as increasing the likelihood of climbing the financial ladder. Not increasing the minimum wage creates a burden on the impoverished worker as well as the taxpayer. It is not a burden for businesses. For small businesses, the case is understandable because they are start-ups or tiny retailers who will eventually treat their workers better after growth, but for corporations, the case is inakzeptabel. They pay workers at the bottom of the poverty line and cry out about the fact that raising the minimum wage will be financially destructive while announcing record high profits. That is why hearing that an increase in the minimum wage is a burden on businesses, is ridiculous. Pro C2 & R> C1 Mass Unemployment is Practically False Most businesses favor an increase in the minimum wage because they can afford it and are aware that it is a great long term macroeconomic investment[one business alone cannot do it, it involves mass cooperation]. According to the Department of Labor, around 3 out of 5 businesses root for boosting the minimum wage up to $10.10. If the minimum wage increased, many businesses not in favor of it will deal with it by cutting expenses unrelated to workers’ wages and or laying off workers. Though it would mean unemployment and a small decrease in spending, it would be a minor, short term effect that will be repaid in the long run. Since that would not be anywhere close to the majority of businesses, most businesses would take a hit in profits while abiding by the law. However, after a long time, benefits will arise, and that includes a massive increase in spending(wage boost=more spending -> natural wage boost=even more spending), which promotes business growth, and in return, increases employment and even more spending, and the cycle repeats. 600 economists who agreed with raising the minimum wage, 7 of which won Nobel awards in economics, signed the petition to do so. http://www.dol.gov... Please note: Ever since the minimum wage was introduced, it rose at a consistent rate in proportion to rising costs of living and inflation until the 1960s, where it started to lag behind in economy, lacking frequent and necessary boosts -this lack of upkeep continues today. If has been consistent, it would total over $20 an hour. More info: http://www.epi.org...

Raise Minimum Wage First of all, I will change my argument to raise it to $10.10 instead of $16.97, suddenly changing it to $16.97 is too drastic -baby steps are necessary. 1.Rebuttal Against:> Minimum Wage would exceed value of work “These workers are being paid a lot more than they're working for, and so the money being given to the workers rises above the amount of effort they are putting into the system.” Did you make that up? According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research(CEPR), the productivity of those earning minimum wage(economic value of their work) has actually exceeded the amount being paid. You can view the statistics here: http://www.cepr.net... “ . . . consider this: If the minimum wage had simply tracked US productivity gains since 1986, it would be $21.72 an hour --three times what it is now.” - billionaire venture capitalist Nick Hanauer. 2. Rebuttal Against:> Get Education, do not beg government “Consider the following scenario: a man gets a job screwing caps onto tubes of toothpaste. The man is paid bare minimum for doing his job, but it's not enough to support his family. Instead of seeking the education to get a better job, the man goes and strike and starts advocating for a minimum wage increase so that he can receive more money for doing the exact same amount of minimal work. The point of this example is to show that workers who need to earn more money shouldn't rely on the government to raise the minimum wage, but to receive a higher income they should instead work for their money and contribute to the economy instead of protesting to receive more for doing less.” Unless there is adequate public generosity and or government assistance, he would not be able to afford to attend the education to get a degree without an increase of the minimum wage. Remember, as I had said earlier(derived from the Huffington Post), $7.25 an hour is barely enough to afford life’s necessities, even when being dependent on government assistance while living in the cheapest county in the US. 3. Rebuttal Against:> Minimum Wage Increase Does Not Reduce Poverty “Pro claims that raising the minimum wage will reduce poverty, but doesn't show any historical evidence of this happening.” It will(as a theory that 600 professional economists, seven of them Nobel prize winners, agreed on when signing a petition), however there is no historical evidence that make it a clear fact that the minimum wage is to blame for economic downs or solely responsible for instances of poverty reduction -I admit. “Economists have studied whether or not a minimum wage increase would reduce poverty and have concluded that it would have no effect on the poverty rate[1] [1]http://www.heritage.org......” That economist’s* claim is only supported by one reason: job loss. See why it is one not three: “First, the only workers who benefit from a higher minimum wage are those who actually earn that higher wage. Raising the minimum wage reduces many workers' job opportunities and working hours. Second, few minimum-wage earners actually come from poor households. Third, the majority of poor Americans do not work at all, for any wage, so raising the minimum wage does not help them. The Minimum Wage Does Not Reduce poverty” Those second and third claims do not support the core claim that “it would not reduce poverty”, but of possibly “having little impact”. By the way, little positive impact is better than none. See the full argument that will handle multiple rebuttals below(busting the job loss myth): Rebuttal Against:> Job Loss///(Will serve as support for the argument above and the argument below) “Clearly this would cause businesses to cut job openings and lay off more workers, resulting in higher unemployment.” It is not that simple. Your methodology is true, but is not true for the long term. In the long run, jobs would come back and the economy would flourish. The key reason why job loss will not be lingering for the long run nor continue to plague the economy, is that raising the minimum wage would then stimulate spending, hence, stimulating the economy, thus creating even more jobs, which pushes wages even higher. According to the Department of Labor, it would expand the economy by $220 billion. This is not a theory; it is an economic law, that when more money is added to peoples’ pockets, they spend more, which in return, propels; markets, business expansion, and wages. According to the Congressional Budget Office, half a million-1 million jobs will be lost if the minimum wage were raised. However, the earnings would lift many people above the federal poverty line. This research is highly reliable, but shallow due to its projections not covering a large span of time in which the act of raising the minimum wage would replenish those jobs due to an influx of spending and create even more. “A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.” -Department of Labor Nick Hanauer strongly advocates the same concept: “Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour would inject about $450 billion into the economy each year. That would give more purchasing power to millions of poor and lower-middle-class Americans, and would stimulate buying, production, and hiring. Studies by the Economic Policy Institute show that a $15 minimum wage would directly affect 51 million workers and indirectly benefit an additional 30 million. That’s 81 million people, or about 64% of the workforce, and their families who would be more able to buy cars, clothing and food from our nation’s businesses. This virtuous cycle effect is described in the research of economists David Card and Alan Krueger(the current chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers) showing that, contrary to conventional economic orthodoxy, increases in the minimum wage increase employment. In 60% of the states that raised the minimum wage during periods of high unemployment, job growth was faster than the national average. Some business people oppose an increase in the minimum wage as needless government interference in the workings of the market. In fact, a big increase would substantially reduce government intervention and dependency on public assistance programs.” Also, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, states who raised the minimum wage faced significant job growth based on 2014 analysis. http://www.cepr.net... This source is far more reliable than your source of contradictory information since the American Action Forum(a source used by that Daily Caller article) is moderately right winged(and free market advocates) and 3 out of 8 of their economics experts have a PhD in economics while CEPR is nonpartisan and all 5 of its economics experts have a PhD in economics. Additional Notes: Focusing more of the wealth towards people who would spend it faster makes the economy grow faster, instead of focusing it on those who already possess large amounts of it. The presidents of the US who have used this concept in their economic strategies have performed very well. The Democrat presidents adopted this strategy the most while most of the Republicans placed businesses first, which explains why the top three presidents who scored best at maintaining good financial health of the overall economy were Democrats and the worst three were all Republicans. s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="CH2_FHP" width="624px;" height="277px;" /> This graph was made by the economist writers and analysts Bob Deitrick(financial planner, entrepreneur, and professor) and Lew Goldfarb(CPA, business lawyer, law professor, and entrepreneur). Their book, Bulls, Bears, and the Ballot Box, informs us that that economic strategy has been solely responsible for economic prosperity. Hence, the myth that Republicans are best at promoting business growth, is false -a common lie spread by today’s media, which are owned by the plutocrat Rupert Murdoch. Additional Notes: “This is Pro's logic: if a worker is given more of a livable wage, then that worker would be more inclined to climb the income ladder even if they are financially satisfied. This is clearly false, because dissatisfaction drives workers to earn more.” I never said that -you put words in my mouth- I said that minimum wage workers would still be inclined to move up the financial ladder even if you raised their wages to $16.97 -dissatisfaction with their lifestyle would still exist because they cannot afford middle class entertainment. See: “A budget of $15k a year($7.25 an hr) is extremely tight, while requiring government assistance and public generosity(services such as soup kitchens and church feasts, where meals are free) in order to afford cheap costs of living. Raising it to $21k per year($10.10 an hour), would still not allow the minimum wage earner to afford any cheap forms of luxury -the incentive to get a better job in order to afford more things would still exist and would not decay,” -me. “We must remember that a small minority of hourly paid workers earn minimum wage: 4.7% to be exact[3], so there a lot of businesses that would remain unaffected by whether the wage was increased or not.” It is irrational to judge impact based on the appearance of a number that seems meager. Raising the minimum wage will positively impact the economy(which includes businesses) in the long run even if less than 5% of workers earn minimum wage.

$15 Minimum Wage (1) Poverty is an issue that will always exist within a Capitalist society. Poverty is a healthy sign of a market at its work. Income inequality is inevitable. However, I should note that Robert Reich is not a respective Capitalist; instead, he shares more Socialistic values. Therefore, he does not account for the concept of economic competition; that is to say, between businesses and individuals competing, a marketplace will foster an environment where the benevolent race one another to assure the best conditions and services in exchange for maximum profits. An article by Pew Research describes that twenty-nine states [including D.C] have wages above the federal minimum. What does this mean? States where the minimum is higher will draw citizens across state lines, and there will be competition between the states. However, that is because the current wage is feasible. Imagine states trying to raise above the 15 minimum. I should mention also that the federal minimum wage does not account for differing state economies. While California may be able to afford a higher minimum, who's to say Ohio can? Or Pennsylvania? Or Michigan? Another problem this comes down to is a precedence with regard to state versus federal power. If the federal government controls the economics of each state, that may be a slippery-slope leading to other jurisdiction and rule over the states and their autonomy. If the worker of a company has two kids, and they are being paid inadequately, they simply quit and find an employer with better benefits and pay. Those companies exist in an economic market with minimal regulations; as opposed to markets with high regulation, wage hikes, and litigation against small businesses that put small, private sector entrepreneurs out of work. Now, take this article from the LA Times. A woman is describing the difficulty of living off of $7.25, which I agree is inadequate. However, her issue could be fixed if employers started paying above the minimum for her labor. The way she can attain that standard of employment is if she works to build a stronger resume, and aims for an above corporate minimum pay job. (2) This point is really moot/I am unable to refute it, considering the entire premise of my argument. (3) Sure, the minimum wage being raised by the federal government may increase consumer spending, but it will also cause businesses to spike prices. Effectively, what has changed? Your paycheck will look bigger, but you would end up draining your pockets trying to buy pockets were previously far cheaper. In order for smaller companies to pay the $15 minimum, they would have to compensate for it by racking in more profits. The way to do that? Make prices go up. Supply and demand. ------------------------ The larger image here can easily be covered if you only examine the consequences of wage hikes throughout the country on private sector growth. Several businesses on the West Coast have been put out of work due to sharp state government mandates in pay rates. Owners had to raise employees' hours and lay workers off before inevitably going out of business due to the non-affordable expense of a $15 minimum. And again, as I stated in a previous round, Walmart lobbied for this wage for that very reason. Even then, corporate America does not want to pay these wages. Ever wondered why Wendy's has begun to use machines instead of humans at their locations? In fact, several of them? It is because as wages have increased, the desire for human workers has generally decreased. Just as with affirmative action and the welfare state, high wage hikes hinder those they are purported to help. Sources Cited (1) http://www.pewresearch.org... http://www.latimes.com... Larger Image: http://ijr.com... http://www.facesof15.com... http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com... http://fusion.net...

Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased ==Definitions== Minimum wage: The minimum wage will be defined as the minimum compensation a worker will receive (from his employer) for preforming different forms of labor. The minimum wage is enforced by government laws. The current minimum wage, in the USA, is $7.25 an hour. Increase: In order to avoid semantics (for example, someone arguing it should be increased by 0.001 cents an hour), I will specify: the person who accepts must support *at least* an increase to $10 an hour. Though, they can argue for an increase of much more if they wish. ==Rules== 1. No semantics or trolling 2. An forfeit will be considered a concession. However, if my opponent were to message me (or hopefully vice versa) with a valid reason as to why they could not debate, I would either 1) ask voters to ignore the FF, or 2) ask voters to leave the debate as a tie, and we could resume the debate at another date in time. 3. All arguments should be in the debate. Sources can be placed elsewhere, but a link to access those sources must be present in the argument (e.g. an external debate, link that debate at the end of an argument). 4. If you have any questions before the debate, post them in the comments 5. BOP is evenly split ==Structure== R1: Acceptance. PRO presents his case. R2: CON presents his case, PRO rebuts. R3: Rebuttals, PRO concludes his case R4: CON rebuttal and conclusion, PRO writes "No round as agreed upon" and nothing more.

Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people I stand in firm negation of the resolution that states,"Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people."I do not believe that we will have any arguments over the terms used in the resolution since all of them are well known enough for debaters to have a sufficient knowledge regarding their definitions.Contention 1: Raising the minimum wage will result in major job losses. This obviously clashes with my opponent's first contention in which he makes the exact opposite argument. Let me explain how this will happen rather than just stating a fact that shows that the unemployment rates will increase. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about half of the people that made minimum wage were age 25 or younger. This means that the people who are paid these low wages do not need to live off of these funds. This means that if MW was required to increase that employers would look for better and more skilled people to occupy jobs so that they are not wasting valuable money on kids. Not only will the younger people of the US lose valuable experience in a workplace environment, but they will also be affected negatively down the road due to their lack of experience. Obviously, we would be harming the future of many adolescents which is not in the favor of the general welfare of our American people.The Pro stated in his case that the 1996 change in legislation that increased minimum wage benefited the country and did not harm job growth. However, this is not really applicable to twenty years in the future as economic times have changed drastically since then. If the country had not had its historically bad recession in 2008, the situation might be different, but that is not the case and therefore the country has less money to spend for things such as higher wages.So, we must look at the statistics in the past few years, in order to make a slightly accurate prediction. Let's compare the statistics of states that had minimum wages higher than $7.25 (the current federal minimum wage) and states where it was $7.25. The unemployment rate and average job growth of the states in the first category was 7.4% and .5%, respectively, while the states with a $7.25 MW had a 6.4% unemployment rate and .8% average job growth rate. The difference of these systems shows that the states with $7.25 MW had a 1 percent lower unemployment rate and a .3% higher average job growth rate. This shows the result of states raising the minimum wage slightly. Imagine if we were to more than double the current minimum wage to allow people to "live" off of these funds. Let's just say we as a country would be "something that starts with an 'F', ends in a 'D', and rhymes with firetrucked". Also according to bls.gov, with every 1 dollar increase in the federal minimum wage, the unemployment rate increases by an astounding 1.48%. If we were to increase the minimum wage by $7.75 to $15, it would be predicted that we would be increasing the unemployment rates by 11.47%. This means that we would be projected have 36 million people unemployed in the US.Contention 2: By increasing the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, the incentive to get a better education will be removed. The reason that many people are likely to get an education in today's society is so that they will be able to get a good job that pays far above minimum wage. If we increase minimum wage, it may become easier to get a well paying job without getting an education. This is hurting the future of the United States as the youth of our nation will begin to feel less and less a need to get a good education after high school. If we set the precedence that our country will always increase the FMW so that our people can live off of jobs that require no skill, we are showing future generations that this is okay and this will lead to the harm and destruction of our economy and our society itself.Contention 3: Increasing the minimum wage will harm small businesses, the foundation for a stable economy. If we increase the FMW, small businesses that are already struggling to pay their employees will be burdened with the unsolvable problem that is the lack of money. More money required to pay for jobs = less jobs for people in small businesses = an economy that is ruined. Small businesses are vital to the growth and thriving of the U.S. economy because of the fact that they create jobs, therefore becoming the building blocks in which the big money making corporations can thrive and feed our economy. Many small businesses that become larger businesses, will likely stay in the communities that they were created in leading to local economic growth. So, we can deduce that more small businesses that we have spread out through America will lead to national economic success. However, if we were to take the foundation of small businesses out from under these large corporations, the economic building that we Americans pride ourselves in will come crumbling down, a large reason for the recession in 2008 according to many economists.Now onto further refutations to the Pro's case.I have already refuted my opponents first contention above so I shall proceed to my elaboration on my refutation to his second contention.If we look at the statistics it is found that hardly any people in the US are actually working for minimum wage. In the United States, only 3 percent of the population of hourly paid people (25+ in age) work for minimum wage. In other words about 2.25 million people are required to "live" off of these incomes. This shows that my opponents second contention regarding people not being able to live off of MW is a very tiny problem if we look at the situation from a cost-benefit analysis.To refute contention 3, I would just like to point out that this argument can't really be used to reason why we should increase minimum wage. First of all only 3.7 million people work in the fast food industry, a mere 1 percent of America's population. Secondly, the reason that the people working in these occupations need to have financial help is because the jobs in this industry are ALL bad paying jobs. Jobs in the fast food industry don't call for 15 dollar an hour wages because they require no skill and a meant to be a part time job where employees are expected to make a low salary. Flipping is hamburgers is not a career and we can agree that a person working in their career occupation deserve more than a teen that flips hamburgers and messes up your orders way to often. The thought process that these people deserve to be able to live off of their fast food employing jobs is simply irrational. No one is going to be able to make a living sweeping floors and heating up frozen foods, and this has, and always will be, the case in any economy.In order to earn more money, people who are currently occupied by these jobs need to focus on using this money to pay for an education that will give them a chance at making more money at higher skilled occupations. These fast food organizations need to make a profit in order to stay in business, it is quite a simple fact of the matter. If the profit made by one hamburger goes to paying the worker twice as much as the profit, the restaurant will have to increase the cost of the burger leading to less people buying the burger and the restaurant going out of business. These businesses cannot hand out money willy nilly and expect no long term negative consequences to follow. So, they must pay these workers less so that they, the restaurant, can stay in business. If people wish to have higher pay, they must put in the work that is required to secure a better paying job, they can't just expect to earn more money for such simpleton's job.For these reasons, I stand in firm negation of the resolution.

The Increase of Minimum Wage Minimum wage earners only represent 4% of the US workforce, and that's mostly comprised of teenagers. One might not suppose that adjusting the wage for this small sector would significantly impact the economy, but min. wage increases ripple up into middle class salaries as employers retain wage hierarchies. This has the effect of pushing unused capital at the top of the pyramid down to the bottom where it is quickly spent, improving consumption and economic demand, which leads to higher employment. Minimum wage increases drive employers to improve efficiency. Rather than relying on a pool of cheap labor to take up the slack, employers seek out tech improvements, working smarter not harder. The higher the bottom rung is set, the more people prefer employment to criminal alternatives, boosting the market. Minimum wage laws improve work ethics, reduce absenteeism, and reduce turnover. In tandem, these effects result in significant improvements in efficiency across the economy.

The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr With the worst recession in a generation still being felt across the nation, state and federal leaders are focused on getting their economies moving again while helping working families make ends meet. Raising the minimum wage is a key strategy for doing both and should be part of an economic recovery agenda. By boosting pay in the low-wage jobs on which more families are relying than ever, a stronger minimum wage will help restore the consumer spending that powers our economy and that local businesses need in order to grow. A robust minimum wage is a key building block of sustainable economic recovery.SOURCE: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...;

Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised The value of the minimum wage has dipped drastically, for it hasn't been revised for over six years. However, since then, the prices of many staple goods have skyrocketed; the price of apples went up 16%, bacon 67%, cheddar cheese 21%, coffee 27%, ground beef 39%, and milk 21%. Minimum wage is just an ideal number, it is not a job. It regulates the lowest employers can pay their workers, and many businesses, such as Walmart, has begun paying their employees $10 an hour. Walmart recognizes what a minuscule increase that would be, and went forward to step up their minimum wages. People do not plainly decide if they want the six-figure job, or the minimum wage position. It is years and years of cultivation from parents, peers, and generally everyone around where they were brought up. If a child matured in years of poverty, chances are he/she has never seen a position higher than a fast-food restaurant. The Constitution guarantees "Life, Liberty, and Happiness", and two of those unalienable rights has to do with starting a family. Also it is completely untrue that only teens and young adults depend on minimum wages. Raising the minimum wage to $10 would impact over 15 million workers. 4.7 million working moms "would get a raise if we raise it to $10.10." As would 2.6 million working dads for a total of 7 million parents. The minimum wage has been elevated a copious amount of times in the past, and in "more than half of those instances the unemployment rate actually fell. Over 600 economists signed a letter agreeing that a minimum wage increase doesn"t hurt job creation." Minimum wage has already been raised 23 times. Every time it was raised it was opposed by some few who said "it is going to lose jobs and wreck the economy" which is factually untrue as study after study has proven. The argument for whether raising minimum wage will decimate small businesses is entirely false. 60% of small businesses argued that their businesses would benefit if we raised the minimum wage. The other 40% can be categorized by this statement Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." Which brings me to my next point, which is the fact of how minimum wage is below poverty line in this country. If America simply raises its minimum wage to $10.10, it would lift 900,000 people out of poverty. For full time workers earning the federal minimum wage, this bump would give them a raise of over $4,000 dollars " enough to take a family of three out of poverty. You claim that, "These products would increase in cost, as the employers have to match wage costs with increased profit." Unproven, for the cost of a $16 CD at Walmart would increase by simply one penny, if minimum wage was raised to $10.10. Almost 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the federal minimum wage. In United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1940), the Supreme Court found that, although the Constitution does not expressly give Congress authority to mandate a federal minimum wage, the Tenth Amendment does not deprive Congress of "authority to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end." The Court found that based on Congress"s power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress could enact reasonable legislation in furtherance of its policy of excluding from interstate commerce any goods produced under substandard labor conditions. Thus, the Court held that the federal minimum wage is not unconstitutional. You say that Americans who live in poverty do not work, not entirely true. However, what is true is the fact that the food stamps program would immensely benefit with a minimum wage raise. By raising the minimum wage to $10.10, it would help 3.5 million Americans get off food stamps. Furthermore, teenagers are not the large factor in minimum wage work. A study finds that half of Americans earning under $10.10 an hour are forced to support themselves on that as their primary source of income. Earning $10.10 an hour for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, produces a yearly gross income of $21,008. You said, "The most you can make (household) to get accepted is 60,000". Assume there are two parents working, that is still below the criteria for many of the government assistances provided. And if a family is earning around $40,000 a year, there is no reason they should be on welfare. Also, one last note, the average CEO makes 933 times as much as his employees. If the CEO doesn't buy his fifth vacation home in the Bahamas, perhaps his workers can afford bread for his children. Plus, those employees will in turn spend their money on company goods, and both the CEO and employee will benefit. Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.alternet.org...

Resolved: A Minimum Wage Should Exist. Why the Minimum Wage? The main reason is that it gets people out of poverty. This important consequence has a number of possible effects. It reduces the need for welfare, because every worker has more money in their pocket. The need for welfare in an ideal minimum wage system would only extend to the homeless. Indeed, it even has some subtle positive effects on businesses. "For businesses, it can reduce churn, increasing retention in ways that avoid the cost of hiring and training new workers. " All and all, the minimum wage is a policy that allows for a greater distribution of society to live in relative comfort. [1]Evidence for the Minimum Wage Evidence tends to go back and forth between the two sides in the debate. However, when the data is analyzed, the correct conclusion is the pro-minimum wage side. The anti-minimum wage side relies on a misinterpretation of the data presented by studies. There are many data measures that could be used, but the three I will use are consumption, income inequality, and unemployment. Consumption - The evidence here comes down solely on the pro side. "A pay hike of $1.75 an hour, smaller than currently proposed, would augment purchases by at least $48 billion in the first year, according to a 2013 paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago economists. " The more money given to workers does take away money from the business owners, but they are much more likely to spend that money than the business owners are. "Low-income workers have a higher propensity to consume than the wealthy, because the latter are not nearly as income-constrained. " Overall, the minimum wage allows a greater amount of consumption in the economy, which raises the GDP more, allowing for everyone to have more money. [2]Income Inequality - This one should be rather obvious as well. The minimum wage takes money from the wealthy business owners and gives it to the poorer workers. The US has one of the largest levels on income inequality in the developed world, and the US has one of the lowest values for the minium wage in the developed world. [3]Unemployment - This is probably the biggest point of contention in this debate - does the minimum wage positively or negatively impact unemployment? There have been many studies on both sides, and I will address any of the studies my opponent brings up on his side when the time comes, but I want to address my side. One of the most famous studies, the Card-Kreuger study, concluded that, "Again, these results point toward a relative increase in employment of low-wage work-ers in New Jersey. We also find no evidence that minimum-wage increases negatively affect the number of McDonald's outlets opened in a state. " In other words, it found no negative correlation between the minimum wage and unemployment, and even hinted at a positive one. [4]Why Is This Important? This is probably a pressing question. As I mentioned earlier, the minimum wage cuases there to be less spending on welfare, which is obviously a positve for taxpayers. However, due to the increased consumption and income inequality, crime (particularly theft) decreases in frequency due to the fact that people have more money overall. In addition, income inequality causes social cohesion to erode, due to the increased feeling of separate classes that one cannot get out of, and of the shadow economy, which exists to fill the needs of those who don't have the money to operate in the normal economy. Because the minimum wage reduces income inequality, these effects are lessened, and society is better off in general. But it is even positive for businesses. As I've already explained, the minimum wage increases consumption and the average time people spend at a single job, which both increase GDP, and gives the wealthier business owners more money due to the stronger economy. It may even fully recoup, if not make a net positive out of their losses due to the minimum wage. The increased consumption also allows for greater increases in GDP, which would reduce the effects of recessions, which is obviously good for businesses. I will consider my opponent's arguments against the minimum wage in the next round. Sources[1]: . http://www.whitehouse.gov...[2]: . http://www.bloomberg.com...[3]: . http://www.epi.org...[4]: . http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...

Should Minimum Wage Be Raised To 15 Dollars Highly respected former US President Theodore Roosevelt was once quoted in saying, “Be practical as well as generous in your ideals. Keep your eyes on the stars, but remember to keep your feet on the ground. ” His words of wisdom advise us to be practical and generous. However, they also warn us to be careful about where our ambitions lead us. Raising the minimum wage would be practical and generous to those in need while the ambitions remain simple and justly helpful. It is because I agree with the imperative duty charged to us by Roosevelt that I must affirm the resolution. Affirmative Value Premise: the most important valueis Societal Welfare. Societal Welfare is defined by the Business Dictionary as: the well being of an entire society. Affirmative Judging Criterion: whichever side best upholds Pragmatism should win the debate. Black’s Law Dictionary defines Pragmatism as: following a practical approach. Contention One: A living wage hosts vital economic benefits Subpoint A: Empirical evidence suggests that a living wage bolsters the economy and doesn’t result in unemployment. Contrary to popular belief, a living wage does not cause unemployment rates to increase. Instead, it has shown to bolster the economy and provide innumerable benefits. Erin Weir, Canadian economist, Phoenix-Star, August 31, 2012 “Benefits of a fair minimum wage are obvious. It means more much-needed income in the hands of low-paid workers. Increasing the wages of workers at the lowest end of the income spectrum would also add to consumer spending in Saskatchewan, helping local businesses and other participants in the economy. More than any other group, low-income earners spend their money in their communities. For example, they are far less likely to make foreign investments or to travel abroad. IncreasingSaskatchewan'sthe minimum wage would bolster theprovincial economy. Of course, opponents of a higher minimum wage argue that it would reduce employment. Ironically, the same conservative politicians and business lobbyists who characterize employment as being vulnerable to any improvement in the minimum wage often brag about the strength of Saskatchewan's job market and complain about "labour shortages. " Better wages would help encourage more people to enter the workforce. Claims that minimum wages reduce employment have no empirical support. Economics professors from the universities of Massachusetts (Amherst), North Carolina (Chapel Hill) and California (Berkeley) recently compared adjacent U. S. counties along the borders of states with different minimum wages. Their conclusion, published in the November 2010 edition of The Review of Economics and Statistics,was that: "For cross-state contiguous counties, we find strong earnings effects and no employment effects of minimum wage increases. " Page 1 In other words, boosting the minimum wage succeeded in raising pay without reducing employment, even when neighbouring jurisdictions maintained a lower minimum. We know from Saskatchewan's history that there is no contradiction between a strong minimum wage and a strong job market. During Allan Blakeney's premiership, this province enjoyed Canada's highest minimum wage and lowest unemployment rate. But even if raising the minimum wage reduced employers' demand for labour, it would still benefit employees. The vast majority of minimum-wage work is in areas such as fast food and retail, which have variable shifts and hours. If these employers want less labour, they cut back hours rather than lay off workers. In reality, a fastfood restaurant would likely require the same amount of labour since it could not substitute robots or other capital equipment for workers. ”Some people believe that welfare pays them more than a minimum wage job, so they simply live off of government funds. A higher minimum wage could dispell such thoughts. Furthermore, a living wage wouldn’t harm employment. Stacy Brustin, Associate Professor, Columbus School of Law, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, Fall 2012 “Proponents of minimum and living wage increases argue that such actions lead to increased job growth and stronger consumer spending. Opponents of such initiatives argue thatsuch increases will lead to job losses which would work to the detriment of low-wageresident and nonresidentparents. However, recent research suggests that minimum wage increases do not cause job losses, even during periods of recession and high unemployment. These findings should spur legal services advocates and policy analysts focused on improving child support collection to develop broader strategies, including advocating for minimum wage increases. ” Subpoint B: A higher wage ensures quality jobs Currently, many jobs are considered of poor quality. This stems from either low pay or an insufficient working environment. A higher wage can solve these problems. Further, a higher wage can be labeled as a "living" wage, one sustainable for life. Team of Economists, University of Wisconsin, “Local Living Wage Ordinances,” November 2013 “A living wage ordinance [higher wages] ensures that jobs supported by local taxpayers pay a decent wage and that companies benefitting from taxpayer-supported projects or contracts pay their workers enough to make ends meet. ”Better jobs would not only benefit employees, but it would also give taxpayers consolation that their money is going to provide for profitable and sustainable occupations. These jobs are completely plausible as well. Ken Jacobs, Chairman, Center for Labor Research and Education, University of California, November 2010 “The evidence demonstrates that raising job standards does not reduce the number of jobs in a city. This means that job growth does not have to come at the expense of job quality. ”These good jobs don’t have to reduce job quality, as a higher wage can provide for both. Contention Two: Inflation is not a reasonable counter to higher wages. Many people make the argument that a higher wage will cause the inflation of goods. While this may be true, the percent of inflation is minute when compared to the benefits these wages will provide. Jeff Chapman and Jeff Thompson, research associates, John Hopkins University, Economic Impact of Living Wages, 2006 “In 1999, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) published the third study of the Baltimore experience. Analyzing contracts that could be directly compared before and after the implementation of the ordinance, the EPI research associates from John Hopkins University found that the nominal contract costs for the city rose just 1.2%-- lower than inflation during the same period-- and concluded that the “budgetary impact of the living wage has, to date, been insignificantDespite the overall real decline in contract costs during the period under there was a range of results for different contract types. Some contracts experience moderate price decreases, while others grew considerably. The overall price for the heavily affected janitorial contracts, for example, rose 16.6% in nominal terms, with specific contracts seeing price increases range from less than 1% to over 50%. The overall budgetary impact of these contracts, however, was negligible cost increases. in other contract areas were more modest. The EPI study’s overall conclusion was that “the widely voiced fear that the living wage ordinance implementation would place intolerable strains on the city’s budget have not yet materialized. ”While there may be slight inflation, the degree to which prices increase would be of no merit when compared to the increase of wage individuals would be receiving. Individuals are then able to help the economy because they have more money to spend on corporate products. Inflation happens as it is, and the minimum wage can’t keep pace. However, a living wage could assist individuals negatively affected by current inflation. Contention Three: The implementation of a higher wage will uphold Societal Welfare and is a Pragmatic approach to solving societal problems. Senator Bernie Sanders, PoliticusUSA, December 30th, 2013 “The national minimum wage is seven and a quarter an hour. I think most people understand that’s a starvation wage. Individuals can’t live on it. Families can’t live on it. ”The current minimum wage is not sustainable for human life. Introducing a higher minimum would allow individuals and families to afford their necessities. Furthermore, the results of such a wage would be beneficial to society. This wage can bolster the economy and create more jobs, and is a pragmatic approach to solving for poverty, unemployment, and wage complications. Furthermore, outsourcing and poverty are current societal problems to which a higher wage is a pragmatic solution. Rachel Harvey, Bachelor of Science in Foreign Science, Georgetown University, University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2003 “The living wage movements responds to the trend of outsourcing, in which governments contract out government services to private firms. The private firms pay lower wages in order to have the lowest bid and win the government contract. Thus, by contracting out work to private companies, the city saves money at the expense of low-wage workers. Living wage advocates reason that, because low-wage workers’ wages fall so far below the poverty level, these works must turn to the government for support. However, with a living wage, these workers could have supported themselves. The living wage campaign aims to halt this process and prevent workers from living in poverty and having to rely on the government programs in order to survive. "Consequently, higher wages would combat these issues, benefiting the well being of low-wage workers. The living wage can be utilized as a “cure-all” and pragmatically benefit the society. It is for these reasons and many more I would politely urge an PRO ballot in this debate.

$15 Minimum Wage (Note that I had to cut a lot from this argument to meet space requirements & so if anything goes unaddressed this is likely the reason) Rebuttals Contention 1 The Con argues that the federal minimum wage should be zero because he believes the federal government is “not intended to be involved in economic affairs…that ought to be left to the states…” He argues this on the basis that the federal government does not understand states affairs & that this would redefine our government in which government would arbitrarily intervene in the economy. There are a number of problems with this argument, the main one being that the Supreme Court already ruled on whether or not the Federal government has the authority to involve itself in these economic affairs, in the 1941 US v. Darby decision, where the court unanimously ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the law which established the minimum wage, was fully constitutional. Because of this, we can see that this contention simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Contention 2 The Con claims minimum wages jobs are not meant to provide a living wage & thus making the minimum wage a living wage is nonsensical. This argument simply ignores the reality of the modern economy, as a majority of minimum wage workers, today rely on this as their primary income, equating to about 60 Million people total who rely on minimum wage for support (this includes workers & their families & children). While the “original intent” may not be what it is today, it is wrong to say that this “original purpose” should still be the basis of the policy in the modern era. Contention 3 The con claims that the ONLY people benefiting from minimum wage increases are in the corporate sector & small business owners are getting the shaft, thus by increasing the minimum wage the government is ensuring corporate dominance of the economy. Contrary to this claim, the overwhelming majority of minimum wage earners in the status quo are not working for small businesses. According to the National Employment Law Project, two-thirds of low-wage workers are working for larger companies, rather than small businesses. This indicates that the impact on small businesses would be very minimal in comparison to the impact on large corporations. Empirical evidence would also indicate that gradually increasing the minimum wage doesn’t hurt small businesses as claimed by the Pro (see source 4 & 5.The con also claims Walmart lobbies for a $15 minimum wage so they can crush small business. While he does cite an article from 2005, in which the Walmart CEO calls for the minimum wage to be increased, however, the CEO never stated why. Moreover, according to an article from the Washington Post, Walmart actually lobbies for a $10.10 minimum wage. Contention 4 In this contention, the con alleges that the increases in the minimum wage would hurt teens the most. The claim he makes is that Black teenagers would be hurt because “they lack work ethic.” This claim is not only offensive but simply unfounded. He blames this on poverty & lack of education, however, I will refer the con to my first contention, which is specifically to address the issue of poverty. He then claims that if we “plug in common sense” we will see how this hurts black teens, however, this is not an argument, it is just an unsubstantiated claim. He provides no evidence to support this contention. Moreover, he never demonstrates a link between harm to black teenagers & increasing the minimum wage, therefore we cannot see how it in any way relates to his overall argument. Defense Contention 1: Poverty According to the con, poverty is inevitable & is a "healthy sign of a market at its work." However, given the goal of the market is to distribute resources in an effective manner, it is clear to see that given the high level of poverty in the US it is clear that this is not a sign that the market is healthy. For starters, if the system is meant to effectively distribute resources, yet the market in a capitalist system results in a massive amount of poverty, this would indicate that the market is failing to distribute resources effectively, as a larger number of people are not getting enough resources. Additionally, poverty will almost always increase in times of economic recession& market downturn. These would indicate that poverty is a, for lack of a better term, a poor indicator of the health of the economy. The con also attacks my citation of the former secretary of labor, economist, & professor, Robert Reich, because, in his view, Reich "shares more socialistic values", & therefore "doesn't account for economic competition". This argument is simply an ad hominem & is not supported by any facts. Regardless of Reich's political values, this does not change the fact that he is a qualified source on this topic. The con gives no evidence to support his conclusions about the former secretary of labor & never actually addresses the claims made by me or by Reich. The con also claims that having varying minimum wages between states "encourages competition" & "draws citizens across state lines". However, there is simply no evidence that people are moving across state lines simply to get a higher minimum wage & thus this claim does not have any bearing. Next, the con claims that the federal minimum wage does not account for state economies. This claim in no way relates to my argument about poverty & is nothing more than a red herring. He cites an article from the LA Times about a woman struggling to make ends meet on the minimum wage. He then says that the woman should "work to build her resume & aim for an above corporate minimum pay job." This solution does not actually work, as for many people including the woman in the article he cites, this is not an option. For starters, life is not as simple as this solution makes it out to be. People do not always have the choice to pursue higher education or find another job to build their resume as they are already struggling to cover basic expenses with the minimum wage job, & quitting that job would mean that they lose their only source of income. Gaining promotions in the workplace meanwhile are not something which is under the control of the applicant & is controlled by their superiors. This is not a solution to poverty for minimum wage workers & ignores economic realities pointed out in the article the con cited. Contention 2: Inflation & Productivity The Con has said he cannot respond to this argument because of the contentions he has made, however, I cannot see how his argument makes it so that he cannot refute this argument. Since he has not response, the argument I made has therefore been conceded. Thus I extend this argument to the next round. Contention 3: Consumer SpendingDue to character constraints, I am unable to do a full response to this argument. Given that it would be unfair to carry this argument into the final round as this would mean the con would not have a chance to respond to my criticisms from this round, I move that this Contention be dropped from the debate and all previous arguments made under this contention struck and any further arguments disregarded. 1. https://www.oyez.org...2. http://www.epi.org...3. http://nelp.3cdn.net...4. http://www.forbes.com...5. http://www.cnbc.com...6. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Raising Minimum Wage Although he hasn't stated it in this thread I'm assuming the position he is defending and I am attacking is the same as the previous one where I challanged him, where he states his "position is that I am against raising the minimum wage any higher than it already is" and I should show why it should be raised. Although he states here "There is historical evidence that raising minimum wage is detrimental to companies. " I'm assuming this isn't the basis of debate as his very first reflect doesn't reflect on the impact on companies but rather on society as a whole. Companies care about their profit margins (which he brings up seperately in point two), but in his first point he only raises the issues for employees. Companies don't have reason to care how many employees they have or what hours they work as long as it's profitable, so I think it's clear he's already looking at this from a wider perspective of society as a whole. Senshred's Claims Senshred puts forward a few claims, but does not support them with evidence. Instead he bases his claims on what he views as the outcome of companie raising the minimum wage. However his model of how he looks at the effects is simplistic and does not factor in most of of the effects of raising the minimum wage. For instance he only views the minimum wage increase as a cost on businesses but he does not factor in what happens to the extra money the people on minimum wage get. In his scenarios they might as well burn it. However if people have more money, then they are also spending more money. How do people spend money? They give it to companies in exchange for commodities. The money paid to the employees in wages comes back to the companies in purchases. Indeed, this is exactly what Henry Ford did voluntarily to stimulate demand for his own products. While people said he would be bankrupting himself, he succesfully expanded his business with the benefits accorded to paying his workers higher wages. [1]Indeed there are a host of factors for why the way minimum wage increases work not only minimises any cost but can benefit businesses. In his 2013 report Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment? For the Center for Economic and Policy research, John Schmitt set out 11 potential channels which factor into why raising the minimum wage is not forcing businesses to cut employment or go bust as a result of minimum wage increases[1]. Indeed, one of the possible channels for this is by decreaseing hours, which is overall a positive rather than a negative as Senshred tries to claim:"If firms were to adjust entirely by cutting hours (that is, they used no other adjustment channel), a minimum-wage increase could still raise the living standard of minimum-wage workers, even in a competitive model of the labor market. Imagine, for example, that the minimum wage increased wages by 20 percent and lowered the number of hours worked by 10 percent. A part-time worker working, say 20 hours per week, would experience a 10 percent fall in hours to, 18 hours a week, but would be paid 20 percent more for each of these 18 hours worked, for a net increase in weekly pay of 8 percent. Even if the reduction in hours was so large that it exactly offset the increase in the hourly wage, minimum-wage workers would still be better off after the increase because they would be earning exactly what they made before, but would now be working fewer hours per week to earn it. "As Senshred's claims are not backed up by sources and his personal analysis of the economic situaiton is too basic to be relied upon and doesn't include a whole host of key factors, there is therefore no evidence or argument to support Senshred's claims. The RealityFor the last couple of decades as the effects of minimum wage have been intensely studied, the consensus has been that there is no scientifically significant evidence for the negative effects of typical minimum wage increases and indeed reason to think it will have an overall positive impact. In 2012 an analysis by the IMF, World Bank, OECD and ILO found that for G20 countries “a statutory minimum wage set at an appropriate level may raise labour force participation at the margin, without adversely affecting demand, thus having a net positive impact especially for workers weakly attached to the labour market”. [3]The 2013 study by Cooper and Hall found that "Using these same standard fiscal multipliers. .. we find that increasing the national minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour by July 1, 2015, would result in a net increase in economic activity of approximately $32.6 billion over the phase-in period, and over that period would generate approximately 140,000 new jobs". Indeed, it is actually expected that minimum wages could and should be higher. Businesses and productivity as a whole have obviously grown over the decades since the most recent US Federal minimum wage was introduced. Why then have minimum wage workers not benefitted? As shown by this graph based on data collected by scientific studies of official data, productivity has increased massively since 1968 and if minimum wage workers were paid just been paid at the same rate equal to the increases in productivity, they would now be on $18 dollars per hour. hell, even if they just had the same average pay increase as normal workers, they'd still be on a lot higher than they are now. As shown, businesses are perfectly able to pay workers more. not only that but paying workers more would benefit the economy as a whole. Furthermore it would increase the money that goes towards the most needy and hardest off in our community, fulfilling one of our basic idea of fairness and how people should be compensated for work[5]There is no reason that the minimum wage should be held back at its current level. Even if someoen were blind to all the overwhelming evidence and the economic rationale behind it, it would be immoral not to increase minimum wage in line with the overall growth of the economy. As it is, once inflation is taken into account people on minimum wage getting are actually getting paid less each year. hell, they're paid less than people on minimum wage 50 years ago! [6][1] . http://goo.gl...[2] . http://goo.gl...[3] . http://goo.gl...[4] . http://goo.gl...[5] . http://goo.gl...;[6] . http://goo.gl...

The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Underemployment: A situation in which a worker is employed, but not in the desired capacity, whether in terms of compensation, hours, or level of skill and experience. Read more: http://www.investorwords.com... It appears to be that we were both using the term underemployment correctly. Poverty: the state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount (as defined by Oxford dictionaries, definition 2.) I was not referring to the poverty threshold in America, but to a definition of poverty in general. I also made an assumption, it was commonly accepted that someone who can't afford their clothing, nutrition, and housing from their own assets would be considered impoverished. As to why I don't believe it should be left up to the states, I hope that my next point will answer that question. P2: Having a low minimum wage means that many people will be in need of extra money to cover their basic needs. While there are charities in place that provide for low income individuals, it would be unwise to rely on the goodness of people's heart to cover for such a vast amount of the population. So, in order to provide for less fortunate Americans, who migrated into our country with low skills or were unable to afford a higher education, our government enlists safety net programs, A.K.A. income assistance programs. Tanf: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Tanf was established to help low income families be able to provide for themselves. They accomplish this task by providing money to low income families for a certain amount of time (varies by case,)establishing programs that promote job preparation and marriage, and programs that encourage the formation and longevity of two parent households. 16.6 billion dollars spent annually on Tanf by the federal government. (Us census bureau) Housing: Section 8 housing and Federal Rental assistance Section 8 housing, formerly known as projects, are Federally built and maintained using U.S. tax dollars. Families living in these establishments pay little to no rent. Because these persons are low income individuals, sometimes receiving no income at all, they do not pay much into the tax pool either. Federal Rental Assistance, uses the same housing vouchers that are used under section 8, but only pay a portion of the families' rent. This portion is calculated as no more than 30% of that families income and the unsubsidized rent is left to the family to pay. $57,881,100,000 spent annually by the federal government. Snap (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program) formerly known as food stamps Snap is for qualifying families for use on grocery purchases only. Average of $4,284 per household. EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) The EITC is a tax refund for qualifying persons for up to 100% of the income tax they paid to the Federal government, it is important to note that this does not include social security and Medicaid taxes. The EITC can be turned into cash and used to purchase any good. $3,373 per instance for a minimum wage earner. (Calculated by benefits.gov) Total annual safety net program spending by the Federal government: $362,000,000,000 (This includes more programs than those mentioned above.) It is evident that low minimum wages create a lot of need throughout America. BY allowing companies to pay wages at $7.25 per hour or lower, we are allowing companies to gain more profits and forcing the federal government to pick up the bill. This is why I believe that the minimum wage should be raised Federally instead of on a state by state basis. Yes, while it is true that low skilled workers become less competitive, they will still need to cover their basic needs. This would mean that a given state will be able to make low skilled workers more competitive in their statewide workforce, and give them the potential of a higher paying job, but the federal government would have to cover for the needs of these people. I'd like to remind you that the primary source of revenue for the federal government is taxation, which means that it is tax payers who are really covering these costs. By Raising the minimum wage to $12.50 federally, we could reallocate capital put into safety net programs and make things fairer to taxpayers nationwide.

The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Introduction:First of all, my opponent's argument is not stupid. Don't accept that interpretation as it is unfounded. It may be incorrect, as I shall attempt to demonstrate (as in any other debate), but it is not stupid. Hopefully we can have the chance to debate this topic to a greater degree later.Families:My opponent asserted a boost in the minimum wage would benefit families, however, on net, this is completely false. The insinuation that a wage increase would be beneficial to families is erroneous when considering the harmful effects it contains. Unemployment, higher prices, and cut hours, to name a few, don't seem beneficial to families. From a statistical standpoint, it is also illogical to assume families would receive any noteworthy benefits from more than doubling the current minimum wage. The Commonwealth Foundation expressed this in their study regarding a raise in Pennsylvania alone. They quote "Much of the wage gains would go to low-wage employees in higher income families, rather than those most in need. For instance, about two-fifths of the wage gains would go to employees in families with incomes of $40,000 or greater." [1] If these families are already earning enough, and are simply young teens (as the study also indicates), there is no real benefit to the family, as it is already doing fine.However, we also see significant job loss, which I examined in my previous round. Cross-apply all the evidence and explanation as it wasn't refuted in any capacity. The same applies to the other detriments I exemplified. Families can't be effectively benefited when the policy simultaneously increases unemployment and damages the economy by increasing prices and facilitating inflation.Immigrants:Many immigrants (particularly the ones my opponent is speaking of) are paid low-wages, often times the minimum wage. [2] Since many of these are also poor [2], and the minimum wage doesn't solve poverty [3] [4], immigrants can't feasibly be positively impacted.Middle Class:It seems rather dubious to assume raising the minimum wage would help the middle class. Since middle class workers generally are paid a wage far above the minimum, the raise would give them any more money. Adding that to rising costs makes no benefit to middle class, but higher costs, an obvious detriment.Struggling to Pay the BillsThis clearly refers to the impoverished. As I've alread shown, when accompanied with job loss, the minimum wage increase can't sufficiently reduce poverty. While some might receive small benefits, unemployment creates instantaneous poverty. Moreover, the policy can't specifically target the poor, which is how poverty is reduced. Thusly, it can't reduce poverty, and won't help those struggling to pay the bills. [5] [6]Conclusion:There are many detriments to a $15 minimum wage, and there is not sufficient reason to implement such a policy. I've demonstrated on moral and pragmatic grounds that raising the minimum wage is ineffective and a bad idea. My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments pragmatically, morally, or with evidence. Thus, you vote Con.Sources:[1] https://www.epionline.org...[2] http://www.epi.org...[3] http://www.nber.org...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] https://mises.org...[6] http://www.thenewamerican.com...

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Framework:The burden of this debate should be shared by both sides. As Pro, my opponent must prove the US ought (implying obligation or necessity by logical consequence) to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pro should present the reasons for this on both pragmatic and moral grounds to fulfill the burden. Likewise, it is my definitive duty to prove, on moral and pragmatic grounds, the US ought NOT raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. With this out of the way, let's move to the actual arguments.Contention I: A $15 wage hike is unfair and indeterminableThe goal of a wage hike is to reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. It's widely and commonly seen as a wage off of which one can live accompanied by the necessities in an acceptable standard of living. However, achieving this end is indeterminable. Whether it be $10.10, $15, $17, et cetera, there is no plausible or fair way to numerically calculate a just minimum wage on a federal playing field. The Huffington Post explains "Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that [individuals], both conservatives and liberals, aren’t well qualified to determine what’s an acceptable lifestyle for other people.” [1] Federal governments cannot adequately instigate a just or fair living wage for their citizens. It's simply unjust for a government, federal or otherwise, to impose a wage requirement deemed unjust by the employers and/or community.In many instances, this would be the case. Small communities, especially in areas where the cost of living is far lower than the norm. These areas, as well as others, suffer. American Enterprise Institute notes the reason: "disproportionate effects by location." [2] The cost of living differs from small, rural cities as opposed to bustling suburbias. Institutionalizing a "one-size-fits-all" system is bound to detriment at least one of the extremes.Contention II: Effects on businesses.If it were plausible to instigate a $15 living wage, we'd see dire circumstances shadow small businesses. The effects are compounded on these smaller businesses who can't effectively absorb the increase. Karen Heisler, co-owner of Mission Pie Bakery in San Francisco, California explains how her business would be affected. "Our business is dedicated to proving high quality food at as low a price as we can, but we won’t have room to achieve that. The most expensive meal on the menu is $8.50, a stew with vegetables and rice. Raising the minimum wage will have a huge impact, not this year but ultimately. It will probably require us to hire more experienced and skillful people. We will see a decrease in the number of businesses in the 20-employee range because it’s becoming impossible to make it because of the cost of operation." [3] A host of other businesses would be remarkably harmed, as noted by National Federation of Independent Business. [4]These results are even more significant when it is recognized that 48.5% of private-sector jobs are employed by small businesses, according to the US Small Business Administration. [5] Moreover, as the American Legislative Exchange Council asserts small corporations have to stay competitive to stay open. They do so by keeping lower prices. [6] Adding to their burden would push them under, a potential detriment to nearly 50% of private-sector jobs.Moreover, inflation becomes a concern for businesses as well. Economic theory indicates a wage hike will facilitate inflation. [14] A study by Aaronson, French, and MacDonald notes, “Higher labor costs faced by employers are pushed onto customers in the form of higher prices.” [15] The vast brunt of the cost will be passed to consumers, meaning higher prices. [20] If prices rise, this not only creates inflation, but also effectively negates a wage increase. [35] More money earned, but more money is required to be spent. The effects won’t be short-term, either. A study by Burke, Miller, and Long affirms “ increase in labor costs can spur inflation and undercut the real minimum wage, precipitating an endless spiral.” [16] It will become a spiral of minimum wage degradation and inflation.Contention III: A wage raise to $15 an hour displays a host of flaws.Perhaps one of the most important negative consequences to a minimum wage increase is unemployment concerns. Numerous studies indicate an increase in wages, especially one that more than doubles the current minimum, will facilitate job loss. The Congressional Budget Office claims that a potential 1 million jobs could be lost with only an increase to $10.10, which would only be furthered if the wage was increased nearly another $5 dollars. [7]With basic consideration of simplistic economic theory and logic, flaws become increasingly evident. The money to pay those workers a higher wage HAS to come from SOMEWHERE. If companies were already making plenty of profit, they'd adhere to labor unions demands of higher wages. I understand some large corporations could honestly support a higher wage with little harm, but as a utilitarian and federal policy, the minimum wage hike is a bad idea. Smaller corporations, especially, would have to do one of three things to compensate for paying higher wages: a) raise prices, b) cut hours, or c) cut workers. For option a, we know that wouldn't be a good thing. Logically, this entirely removes any benefit from a wage hike. If you get paid more money, but suddenly products are all more expensive, what is the gain? More money flowing, which can lead to inflation. Other than that, there isn't a benefit. You're back to where you started, without enough capital to pay for your necessities and comforts. For option b, we know this isn't a good things. Less hours equals less wages, so once again, you don't actually see the benefits of the wage hike in the first place. For option c, perhaps the most ominous, you see unemployment grow. Who, one might ask, is going to lose their job? It's obvious that a corporation wants to keep its best, most skilled, and better educated employees, and would be willing to pay higher wages for them. But what about the less skilled and uneducated employees? To the company, all things considered, they wouldn't be worth $15 dollars an hour. These would be the ones to lose their jobs, and they are the impoverished. More people without jobs would facilitate more reliance on welfare, which obviously isn't beneficial.Other studies indicated job losses, including ones from Miami and Trinity Universities [8], economists David Neumark and William Wascher [9], and a plethora of others. [11] [12] [13] Moreover, these effects aren’t simply short-term. The detriments are definitely long-term. [21] As it intends to solve for poverty, we can’t raise the wage. Sanderson claims “The biggest anti-poverty program we have in the U.S. is getting somebody a job.” [23] With disemployment effects prevailing, getting a job is difficult, and the subsequent deterioration of poverty is nonexistent.In fact, the experts in the field (labor economists) overwhelmingly agree raising the minimum wage will facilitate job losses (73%) and that these losses will be disproportionately laid on the poor (68%). [10] Those disproportionate victims are often teens, as has happened previously. [18] This essentially makes teens unemployable, and entry-level jobs become less available for those just entering the workforce. [29] Furthermore, in a team of 100 economic researchers, two-thirds found disemployment effects of wage hikes. [30] The consistent trend of employment detriment studies from wage hikes extends all the way back to 1957. [33]Contention IV: Extended detriments.Obviously the effects already mentioned aren’t positive. But those effects can have extended consequences. For example, raising the minimum wage will increase crime, because of unemployment. When teens (who are disproportionately affected [19]) are unemployed, criminal activity is often subsequent. [17]Furthermore, raising wages can encourage outsourcing [22], which sends jobs to areas where labor laws are less strict or negligible. [24] This wouldn’t be good for the US economy as the labor for not only employment but profits to US businesses and the GDP would be gone. [31] Another asset is illegal aliens, who tend to be hired on because of wage law abuse. [34]Another extended impact would be technological replacement. When faced with the dilemma of either raising wages or using technology to replace human labor, the latter is desirable. [25] This has happened time and again, and lowers job opportunities for low-skilled workers. This trend has also resulted in wage inequality, another thing political rhetoric of wage increase claims. [26] It’s illogical to assume more jobs would be created when humans are simultaneously being replaced.Another talking point for wage hike advocates is poverty. Yet, instead of reducing poverty as they advocate, poverty is actually worsened. [27] A primary reason for this is competition [28], but the result is obvious; raising wages only facilitates more poverty. Alongside the poverty, companies would likely cut benefits such as health care. [32]Conclusion:I've provided a primarily logical and consequential argument as to why the federal minimum wage should not be raised. First, it's indeterminable. Second, it has location issues. Third, it harms business in a multi-faceted manner. Fourth, it facilitates unemployment. Fifth, there Tying back, all of these things negate the resolution because of logical consequence. However, since the goal is to reduce poverty and stimulate economy, this means achieves no positive end. Thusly, it's immoral to implement a policy which reverts its intentions towards an ultimately immoral end. For this reason, vote Con.Sources in Comments

The Minimum Wage should be increased. I will play by the rule. DEFINITIONS MINIMUM WAGE: an amount of money that is the least amount of money per hour that workers must be paid according to the law ... www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/... INCREASE:to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to: toincrease taxes. verb (used without object), ... dictionary.reference.com/../increase ARGUMENTS . Increase Minimum Wage, Decrease Employment Getting the millions of currently-unemployed workers into productive employment should be a major focus of government. I had hoped that the president would address the labor market crisis, directing the energy of government in an effort to help the suffering unemployed. Unfortunately, there was precious little attention and no urgency regarding this crisis in the State of the Union address. Instead, the president called to increase the minimum wage. The economic effects of minimum wage increases have been studied dozens and dozens of times in the past few decades. Different studies come to different conclusions, of course. But economists David Neumark and William Wascher, after conducting an exhaustive literature review, conclude that "among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment e"0"2ects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries."They continue: "The studies that focus on the least-skilled groups that are likely most directly a"0"2ected by minimum wage increases provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups." The weight of the evidence suggests that increasing the minimum wage decreases employment, especially for lower-skilled workers. Will a minimum wage increase help to alleviate poverty, as the president suggested in his speech? The evidence suggests that it will not. Economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser find that asmall minority of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase - around ten percent - live in poor households. The White House itself states that workerswho would benefit from a minimum wage increase bring home less than half of their household's total wage and salary income. In other words, the workers who will benefit from an increase are secondary and tertiary earners - think more of teenagers with summer jobs, of spouses earning some income on the side, or of elderly grandparents earning some retirement income, and less of primary breadwinners. In fact, Professors Sabia and Burkhauser find that around two-thirds of minimum wage workers live in households with incomes more than twice the poverty line.Speaking of teenagers: The unemployment rate for 16-to-19 year old African Americans is a massive 37.8 percent. For white teenagers, the rate is 20.8 percent. This crushing unemployment will ripple through the rest of their lives, affecting their labor market outcomes for years to come. Why does it make sense to increase the cost of hiring these unemployed teenagers by increasing the minimum wage? Raising the minimum wage is unlikely to affect the poverty rate. And raising the minimum wage certainly won'tincreasethe number of workers who are employed. Quite the opposite - the weight of the evidence suggests that it may decrease the number of employed workers. Our labor market crisis is a national emergency. Ideally our government would be implementing policies to help workers get jobs. But surely the government should not actively increase the cost of hiring workers. An increase in the minimum wage would do exactly that - by design. The president was wrong to call for a minimum wage increase, most especially in a labor market in crisis. Raising minimum wage is sure bet to create more jobless young Americans The unemploymentrate for 16 to 19 year olds was an astonishingly high 23.8 percent last month. The United States is facing a youth employment crisis. Young workers are finding it increasingly difficult to enter the labor market, get their first job and work their way up the career ladder. Yet, during this time of persistently high youth unemployment, there have been calls to increase the minimum wage from $7.25 to as high as $10 per hour. America's youth are having a hard time reaching the first rung on their career ladders. Now is a bad time to increase minimum wages and make that important step more difficult. Higher minimum wages generate a tradeoff between higher wages for the employed and higher rates of unemployment. When minimum wages increase, many workers who earn less than the new higher minimum wage lose their jobs. Firms often decide that they can get by with fewer workers instead of paying higher wages. The increase in minimum wage, will even increase the unemployment issue in the state. www.aei.org/article/economics/fisca.. www.forbes.com/sites/williamdunkelb...

Minimum Wage should not increase to $15. R1: Increased Consumption.This claim has already been debunked in My P2: Annual Wages case. Increased Consumption means increased spending. The GDP is merely a measurement of the movement of currency in a nation, aka spending. In R2, I gave evidence that minimum wage increases have never been followed by GDP growth. A case dropped by Con showing that when minimum wage increased [1], GDP growth almost always decreased [2]. For Con's case to be true, we MUST see an increase in GDP growth. History opposes Con's case.Along with historically inconsistency, Con's case also falls short of academic consensus. In a popular study by famous economist J. Sabia, he shows that increases in minimum wage have only led to a negative impact on the GDP, specifically for low-skilled industries [3].Reasons for this being that hikes in minimum wage correlates strongly with unemployment rates among teenagers [4]. The increase in unemployment negates a major source of growth in the economy, and reduces productivity. Another inherent issue with Con's claim is that only a small portion of those postivitely effected by hikes in wages are major contributors to the economy. Over 62% of minimum wage workers work only as a summer job, and provide little to the economy [5]. It should be noted that Con's own source on the $17,500 claim states that this income is greatly outweighed by larger unemployment [6]. It must also be noted that Con's math is wrong. The CBO puts the net gain on income for $10.10 an hour at only $2 bn a year once increases and decreases in income are accounted for [12]. Even at $15 an hour, income would, at most, increase by $5 bn, but an exponentially increasing rate of disemployment would have a much larger decreasing effect, so net gain would be lower.A major contributor to lacking economic growth is that the increase in prices, following basic economic philosophy, reduces demand. This causes less consumption overall. We see this increase in prices across nations with minimum wages above $6.00 an hour. Using minimum wages gathered from OECD [7], and CPI information [8], we find that as minimum wage increases, there is an increase in CPI. Especially in the restaurant field, where a large ratio of employees are mw. The restaurant CPI follows minimum wage to a near perfect degree. We see this supported in academia by Aaronson, French, and MacDonald (2007)[9], where they found unambiguous increases in prices when wages increase. This claim was later supported by studies done in 2015 [10]. Empirically and historically speaking, raising minimum wage does not increase consumption, but instead leads to lower GDP growth. The Heritage Foundation found that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would cost 300,000 jobs a year and reduce the economy by $40 bn annually [11].R2: Higher Productivity.Con's case is disproven by a study by A. Davies showing that productivity does not increase when minimum wage rose [12]. In fact, increases in unemployment negated any increase. CBO estimates as many as 200,000 workers could lose their job if minimum wage increased to $9.00, as could 1,000,000 workers at $10.10 [13]. By such an increase of 5x for only a dollar increase in wages, $15 an hour would lead to mass disemployment. At $10.10 alone, you lose nearly 2 billion hours of productivity. The economic stress would lead to lower productivity on the rest of the workers who must pick up the slack.Many studies support this, including one by Nuemark and Wascher [14] which stated that among low-skilled workers, there was a strong disemployment effect. A study by M. Hicks [15] found that minimum wage hikes in the 2000's led to 550,000 fewer jobs being created. Abowd claimed that french men ages 25 - 30 on minimum wage saw their probability of keeping their job decrease by 4.6 percent for every 1% increase in wages [16].Another hit to productivity was a study by Chaplin, Turner, and Pape [2003] that found that higher minimum wages lead to slight decreases in school enrollment [17]. The long term effect on skill levels will reduce both productivity and the efficiency of productivity over the long term. Backing Chaplin's study was two done by Nuemark and Wascher [18][19]. John Warren and C. Hamrock found the same results in 2008 [20].R3: Corporate Tax Cuts.Con's case lacks an understanding of minimum wage demographics. It assumes increasing minimum wage will lead to the wage increases necessary to decrease welfare funding. This isn't true. In fact, Minimum Wage increases barely touch poverty-stricken workers. I will discuss more in P5: Inefficiency and Alternatives, but will explain a bit here in the name of refutation.Contrary to popular belief, most minimum wage workers are not poor. In fact, a report done by R. Nielsen found that more than 57% of the nation's impoverished were so because they were unemployed [21]. As such, a minimum wage hike will not help them, but will keep them unemployed longer, costing the Government money in the long term. 87% of those who benefited from an increase in wages were not poor, and 56% lived in households earning 2x the poverty level. So the minimum wage increase does little to actually help poverty. Forbes claimed the average Household Income of minimum wage earners was $50,700+ a year [22]. This implies that the average welfare earner was largely unaffected. This is likely because most impoverished with jobs are poor because of family sizes, not individual wages.Many on minimum wage don't receive welfare because, statistically speaking, minimum wage isn't below the poverty line. Those who live on their own, working the annual average work hour (1780)[23], will bring in $12,900 a year. This is over $1,100 above the poverty level. If they were married with another minimum wage worker, they would earn almost $9,900 over [24]. If the second member were a child, the worker would be impoverished, until the EITC (worth $1,000)[25] and the CTC (worth $3,305 for one child)[26] were added, putting the worker almost $1,300 over the poverty line. This being so, poverty has little to do with their wages, and more with work hours and family sizes where the size is well above the wages of the working members.As such, Minimum Wage does little to decrease poverty, and therefore welfare. If anything, the effect on unemployment and cut hours would likely throw more people into poverty. Therefore there is no room for Corporate Tax Cuts. Even then, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 included tax cuts [27], and yet many of the studies I provided that found disemployment and negative GDP impacts included this wage increase, implying tax credits did little for corporations and workers.P1: Corporate Income v Employer Income.To reinforce this case, a study of prices in New Jersey claimed prices increased because of a hike in wages [28]. One restaurant rose prices 14% after a minimum wage hike [29]. Another found a price hike of at least 0.7% for every 10% hike in wages, or 1.6% for limited service establishments [30]. Such establishments would have to raise prices by 5% [31]. On that same note, Con never addressed decreasing fast food sales [32]. P2 and P3 need not be expanded upon.P4: Effect on Employees.To expand this case, a chart taken from the BLS shows a perfect correlation between teenager unemployment and the minimum wage [33]. A review of studies confirmed disemployment among younger workers [34]. Kosters [35], Henderson [36], and Sabia, Burkhauser, and Hansen [37] confirm this. Mark Wilson found that most minimum wage workers get promoted past minimum wage within a year, displaying a natural progression away from entry-level worker, and when forced, leads to disemployment among those workers [38].This is confirmed in a mass review of studies by Nuemark [39]. Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen found the same results, as did many others [40,41,42,43], and a massive compilation of studies by the JECR found a consensus in academia similar to Nuemark's [44]. P5: Inefficiency and Alternatives.As stated in R2: Corporate Tax Cuts, the demographics are not in minimum wage's favor. In fact, notable liberal billionaire Warren Buffett claimed he didn't believe the minimum wage was effective [45]. A 2010 study by Burkhauser and Sabia concludes that increasing the minimum wage does nothing to reduce poverty [46]. I've already hit plenty on the topic of inefficiency, so I will move on to the point. Alternatives. The study mentioned increasing The Earned Income Tax Credit, which is the most proposed option [47]. AIE discussed the proposal in depth [48], claiming that the policy is far more precise since the tax credit is based on household income (the defining income for poverty). Therefore, a family in poverty will recieve an increase in income, while a minimum wage worker in High School and with a household income of $50,000 doesn't. The policy is far better targeted and far more precise.Other reasons for the EITC's efficiency is that it does not cost the employer anything. As many scholars agree on, jobs are the best anti-poverty tool, therefore an increase to wages without decreasing employment is the best path. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found, increases in the EITC and CTC (Child Tax Credit) led to higher grades, healthier children, increased earnings for the children later on, and a number of other benefits [49]. The Tax Credit also encourages work, as the credit is based on a percentage of income. More work equals more revenue [50]. This increases work, productivity, and wages.Conclusion:Minimum Wage does not reduce poverty, welfare spending, or hardships among earners. It does, however, increase disemployment, prices, and even poverty if doubled. It does not increase consumption, but does decrease GDP growth. It should not be increased to $15 an hour. Increasing the EITC is the best option for reducing poverty and hardship among low-earning households and the impoverished.Sources: http://pasted.co...