Question: Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

Title: The Minimum Wage should be increased. Content: I accept

Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: - 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

Title: The minimum wage should be increased Content: Forward, again.

Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: 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...

Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: Excited to debate with someone, good luck :)

Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: 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...

Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: 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)

Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: 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

Title: The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour Content: 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...

Title: Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased Content: Extend

Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: 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.

Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: 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...

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: This round I will respond to all of my opponent's arguments as there are a few things that I feel need to be addressed. R1: PovertyThis debate argument was put together in interlocking argument in a premise structure to where all I simply have to do is defeat one argument and then the entire contention falls. P1: The 'Increased' MW reduces poverty. My opponent's first piece of evidence is irrelivant as it speaks of the $8 dollar minimum wage. The reason that this evidence is irelivant is due to the fact that the debate revolves around a $15 minimum wage (MW from this point forward) which is $7 above the evidence my opponent has. My opponent brings up that 4.6 million would be lifted out of the poverty line in the US if the minimum wage is raised. That's nice, but there are a few factors that he is ignoring. At a $15 MW only 19% would go to and benefit those at or bellow the poverty line where as the rest goes to 3 times that of the poverty line according to a report by the CBO. [1] To show further affects it has been shown that raising the MW would create a 0% increase in income for those in the Lower Class. [2] While the Top Tier gains 20%, this shows that it is not having any of the effects my opponent is purposing. To add to that the National Bureau of Economic Research has found that at best a $15 MW would create 3.2 million jobs, but would have a net LOSS of 6.6 million jobs. I'm not sure about you, but that's worsening the situation instead of improving it. [3][2] Here we can see that this worsens the poverty issue in America. This point is negated. P2: The Increased MW helps the poor. Here my opponent's own source (source 5) states that it would have no impact [gain wise] on the middle class. It would only affect the 30th Percentile. My opponent also brings up MW Elasticity, so let me explain what that means here. From the graph above we can see that despite there's an increase in demand for Labor we have an increase in unskilled labor. [5] The reason for the increase in demand for Labor is what I like to call the 'WalMart Effect. ' What this means is that jobs look for an increase in part time jobs and cut down on full time workers so that they could get away with not paying for their benefits. This is something Walmart did in California when they raised their MW nationwide. Walmart eventually had to cave in to strikes, but that goes to show you what businesses will do. [4] This shows that we aren't helping the poor, but harming them and everyone else significantly. P3: Current MW Violates Human RightsWith P3, my opponent states that if poverty is against Human Rights then increasing it is also violating Human Rights which I have shown above. Thus this argument and entire Contention goes in my favor. R2: Productivity My opponent makes an interesting argument, but we can see that this graph above causes Pro's argument to come crashing down. Simple Macroeconomics shows that if you increase the Money Supply that not only would price level's increase, but the deman for money would decrease due to simple inflation. This simply shows that if you raise the MW nation wide you will see we would be back at the first point. My opponent's "less likely to leave" argument is flawed as all wages would rise we would still see things at the status quo. R3: Religion My opponent's entire argument is flawed as it refurs to a Living Wage, not a MW. These are two completely different topic areas and I have shown in R2 that increasing the MW will increase the Living Wage which would be against what Christians want working against my opponent flowing this argument to my side. When it addresses a MW increase I did back research and found that there was several extremely Blue States polled making it completely biased. That would be like if I found a poll that only included the nation's reddest states. Not to mention that his source shortfalled the resolution by nearly $5. Source 12 should be thrown out of the debate. With that out of the way let's move on to my own arguments. C1: MW leads to job loss. My opponent attempts to link my argument to Globalization, but this is completely incorrect as I had brought up nothing in regards to Globalization as my argument involved internal competition and had nothing to do with competiting with foreign imports or having to move business overseas. With that you should discard my opponent's argument here and I extend across my own. Let's just say I buy the fact that my source is debunk. I still have several other scholary sources on the matter. The simple fact is that my argument still stands even if my opponent launches a simple Ad Hom attack against it, but has yet to actually refute the actual against. I, thus, extend across my arguments. C2: InflationI find it funny that my opponent sites John Schmitt's article. The reason I state this is that in my source 3 he had co-authored the study with Jared Bernstein to show the MW increase to $15 would harm more than hurt America. So here we have a conflict of sources. Next my opponent's source only refers to a $9.80 MW, nowhere close to $15. Which thus negates his own argument. So despite how thorough it is, it still fails in comparison to my own evidence provided. It's more important that when we look at the source that his 10% was exceded in the last MW raise and under this one purposed in the resolution it is doubled. This is outside of what my opponent's source speaks on. Please refer to R2 for more inflation related arguments. My opponent confuses that there's an interlinking between Contentions. One can see that there's a clear linkage of evidence and relitivity across the board, but that does not mean if you defeat one contention that you refute the entire set. That's like saying if I refute my opponent's first Contention then his Second Contention fails. My opponent completely ignores the inflationary argument. Though he is not advocating this he is supporting the doubling of wages and hence by simple Macroeconomics, the Quanity Theory of Money states that increases thus princes would also increase as well as the cost of Living. By my opponent's own standard's in R1 he would advocate for continuious MW raising. [6]C3: Inflation and Global TradeMy opponent, once again, is mistaken here. He is ignoring simple Macroeconomics when you apply simple Quantity Theory of Money you can see that with the increase of the Money supply then the costs of goods and other things would go up. This harms US exports as they become more expensive to other nations who, with lower MWs, wouldn't be able to afford as much of American goods vs. that of goods produced in their own nation or that of Asian nations. My own opponent's argument ignores inflation's affect's to the US dollar and ignores the fact that in 1912 the Federal Reserve was created and given the authority over US Monetary policy which can explain my opponent's "Something happened" source. ConclusionTo conclude we can see that despite the increasing of the MW may look tempting it is filled with many vices that causes harm to everyone across the board by harming our worst off citizens and harming future generations by creating more unskilled labor and high school droppouts. We will continue to see inflation skyrocket as we will see the cost of living move with it to be that unreachable goal that many attempt to aim for, but will never achieve. Sources are in the comments section.

Title: The Minimum Wage should be increased. Content: I still maintain that it should not be increased

Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: 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...

Title: The minimum wage should be raised. Content: I Accept.

Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: This round I will focus on the economic and sociological affects that this will have on our nation. Contention 1: Wage Increase=/= More Jobs Wages will not increase jobs For instance the wage will increase and the employers will have to either raise prices in order to shelter the burden of the increased wages (which we'll get to this in another Contention) and the second is that we have roughly 500,000 jobs lost due to the cutting of jobs in order for business can still compete with others at low prices. You see that CBO actually supports my point [1]This will also hurt teenagers in the Workforce making employers having to cut down on their hours and/or favoring adults and a older population. Let's take Wisconsin for example when the minimum wage was last raised the unemployment soared from 15.8%-19.8%. [2]Imagine that on a US wide or even a world wide scale. This is an important factor that we have to look at here since a great amount of people who mainly rely on the minimum wage are teenagers and unskilled labor and if the very people that it was intended to help are being significantly harmed then this plan should not be enacted. It has been estimated originally before the last rise in the minimum wage that it would end up costing well over 300,000 jobs for teens and this ended up holding true as the last raising of unemployment saw teenage unemployment jump from 4.4% to 10.2%. [12] This causes a huge problem in this debate as we can see in a study done as the minimum wage rises we see a higher drop out level in schools. This increases the problems in the labor force as we will see more unskilled workers as well as more people that do not have a good education. This lack of education will cause a dramatic harm of these workers as it will show that they will have dramatically lower wages and this will cycle through causing a higher demand for another wage raise which restarts this dramatic cycle. [13] We have no choice, but to stop this cycle and that way we will see a betterment of our workforce and it will begin to lift us out of poverty. Studies have also been done and have shown that this will result in an decrease the unskilled labor force will receive when training for jobs and this will hurt them even more since they will be unable to pick up enough skills to help their careers later in the future. "Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. " [14]1 million jobs lost subtracted from the 900,000 that will be lifted from the poverty line and that equals 100,000 people unemployed and living in poverty. Not to mention the other side effects from raising the minimum wage such as loss of jobs for teenagers. The last time Congress raised the minimum wage in July of 2009, 600,000 teen jobs disappeared within 6 months. [3]With the last minimum wage teen unemployment percentages went from 14.8% to 27.1% [4]. The Inflation will also rise, but let's look at the minimum wage increase. It's going to go from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour which is over a 25% increase. (in the US) This will cause prices to rise by 25% again. [5] Contention 2: Inflation Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour or why not make everyone a millionaire and have them make $million per hour? The answer to this question is a very simple one and it's simply causes prices to increase and inflation to rise. [6] You see this is a lesson in supply and demand is that when the minimum wage is increased it will cost more for companies to hire and train employees causing more people not to be hired, this results in less jobs, the costs of businesses also rise to keep up with the increased wages and that this ends up causing inflation. [7] "The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year. " [15] Here we can see that when the minimum wage is raised that we will see the costs will not only eliminate jobs as I have shown in my previous contention, but the burden will be placed on consumers and this harms the average household as they now have to pay more. Not more as in numerical value, but the adjusted income which takes into affect what then occurs after the raising of the minimum wage. You see this will be a continuous cycle. If you continue to rise the minimum wage then inflation will fallow causing the minimum wage to rise again and again until we end up with a problem like Zimbabwe. When the minimum wage was risen once more the US saw products prices increase via inflation by a factor of 10. [8][9] Contention 3: Inflation's affect on Global Trade Here when we observe the above chart we can see as the minimum wage increase the value of the dollar decreases. This only creates a terrible cycle that the average citizen is unable to get out of. The reason that this is important is because we would be raising the minimum wage to meet living requirements, but the thing that makes it contradictory is that prices will skyrocket causing for another call to raise the minimum wage to meet this resolution. It will be a vicious cycle that will the dollar to be worthless and have a devastating effect on the Global Economy. The higher the inflation rate also affects international trade as the higher the inflation is the higher the interest rates. [10]According to Paul Krugman, the devaluation of the dollar (caused by the resolution here) will lead to a decrease in people people buying product which hurts the economy of the nation. [11] People would have to spend more money, becuase of the inflation and with the devaluing of the dollar we can see that if I spent a dollar on the US maket in the 1960s it would be a whole lot more then if I spent a dollar on the US market today. Economist Gagnon has shown that devaluing of the US dollar caused by the inflation can lead to a massive increase in import prices and since we get many of our things from abroad it will be even harder to get that new XBox video game you were wanting. He also shown that it harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. [16]Why's this you may ask? If we observe the graph bellow the US interest rate on debt alone dwarfs most of the US federal budget. The US federal debt is getting so enourmously large that the US is getting to a breaking point in economic trade to were we have to pay off a massive amount of debt or commit financial suicide and raise the interest rates. If we observe the chart bellow we can see the different rates that a our interest rates will cost the US in the future. We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the minimum wage will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. [17] Sources in the Comments Section.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: 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...

Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: 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...

Title: The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr Content: 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

Title: Resolved: The United States should incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15/hr Content: Extend all.

Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: I would like to clarify that we are talking about the United States' federal minimum wage. Is this correct?But I do accept.

Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: 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...

Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: 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.)

Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: Rebuttal Point 1: (The argument with no name) The main problem with this argument is that minimum wage plays a contributing factor to inflation. If you increase the minimum wage to the level proposed, it would only increase inflation, quickly and effectivly downplay the acutal purchasing value of the minimum wage. I elaborate this point more in my Point 2 rebuttal. Point 2: Economic Stimulation With the proposal to increase the minimum wage, businesses will have to shift to account for the increased labor costs. According to a paper by Péter Harasztosi and Attila Lindner, that cost primarily is pushed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices [3]. There is empirical evidence that such costs are pushed on to the consumer. Restaurant prices have been found to have positive correlation to the minimum wage in a paper by two senior researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and a senior researcher at the Economic Research Service [4]. In another study that looked at the effects of a minimum wage increase from $4.25 to $5.15 in California found that, "The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year." [9] The new found money that minimum wage workers will receive, shrinks as a result of the inflation that accompanies minimum wage increases. Even though people spend more with wage hikes, the effects are not as clear cut. Aaronson and Eric French of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank discovered that the money that was spent in response to a one dollar wage hike was often borrowed as such workers took on more debt [1]. Having households in America accumulate debt is not good for the economy because as debt grows, families have to spend less or risk default which wouldn’t be good for the economy [5]. Harvard University economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff came to the conclusion that rising household debts are the precedent to economic crisis. Another team consisting of economists Atif Mian and Emil Verner of Princeton University and Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago points to household debt as a source of instability and lower economic growth. They also connected such household debt to the 2008 economic recession.[2] As stated, in my previous argument, there will be many people who would be unable to spend their raised wages because they are out of a job. With the calculated job losses associated with the new minimum wage, the GDP is calculated to be decreased by 47 billion dollars. [6] Point 3: Good for native workers I’m not necessarily sure what point Pro is trying to make here. As the point I have made in my previous argument, raising the minimum wage would cause unemployment. It seems that Pro indirectly concedes this point, instead the unemployment would instead be shifted to the immigrants. Statistically, immigrants make up more of the poverty population than natives [7]. Minimum wage is supposed to help alleviate poverty and what Pro advocates is that we make income inequality even worse by discriminating against poor immigrants even the 6.6 million that became naturalized over the last decade [8]. Shouldn’t we also look out for these people too? Sources: [1] https://www.aeaweb.org... [2] http://equitablegrowth.org... [3] http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu... [4] http://davideharrington.com... [5] http://money.howstuffworks.com... [6] http://www.heritage.org... [7] http://www.migrationpolicy.org... [8] https://www.uscis.gov... [9] "Increasing the Minimum Wage" Public Policy Institute of California, May 2000.

Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: 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.

Title: The minimum wage should be raised Content: I accept.

Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: 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.

Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: 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

Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: First off, you question whether " the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce" is true. Economics 101 would support that it is true in most if not all cases. Your statement "raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. " seems more an indictment of welfare than a cogent argument for raising minimum wage. Here is another opinion (with a citation) From : http://www.essortment.com....... "Beginning in 2008, the United States economy entered a recession. Yet, at a time when many companies found it necessary to cut labor costs, the minimum wage increased. Faced with the limited choices of ( remaining in business) or laying off workers, the minimum wage workers were the ones to suffer by being laid off, according to Forbes.com. In 2004, three states that had higher minimum wage laws than were required---Alaska, Washington and Oregon---were among the five states with the highest unemployment, according to an Economic Policy Institute article by Jeff Chapman. " To clarify, I would support keeping the minimum where it is, but making it beneficial for companies to give "merit' or "service" increases. In other words, keep minimum wage as a STARTING wage, but give increases based on performance. This would be much better than a blanket raising of the wage for workers, some of whom are more of a liability than an asset. On a personal note, I once worked for a Fortune 500 corporation that paid minimum wage plus commission on sales. Those that sold did well. Those that did not produce usually left for another job. Raising the minimum would not have changed anything at all.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: Rebuttals:I'll provide some rebuttals for my opponent's initial speech, per the rules. I'll respond to his attacks on my case in the following round. 1. Benefit EconomyI have a few responses here.> Economic impact is quite demonstrable in its effects, and they are quite negative. His assertion that it will inject money/spending into the GDP is demonstrably false, due to the nature of a wage hike.> When wages rise, so do payrolls. So the money that would be spent would primarily go to paying the extra wages in the first place.> Moreover, raising wages would force employers to raise prices to compensate for lost capital used to fund the higher wages. This passes the brunt onto consumers. Prominent economists Aaronson, MacDonald, and French confirm "prices unambiguously increase in response to a minimum wage change." [1] Unfortunately, a minimum wage won't help the economy when it raises prices. This causes inflation, which is never good for the economy, and also, essentially, negates the wage increase.> When prices rise concurrent with wage hikes, these minimum wage workers are effectively in the same dilemma: prices are too high for them to afford necessities. Instead of poverty reduction, you have poverty facilitation along side the depreciation of currency.> Neither of these things are good. What's more, any economic benefits would be negligible, and heavily outweighed by the detriments to individuals and the diversion from its asserted goal (poverty facilitation).> Economic research confirms the harmful effects on economy. Harasztosi and Lindner affirm "costs of the minimum wage [are] largely passed through to consumers." [2] Employment is a big concern with benefits to the economy, and as I have definitively proven, jobs are indubitably destroyed by a wage hike.> This is definitively true, and demonstrable by a plethora of evidence. Neumark and Wascher, after conflicting evidence was brought forth, revisited the wage debate and concluded there are STILL relevant and signficant disemployment effects. [3]> There are hundreds of thousands of jobs to be lost in multiple individual states, as well -- from only a $10.10 increase. Economic theory suggests a $15 wage hike would compound and extend these negative trends. [4]> The GDP would actually be harmed, per macroeconomics. Because of severe job losses, the proposal could reduce the current US GDP by $42 billion in 2017. [5] [http://tinyurl.com...]> The above is a demonstrative graph representing the previous point. Essentially, because there would be severe elimination of jobs, the GDP would subsequently decline concurrent to these disemployment effects.> Specifically in regards to job loss, here are some statistics. Job losses could total over 2.3 million for a $10.10 proposal nationwide. [6]2. Benefit AmericansAnother area where I have some dispute:> It can be reasonably argued and claimed that if a policy proposal has such dire economic effects, it would not equate to a benefit for Americans. This premise, I believe holds firm and unwavering. Yet, I'll address a few more issues within this specific contention to further reiterate my point.> Perhaps one of the biggest problems the US faces is employment concerns. Particularly, there is young laborers who are finding it quite difficult to find a job. However, the policy implementation for which my opponent advocates does nothing to resolve this paragon issue. In fact, the proposal at hand facilitates LESS employment opportunities for those in the most need of them -- teens and the unskilled workforce.> The concept is quite simple. When a firm is federally mandated to pay a specified wage (which is quite high, in most cases) they would logically hire the individual with the best skill set. This generally entails individuals with a college degree and experience in the field prior to hiring. Generally, neither of these conditions align to teens or the unskilled work force. Essentially, the ones that need the jobs the *most* are going to be excluded from the hirings.> An economic study of dynamic employment effects by Meer and West of Texas A&M addresses this very issue. They note "it [a wage hike] reduces demand for new workers by raising the marginal cost of an employee." [7] Essentially, there is a higher cost for an employee. Consider, for example, the following: two products, of the same type, cost the exact same amount. One is thoroughly tried and durable one, while the other is untested and discernibly faulty.> The choice is simple. It would only be obvious to choose the former. The latter, admittedly, is of less quality for all intents and purposes. The same is true for the labor force. The quality and value of a worker to a firm is essential. > It's simply a matter of productivity. A tried and tested individual is likely to have higher productivity, similar to college graduates generally having better productivity. Economic research confirms "workers with more education tend to have higher productivity, which means they tend to produce more output with the same inputs." [8]> Minority Americans, the ones who REALLY NEED the extra cash, are the ones who suffer the most, unable to find the jobs they need. [10] This doesn't benefit America, as it only widens the gap between the rich and the poor.> Another issue is low-cost communities. The system, as proposed, is a federal wage -- "one-size-fits-all." However, this is untrue. There is no system that fits all areas.> It's plausible that some areas with large corporations and few minorities (though unlikely) would be able to absorb the impacts. But more rural communities (which drive agriculture) would suffer greatly. Even in areas where the cost of living is simply lower, a higher wage would devastate the economy. These small-scale places simply don't have enough capital to put into the wages that would be required. [9]3. Benefit the WorldA final refutation area:> It's rather dubious to assume that, weighing the considerable economic defecits and detriments to America that the world would be benefited by the US implementing such an outrageous wage.> Moreover, if the premises are true that there is such economic downturns and American harms, the economy of the US wouldn't "stay on its feet" and would thus entirely negate this contention, as well as the entire constructive argument.> I would assert that the premises I've shown are true, and that I've reasonably demonstrated that fact; however, it is up to the judges to determine that.> My opponent makes the argument here of the "dollar going up" benefiting the US and the world. However, this is entirely false.> A minimum wage hike would cause inflation. Though I've demonstrated the economics of this both in my constructive case as well as this rebuttal, I will again affirm this point in a more simplistic manner. Inflation, as defined by a paraphrased Investopedia is that when prices rise, the value of currency falls. Specifically "Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising and, consequently, the purchasing power of currency is falling." [11]> This definition renders obvious and direct inflation from a minimum wage hike. Since we've already established that prices will rise, there has to be subsequent inflation. Again, Investopedia simplifies "raising the minimum wage forces business owners to raise the prices of their goods or services, thereby spurring inflation." [12]> Refer to Contention II in my case for more specifics and analysis.Conclusion:There's clearly large concerns, and validated, that a wage hike will be harmful to individuals, society, and the economy. Under the only proposed framework (in which my opponent accepts as he did not contest), judges should value moral and pragmatics regarding the topic. As I have shown it would be immoral to send all of these individuals to unemployment and continued poverty, and have shown that it's largely illogical on economic, politcal, and social grounds to raise wages, we should not. For all of these substantiated and verified reasons, there is no option but to 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...[12] http://tinyurl.com...

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

Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: 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.

Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Acceptance! ^_^ The minimum wage should be raised to benefit families, immigrants, and middle class people all across america.

Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: 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...

Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: Observation: Plagiarism https://www.dol.gov... My opponent has copied all of his points from the preceding website. Regardless, I will respond to them. Rebuttal 1: Teenagers The entire argument does not matter since I did not make this claim. What does matter, though, is the number attached to it showing the minimum wage that was measured. “… 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.” What we are debating is a fifteen-dollar minimum wage per hour, so this entire argument is not under the resolution, and is considered void given no context on why this matters. Rebuttal 2: 600 economists I will concede that this happened, in support of the minimum wage increasing to $10.10 an hour of course. However, we are debating the minimum wage being higher, which will lose jobs in the long run. Remember, we are not debating simply a minimum wage increase, but one to fifteen dollars an hour, and this should be factored into today’s debate. http://www.epi.org... Rebuttal 3: Support from small businesses The opinions of small businesses do not matter since I already given you an unrefuted example of how a minimum wage increase harms consumers. Not only this, but these are simply opinions and are not factored in to this debate. Rebuttal 4: Tipped minimum wage This entire argument is non-sequitur as it is not discussed in this debate. Rebuttal 5: Job losses I have already explained that job losses do not occur if the state were in charge of raising the minimum wage and I have used a Brookings Institution article to show why states are the best actors. Myth 5 and 6 I have not discussed this in this debate up till now. Rebuttal 6: Employee turnover Alright, maybe under certain circumstances this may happen, but my opponent has not shown that the savings from employee turnover outweigh the price of paying more toward employees, which will increase the price of products. Rebuttal 7: Not bad for economy The article claims that since this has not happened before, the GDP will remain the same. Aright, but have we ever doubled the federal minimum wage within one year? If so, what was the effect of that? Rebuttal 8: Minimum wages do not mean job losses My opponent does not cite sources to prove this. Also, remember these are independent studies, not studies done on the national level. I have already shown you that a minimum wage hike will have different results in different states, so independent results are not important if done on the state level. Since this is not cited, I can only assume as much.

Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: 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.

Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: The United States should incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15/hr Content: Extend All

Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: 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...

Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: 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...

Title: The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr Content: 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...;

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: 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.

Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: Defending my unemployment argument: One problem with Con’s argument that worker productivity will rise if minimum wage rises is that the two don’t have any correlation. Take for example the time period of 2000-2007 with worker productivity. Over that time period, worker productivity went up by 2.6% in the nonfarm business sector and 4.7% in the manufacturing sector yet during that time the minimum wage stayed at $5.15. Also notice that the time period saw some of the highest growth compared to other time periods. Now look at the 2007-2015 era and you will notice that productivity growth was half of what it was in the period before despite the fact that minimum wage rose by more than $2.00 during that time. [1] [2] If worker productivity and minimum wage really were correlated then you would expect to see the 2000-2007 era to have less growth than its 2007-2015 counterpart as the real value of the minimum wage shrunk due to inflation over that period and vice versa. On to the issue of employee turnover. Let me first point out that employee turnover isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Employee turnover is good for the company and the economy if:A low performer leavesA person who is toxic to the work environment leavesA low performer or average performer gets replaced by a high performer This brings me to the point of price-out theory. By artificially increasing the value of the job, the employer would look for employees worth more than the job who are often skilled workers that are often not in poverty. Take for example at McDonalds, if you have an applicant who is a college student in an engineering major who can fix machinery versus a high-school dropout in poverty, the employer is now less inclined to give the job to the high-school dropout. It would be such scenarios such as these that increasing minimum wage wouldn’t help those in poverty ultimately defeating the purpose of it. Large corporations can also easily afford to replace minimum-wage workers with automated machines. With the CBO report, while 500,000 jobs makeup 0.3% of total jobs in the United States [4], take into account that there are 1.3 million jobs in the US that pay at the US federal wage [3]. Since this is minimum wage, it is safe to assume that most of the job loss will be at minimum wage jobs. That is around 38% of total minimum wage jobs in the United States. If their estimates line up with other researched papers that state their methodologies, there isn’t too much need for concern as you still have those papers to fall back on. If the report is an outlier, then there would be a much greater need for concern. You criticize the methodology of the the papers in which the study derives its numbers from but never go into detail what his argument is or why we should accept his critique. You attack my claim of historical wage hikes for making a false analogy between introduction and increase of the minimum wage. Yet you could also look at it as an increase from $0 to $0.25. Also even before the implementation of the minimum wage, there was still a sort of “de facto” minimum wage which is what the job is worth. Since the abolition of slavery after the Civil War, employers are required to pay their workers something, otherwise why would someone take a job. If you look closer at my figure for Puerto Rico, that study was talking about unemployment during 1938 [5]. The study you brought up covered unemployment in Puerto Rico since the year 2000. Case closed “Multiple studies have found minimal to no negative impact on employment prospects as a result of minimum wage hikes” Yet a study by economists David Neumark and William Wascher found that most studies came to the conclusion that raising the minimum wage would have a negative effect on employment.[6] Also note that Pro hasn’t disputed my arguments about mechanization taking over the minimum wage workers. Defending Argument 2: First off, Pro blatantly misrepresents the CBO report. It is not 16 million families but rather workers. He also misrepresents the number of people who would predictably rise from the poverty line. Instead of millions as Pro suggests, the figure comes at around 900,000 directly from the report [4]. Also from the CBO report is that average annual family incomes would only increase by a measly 3% from this increase. This just proves my point that raising minimum wage is a ineffective way to help those in poverty.[4] Sources: [1] http://www.bls.gov... [2] http://www.dol.gov... [3] http://www.bls.gov... [4] https://www.cbo.gov... [5] http://object.cato.org... [6] http://www.nber.org...

Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: 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)

Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate. (I will also be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, to keep up with the rising cost of living--a point which my opponent can either choose to refute or ignore.)Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But there are other numerous benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will overall negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!(Disclaimer: for this debate the use of the comments section to post working links that appear dead in the actual debate will be allowed. Neither debater can use the comments section to extend the debate. The comments section shall be used only for non-scored comments and to post working links to sources that are inactive in the actual debate.)

Title: The Minimum Wage Content: 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.

Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: 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...

Title: We should raise the minimum wage Content: I will first begin by very easily negating what has been presented thus far by my opponent. They brought up the lack of employment from younger individuals in New York when the minimum wage was increased. This point, however, is null and void. As of December 31st of 2016, New York's minimum wage has already been raised to fifteen dollars, supporting my argument. According to the New York government, the raise in minimum wage was actually due to input from both employers and employees. This means that the people 'wanting to work for less', as my opponent tried to argue for, do not exist, or are a very subjective minority of workers. Source(s): (https://www.ny.gov...) EPI states that raising the minimum wage to just ten dollars would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. This means my opponent supports a smaller economy and less jobs. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's economists 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. In 1994, an economic study done by the economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD studied employment rates between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the latter having a higher minimum wage. They found no difference in employment rates, meaning that my opponent's argument about lower employment is null and void and flows over to my side. Furthermore, economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, released in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found "little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment." Source(s): (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) (Daniel Aaronson and Eric French, "How Does a Federal Minimum Wage Hike Affect Aggregate Household Spending?," Chicago Fed Letter, Aug. 2013) (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) (Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley, "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, June 2009) For these reasons, supporting my side of the argument and nullifying everything presented by my opponent, I heavily urge a strong Pro/Aff voter turnout.

Title: Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised Content: I will be arguing for a stable federal minimum wage in the United States. I personally believe that the minimum wage should be abolished altogether, as I believe in almost nonexistent government intervention in business. However, I am arguing that we should not increase the minimum wage any higher then it already is on a federal basis. This comes from the fact that Seattle, NYC, LA, and Chicago have all raised their minimum wages to an exorbitant amount, which will eventually end up in loss of jobs and working hours. First round will be acceptance and an overall statement of your intended debate, as well as any definitions you shall use for your debate. If you feel that a word or sentence is vague, please define it using a common dictionary, and then list the name of that dictionary in your overall debate. No trolling, no usage of profanity, and all statements that are not opinionated but are not backed up by sources will be looked over, as I will not believe it unless I see a credible source.

Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: Unfortunately, I have to forfeit this round. I been too busy with school, and wasn't able to make my arguments in time. It's up to my opponent whether he believes I should be penalized for this. I'll accept his choice.Sorry for the inconvience.

Title: An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment Content: My opponent opens this round by saying that a time frame is a "red herring". That position could not be more incorrect. If we aren't allowed to take long-term benefit into account, the entire debate has no merit because no effect is either infinite or instantaneous. I could just as easily say that a minimum wage increase has no effect on employment the day it is signed, and therefore has no impact. The word that is important here is "Overall", as it was used both in PRO's initial argument and very much factored into my response. My opponent then goes on to make the extraordinary claim that even "if the minimum wage is raised ten percent, it temporarily stunts future growth anyway." So let me get this straight: Long term benefits to employment caused by a higher standard of living (driven by higher minimum wage) don't count because we aren't allowed to take the long term as having any relevance... yet future growth is "stunted." (A position my opponent does not back up with any sort of explanation.) To summarize, PRO would have you acknowledge future harms that he does not justify in any way, yet ignores future benefits because they're "a red herring". Additionally, my opponent's source on this matter is a book, in which he supplies no reference or page number. In future rounds I will in good faith trust my opponent about what books he selects say, but he should at least indicate exactly what that is. (Yes, he links to it later, but again, without knowing what section or quote he finds relevant to his point, it's rather difficult to use here) Rebuttal 1: My Source To say that my source claimed "All" recent research was breaking the same way is a Straw man argument. The source I site is clearly only referring to all the studies it was choosing to use as examples, NOT all research being done. His entire argument is predicated upon this slight, which is either a serious confusion on his part, OR a deliberate and misleading statement to ignore what the studies themselves say. But that really isn't surprising. When I read through Neumark (who seems to be the ONLY source my opponent cites in relation to the first half of his arguments...even his use of Gary Becker is only what Gary Becker says about Neumark's writing) I notice that Neumark himself seems to largely address examples grounded in state-level minimum wage. As PRO seeks to assess the effects of federal minimum wage, I find this discrepancy to be troubling at best. Finally, Neumark is clearly rebutting two very specific studies, which are not the ones I cited in my sources. Even if he were refuting these, it's unrealistic to expect a study to somehow address a rebuttal that was made in response to the study itself. (PRO:These new studies themselves are weak and fail to control for the factors they wish to control for. The information cited here is totally misinformed about the academic rebuttal to the studies cited.) Studies are not "misinformed" simply because they occur in the past. That's just how linear time works. Rebuttal 2: Productivity My opponent chastises me for being the one to bring productivity up, yet it is he who mentioned productivity in his opening argument, saying that the impact higher minimum wages have on productivity is a negative one. I neatly refute this, illustrating perfectly how this could not be. It is irrelevant to HIS argument, not mine. For clarity: "First, the price of the output (or workers) rises, and therefore the demand for new workers falls. This leads to a reduction in ---->production<----- and hiring, which then leads to decreased employment." These are my opponent's words. He is obliged to devour them now. Rebuttal 3: Numbers I understood that your numbers were hypothetical, obviously, but my point was that they were not an accurate example. By accurate I don't mean specific to exact real-world numbers, but rather that the scale of them was way off. When we're talking about arguments of minimum wages, we aren't talking about the difference of a 10 and 20 dollar worker, we're talking about the difference between a 35-cent worker and a 7 dollar one. This is important because it's a much clearer wrong in the latter case, the former case serves to insinuate a certain greed on the part of workers who are "not worth that much". But I digress. Another great mendacity to the examples you give is that they exist both in a vacuum. Sometimes, minimum wage is say, 15% below the poverty line relative to inflation and the costs of consumer goods. But at the same time, in that economy, profits may be at historic highs, giving companies more wiggle-room on whether or not they choose to let people go in response to having to pay more. On the other hand, if times are tight, and minimum wage is actually enough to put workers at say, 20% ABOVE the poverty line, and profits are already low, it is a virtual certainty that they might be let go in the wake of an increase. While it arguable that the Federal Minimum Wages going up might be a catalyst in the latter situation, it is clearly the greater economic environment which has the far greater impact. A catalyst and a cause are not the same thing, though it is easy to confuse the two. Rebuttal 5: Minorities Again, a straw man argument. I did not say nor imply you suggested that the minimum wage is racist. I said that employers who are already doing a poor job of employing unskilled labor from minority populations, and then, clearly, choosing to fire those individuals first when an excuse (not a cause mind you, an excuse) like a heightened minimum wage comes around ARE. And while I know it is not what you are saying, I would add that I find the notion that employers can simply hold minority population's jobs hostage to decry changes in the law they don't like disgusting. Conclusion: The largest point I have made, whether or not the overall impact of increased minimum wage is good for employment, has gone largely un-addressed. While my opponent characterizes this argument as being a red herring, he does nothing to indicate just what the long-term harms of minimum-wage hikes are, nor what their impact is in the long term. I would ask that rather than simply citing the same un-detailed study over and over again, PRO should cite a specific federal minimum wage increase, and then track what its impacts have been through the years or decades he deems relevant. I would submit that any attempt to do so will not end well for PRO. Until they do, my argument stands.

Title: The Minimum Wage should be increased. Content: Unfortunately,My opponent gave up.

Title: Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Content: 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...

Title: The minimum wage should be increased Content: 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...;

Title: An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment Content: I accept. Noting the comments others left, I will take this debate on in what I believe to be the spirit you intended, and will not resort to cheap tricks like only considering a one-penny increase. Proceed, honored opponent.

Title: The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised Content: Sometimes the utility of a debate is that it helps to refine one's statement. When I say "The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised", I mean it should not be raised NOW. The debate question had its genesis in news articles from New York and elsewhere as a response to people protesting for an increase. Raising the wage now is the wrong response , to the wrong problem and at the wrong time. With the current level of unemployment, and those who are not in the labor market, the minimum should not be raised until those issues are resolved. To raise it NOW only compounds the overall problem with the economy. When the federal government begins to act responsibly, this issue could be revisited. California may be raising their in-state minimum to $10 per hour. Let's wait and see what their experience shows. In the meantime, I still stand that "The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised at this time."

Title: Resolved: The United States should incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15/hr Content: I accept

Title: Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people Content: I accept this challenge and negate the resolution which is in favor of raising the federal minimum wage.

Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: 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.

Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: 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...

Title: The minimum wage should be increased Content: Con has dropped all of my arguments. Extending forward.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: This debate is appart of Forever's tourney and is Round 1 match-up between Famousdebater and myself.The full debate resolution is as follows. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to $15 per hour.RulesFirst round rules and definitions by Con, Opening arguments by Pro.Second Round Opening arguments by Con, no rebuttals. Pro refutes Con's arguments.Third Round Con's rebuttals, Pro's rebuttals and Conclusion.Forth Round Con's rebuttals and conclusion. Pro waives the round.In the Forth Round Pro shall only type, "No round as agree upon."If anything but the above is written in Round 4 then Pro forfeits the entire debate.No profanity.No trolling.Sources may be placed in the comments section if need-be.No Kritiks.No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used throughout the debate.The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Raise- to move to a higher position; lift up; elevate (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Minimum Wage Standard- The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Many states also have minimum wage laws. Some state laws provide greater employee protections; employers must comply with both. The FLSA does not provide wage payment collection procedures for an employee’s usual or promised wages or commissions in excess of those required by the FLSA. However, some states do have laws under which such claims (sometimes including fringe benefits) may be filed. (http://www.dol.gov...)

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: I accept!

Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: 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...

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

Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate.Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable, reputable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are also other benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!

Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: 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.

Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: DefensePoint 1: InflationCon argues that a higher minimum wage contributes to inflation. However, Con significantly overstates the supposed problems that inflation poses for the economy. It can be conclusively demonstrated that a reasonable minimum wage hike will not lead to the outlandish hyperinflation Con's argument implies. It won't necessarily lead to any inflation to begin with. Refer to the previously-displayed graph of increases to the minimum wage, from 1938 to 2012: And compare with the rate of inflation over the same time period. If minimum wage hikes had an effect on inflation, we would see see a general correlation. But we don't. There is no accordance to begin with - let alone anything as drastic and dangerous as Con stated.For one example: The large increment to the minimum wage, which took place around 2008, directly contradicts the notion that it will somehow lead to more inflation. That is what we would expect were Con to be right, but as an analysis of the graphs demonstrates, no such thing took place. [1]Point 2: Economic StimulationCon then argues that the costs from a higher minimum wage would be pushed unto the consumer. This is somewhat true, but not in the absolute.While some costs may be pushed onto the consumer (as his sources show), that cannot account for the entirety of the new income generated by a minimum wage. That an inflation-adjusted minimum wage can be raised to begin with disproves Con's argument.Point 3: Good for native workersCon appears to have misunderstood my point: A higher minium wage would discourage immigration from the get-go. It can only be argued to harm legal immigrants's employment if we assume it has a significant impact on employment to begin with (which is contestable, refer to the third round) - either way, this would only prove my third point.Closing statementI would like to thank my opponent for a great debate to start off the Beginner's tournament. Vote Pro!Source: [1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...

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

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: There was a glitch that prevented me from posting the previous round and in the comments me and lannan13 have agreed for voters to vote based on R1 - R3 (excluding my forfeiture), any votes placed against my forfeiture will be reported and removed. Thanks for a great debate that was unfortunately interrupted by many glitches on either side.

Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Forfeit, sorry.

Title: Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour Content: 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."

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to Content: All points extended. I'll let my opponent decide what he's doing in his final round.

Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: 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...

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: My opponent has forfeited... extend arguments. :)

Title: The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States Content: Extend my arguments.

Title: Minimum wage increases raise unemployment Content: accepted.

Title: Do anything Content: I accept, here is the resolution, Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $10.10. Rules Round 2 is for contentions, no rebuttles. Round 3 is for rebuttles. Round 4 is rebuttles and conclusions No trolling. Wikipeadia shall not be an acceptable source for this debate. Should- Used to express obligation or duty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Raise- To increase in size, quantity, or worth (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)

Title: The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. Content: As I stated before, the Constitution never grants the Federal Goveronment the power to establish a FEDERAL minimum wage, since this power is not prohibied to the states, it should be given to the states respectively, or to the people. This is why the term state to the rest of the world, as well as in America during the 1700's, "state" meant a sovereign state, with the power to establish their own laws, their own ystem, etc. This has a number of benefits, first of all, the economic and social situations of each state is different, allowing for laws to change according to circumstances. For example, if someone was carryin a riffle around in the open in Washington DC it might be considered threatening, but if someone lives in Detroit- this is acceptable. And yes, under the First Ammendment the people have a right to petition the goveronment for a redress of their greivances, but either way it would be best to give this powe to the states or to the people. Also, it would not be appropriateterminology to say "raising the minimum wage to 10.10$ a hour," because in 1968 it was 11$ a hour, thus this would be "restoring the minimum wage to 11$ a hour. In response to the latter, first of all, in Switzerland there is no minimum wage, yet workers earn 2,500$ a month, for the 41.5 hour shift that the swiss earn, this is 15.06$, that's 6 cents higher than the 15$ that those crazy american workers want. This is a classic example of the power being reserved "to the people," because this is all because of labour unions. And my opponents wages in Europe are irrelevant, because in the US the minimum wage is left to the states, so saying that the minimum wage in the US is 7.25$ isn't really fair, the minimum wage in California is 10$ a hour, in the District of Columbia it's 11.50$, and if you want to forma labour union you can raise the minimum wage (for you) yourself. {1} {1}. http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...

Title: The minimum wage should not be raised to$9.00 as campaigned for by the President. Content: Thank you very much for your argument. My opponent makes his case by saying, "study after study has shown that raising the minimum wage does not have a negative effect on employment." This is simply a falsehood. Many reputable sources have found the disastrous effects of raising the minimum wage that I presented in round 2. I will show a few here: 1. A study done by the Southern Economic Journal, under economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser, found that raising the minimum wage has absolutely no positive effect on poverty. "When we then simulate the effects of a proposed federal minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $9.50 per hour, we find that such an increase will be even more poorly targeted to the working poor than was the last federal increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour" (1) This study found no change in poverty, one of the studies more favorable to my opponent's side. Many find quite the opposite of what he claims. 2. A study by renowned economist David Neumark shows that a minimum wage hike actively kills jobs. "Minimum-wage leg- islation will increase wages at the cost of modest but significant reductions in employment". (2) Neumark did not elaborate on whether the unemployment out-weighed the wage gains, but it does not matter. Even if raising the minimum wage had no effects on poverty whatsoever, that implies what this study does; that some people are getting paid more, while other are laid off. This supports my argument, because while minimum wage employees may struggle to get by, they are much better off then those without jobs. (See "True Poverty", Round Two) 3. A third study, reported by the Daily Caller, report a University of Massachusetts study, led by Professor Bob Pollin, finds the same. He says "[Minimum wage] not a cure-all to poverty. In fact, the biggest source of low-income poverty is that people don't have jobs at all." (3) The study also finds "no statistically significant evidence that a higher minimum wage helped reduce hardship" Indeed, despite my opponent's claims, studies almost invariably show either no or a negative effect due to the hiking of the minimum wage. My opponent says of Republicans expectations of the minimum wage, "But such dire predictions have never materialized". However, history shows they have. 63% of states with minimum wage above the national average are suffering unemployment above the national average. (4) As reported by the Wall Street Journal, 300,00 unskilled teen workers lost their jobs following the 2008 minimum wage hike. (5) And check out this chart, comparing Alaska's economic growth after the recession, before and after the minimum wage hike: http://www.epi.org... As you can see, Alaska's post-recession job growth was phenomenal compared to the rest of the country, until the minimum wage hike, where a noticeable difference in growth is perceived, where growth should have been accelerating as the recession grew farther away. My opponent cites the "multiplier" effect, which states that the additional money workers would get from a minimum wage increase would be used to grow other business. This, of course, is a roundabout effect. The same money is stunting job growth and leading to layoffs. WIthout the hike, money is already in the hands of job-makers. In conclusion, raising the minimum wage kills jobs, and does not in any overall way reduce poverty. Getting paid 7,25 an hour may be tough, but getting paid absolutely nothing is a whole lot worse. I look forward to my opponent's next argument. (1) http://www.people.vcu.edu... (2) http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu...- (3) http://dailycaller.com... (4) http://reason.com... (5) http://online.wsj.com...

Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: I'm sorry my argument is stupid >< I didn't have enough time to research it correctly. I'm just going to say that It would help people who are working very hard but struggling to pay the bills.

Title: The Government should not raise the Minimum Wage Content: I just needed to make sure I had the correct facts and statistics to support my claims. Jobs-"Indeed, evidence of employment losses goes all the way back to 1938 and first federally imposed minimum wage. The U. S. Department of Labor concluded that that first 25-cent minimum wage resulted in the loss of 30,000 to 50,000 jobs, or 10 to 13 percent of the 300,000 workers affected by the increase. More recently, Michael Hicks of Ball State University looked at the impact of the July 2008 minimum wage increase on unemployment rates in the United States and concluded that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage results in a roughly 0.19 percent increase in unemployment, meaning the loss of about 160,000 jobs. " A study was also done by Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkause for the Employment Policy Institute concluded that even if one were to raise the minimum wage, it would result in a loss of 1.3 million jobs. According to their research, the minimum wage increases between 2003 and 2007 have no significant impact on poverty rates. The minimum wage does not solve the jobs problem, but it actually makes people lose jobs. . http://www.cato.org... Hurts small businesses- America is a popular place for start-ups. One of the essential things to helping a small business grow is not raising the minimum wage. Lets take Europe for an example. Most countries in Europe have high minimum wages, or a living wage. . https://en.wikipedia.org... France has a minimum wage between 10 and 15 dollars. 66% of people say it is hard to start a business there. Great Britain also has a minimum wage between 10 and 15 dollars. 59% of people say it is hard to start a business there. Germany has a minimum wage between 10 and 15 dollars. 46% of people say it is hard to start a business there. . http://smallbiztrends.com... All this data proves is that minimum wage hurts small businesses, and it makes it easier for large corporations to rise. This ruins innovation and creativity that capitalism has to offer, and in turn creates crony capitalism. Raising Prices- Raising the minimum wage will also raise prices. . https://www.purdue.edu... Statistics show that raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour will cause prices to increase 4.3%. Harms of raising minimum wage: Loss of 1.3 million jobs Makes no impact on poverty Makes it harder to start a business Prices increase 4.3%.

Title: Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people Content: I would first like to refute my opponents arguments, and then strengthen my own case. My opponent stated in his first contention that the unemployment rates will increase. He stated that we are hurting the future of America if we raise the minimum wage, which I have already proven incorrect because even though the adolescents are losing jobs to more skilled workers (which they aren't), their parents are making more money. They are making enough money so that the kids don't have to work. Many of the adolescents that are working minimum wage are doing so because their parents aren't making enough money for the whole family. My opponent also stated that the 1996 legislation change is not applicable because the economy has changed, but what my opponent fails to understand is that no matter how bad or good the economy is, the effects will be the same. The varying economy does not change how increasing the minimum wage will do in the long run. This is why my opponents first contention falls. My opponent states in his second contention that raising the minimum wage will lower the incentive to find education. However, this is not true because good jobs still make 10-30 dollars or more over the minimum wage. All this is doing is letting families be able to live of their income, because today, it is hard to find jobs, so finding a minimum wage job is better than no job. This is why my opponents second contention falls. I am out of time, so I do not have a chance to refute my opponents 3rd contention, so I will do so in my next speech. This is why I believe the proposition is wining this debate, and urge for a proposition vote.

Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: 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...

Title: The minimum wage should be increased Content: Resolution: The Federal Minimum Wage Should be IncreasedRules1. Burden of proof is shared. 2. No semantical games -- they will result in an automatic 7-point loss.3. Con will begin his arguments in round 1, and will post "no round, as agreed upon" in round 5. Failure to do so will result in an automatic 7-point loss.4. Forfeitting is an automatic loss.5. By accepting this debate, you agree to these rules. Let the debate begin.

Title: The Minimum Wage should be increased. Content: Wow.....maybe I will win in this debate and then challenge you on another motion

Title: An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment Content: I shall define the resolution: Minimum wage: A wage set by State (or in this case) Federal government which states that no employer can pay below X amount of money per hour to a specific employee. Increase: 10% increase or more Adverse: Negative, decreased employment, etc. Employment: Having paid work ==> If you need further clarification or want a specific definition changed, say so in the comments ==> This debate is about the current US system ==> Note this is NOT about abolishing the minimum wage ==> NO semantics, and treat this debate seriously Good luck!

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

Title: The Government should not raise the Minimum Wage Content: 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).

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: 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

Title: The federal minimum wage should be increased Content: 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

Title: The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour Content: Simple debate on whether the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. I'm Con on this, so Pro will debate for a 15 dollar minimum wage in the United States.RulesBOP is shared1st round acceptanceNo K'sAny violations of rules will be result in an immediate loss.

Title: March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage Content: Definitions:USFG - short for United States Federal Governmentminimum wage - the lowest wage permitted by lawraise - increase the amount, level, or strength of Significantly - to at least $10 an hour Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Con rebuts Pro's arguments in Round 2 and vice versaRound 4: Both sides defend their original arguments in Round 2 Look forward to a great debate!

Title: Raising the federal minimum wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Content: Salutations. Today I will debate ResponsiblyIrresponsible on the issue of the minimum wage. I thank him for inviting me to this discussion. I will be making the case that the minimum wage, will in fact, be a detriment to the US economy. To begin with, I will discuss the pros and cons of a minimum wage. Some notable benefits of this are of course higher wages for some workers. These people spend their money into the economy, growing it. However, their are some cons as well. A minimum wage, in essence, is a price control. It artificially boosts the cost of labour which in return diminishes demand for workers. Companies will hire fewer employees. This also is detrimental to interns, who often work for free. Another problem with the minimum wage system is inflation. If, say, a minimum wage increase occurred, a company may have to make up for the raised cost of employment by pushing up consumer prices, thus creating inflation. The net effect would just be higher prices for everyone, rendering wage increases fruitless. Now I shall discuss a scenario in which there is no minimum wage in the US economy. This setting can actually be attributed to a period in US history, before 1938 (establishment of the minimum wage). During this time period, employers and employees were free to negotiate wages amongst each other. A company could not simply set a low wage and expect workers to accept the job, since competition between other employers would prevent this. For example, take the Ford Motor Company. In 1914, Ford payed his assembly line workers $5 a day, which adjusts to around $116 today. This was the result of advancing technology and competition amongst companies, or capitalism. So we see here that a decent income average can be achieved without a minimum wage law. I apologize if I made any formatting mistakes as I am new to this website. And I once again thank my opponent for challenging me. Sources: Minimum wage- http://www.dol.gov... Henry Ford- http://en.wikipedia.org...

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

Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: 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...)

Title: Raise The Minimum Wage Content: I believe the minimum wage should be raised on a federal level.Con will argue the opposite.

Title: Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending Content: Resolution: If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease. Definitions:Increased: To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment;add to Minimum wage: The lowest wage payable to employees in general or to designated employees as fixed by law or by union agreement.