query: Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

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

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

positive: Raising the minimum wage is a negative action for the citizens of The United States of America I am disappointed that you chosen not to post an argument twice in a row now, but nevertheless I will still finish out the debate. In conclusion I believe that inflation is a major problem that stands in the way of raising the minimum wage, raising the minimum wage past $8.50 for at least the next 10 years is unnecessary, and that citizens in The United States of America already live "rich people" lives and that raising the minimum wage would only increase unemployment. I believe that this was a very amusing debate and that you were a very intellectual opponent, although I was not joyed with you forfeiting rounds 3 and 4.

positive: Public Labor Unions Are Beneficial to Society I. Labor EfficiencyI. i. Worker's Contentment My opponent is basically trying to say that labor unions are beneficial because they gain collective bargaining rights to the individual worker, and that this makes them happier and more productive. However, this falls apart quickly. One, labor unions are extremely undemocratic. In this startling statistic: "After all, less than 10 percent of America’s current union members have voted to have a union in their workplace—in many cases the union was already established and the worker had to join as a condition of employment. "[1] If workers want to leave this environment: "Moreover, most union constitutions consider any attempt by a member to secede from the union—including on an individual basis—a punishable offense that can result in steep fines and even termination of employment. "[1] Therefore, unions are undemocratic and do not necessarily protect the wants of the worker. Second, labor unions reward for membership, not hard work. Not only does this encourage sloth, but this also is unfair to all the hardworking workers out there. Consequently, union contracts compress wages: They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers. Everyone gets the same seniority-based raise regardless of how much or little he contributes, and this reduces wage inequality in unionized companies. [2] But this increased equality comes at a cost to employers. Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees. [3][4]Finally and most importantly, if unions put strains on workers, there is a more viable option for employers:"Recently, Boeing was sued by the National Labor Relations Board because the company tried to move factories from the heavily unionized state of Washington to South Carolina, a right-to-work state. In this economic environment, unions aren't protecting their workers against evil corporations. Instead, they are protecting them from the droves of unemployed citizens looking for work. Boeing has no moral obligation to keep jobs in the U. S. If the government tries to restrict Boeing's flow of capital, Boeing can just as easily take the jobs to China. In a global economy, a state that allows powerful private-sector unions will lose jobs and experience slow economic growth. "[5]I already stated in Round 2 that labor unions cause unemployment, and I just reaffirmed that unions tend to be unfair in wage distribution. This certainly does not promote happiness among workers. I. ii. Working Time ". .. Labor unions promote laziness and apathy. Laziness and apathy cause businesses to go bankrupt. "[6]Labor unions tend to promote laziness (note I already explained why earlier), and wasted hours shouldn't count as worked hours:"As a result of the high wage rates, employers can afford to hire fewer workers; as a result of curtailed production, employers need fewer workers. Thus, one group of workers obtains unjustifiably high wages at the expense of other workers who are unable to find jobs at all. "[7] The same thing applies. Unions also tend to increase the amount of strikes and lockdowns. [8] "Besides raising compensation costs, unions reduce government efficiency in other ways. Unions tend to protect poorly performing workers, they often push for larger staffing levels than required, and they discourage the use of volunteers in government activities. Further, they tend to resist the introduction of new technologies and they create a more rule-laden workplace. In the private sector, businesses can mitigate such union-caused inefficiencies. Unfortunately, public-sector managers have little incentive or flexibility to make such changes. A final type of inefficiency created by public-sector unions is the cost of strikes. "[8] This is also a hinderance on total work time and especially on potential work time (i. e. time that could have been spent on business expansion and R&D that is now wasted). I ask my opponent, is there any evidence to his claims? II. Benefits to Societal Values and EconomyII. i. Societal Values I have already countered most of this (especially the part about employment), but I will touch on my opponent's claims that unions give workers rights and protects them (note I have already countered some of this in I. i. ). "It was the economic self-interest of employers, that led them to raise wages and shorten working hours – not the pressure of labor unions. The eight-hour day was established in most American industries long before unions acquired any significant size or economic power. "[7]"The laissez-faire ideology and its offshoot, the "Industrial Revolution," blasted the ideological and institutional barriers to progress and welfare. They demolished the social order in which a constantly increasing number of people were doomed to abject need and destitution. "[9]It has not really been the unions that have helped workers' plights. Capitalism has given the workers the rights they deserve. Also, "As a result of allegedly “pro-labor” legislation and of the monopolistic power that labor unions enjoy, unemployed workers are not free to compete in the labor market by offering their services for less than the prevailing wage rates; employers are not free to hire them. In the case of strikes, if unemployed workers attempted to obtain the jobs vacated by union strikers, by offering to work for a lower wage, they often would be subjected to threats and physical violence at the hands of union members. These facts are as notorious as they are evaded in most current discussions of the unemployment problem – particularly by government officials. "[7]II. ii. Economic BenefitsOn marginal productivity: "Further ambiguity is occasioned by Allen's (1984a) finding that absenteeism is at least 30% higher among union worker. "[10] "As a consequence, productivity growth tends to be slower in unionized firms and industries. Increased management opposition to unions, and declining union coverage and employment within most sectors of the U. S. economy, appear to be predictable responses to the relatively poor performance of highly unionized companies during the 1970s. "[10] Unions lower productivity. On tariffs: ". .. the underlying truth about protectionist tariffs is that they aid domestic producers who've failed to meet the needs of domestic consumers. "[11] Tariffs are bad, so the fact that unions are encouraging them is bad in itself. Finally, my opponent brings up two graphs that show the "popularity" of labor unions. Not only does my opponent commit an Ad Populum fallacy, it's also wrong; it's old. Look at this graph: [12] This newer graph shows 20% declines in union approval. Therefore, the public seems to be split on them. Sources:[1]: . http://www.forbes.com...[2]: Freeman, "Union Wage Practices and Wage Dispersion Within Establishments"[3]: David Card, "The Effect of Unions on the Structure of Wages: A Longitudinal Analysis," Econometrica, Vol. 64, No. 4 (July 1996), pp. 957-979[4]: . http://www.heritage.org...[5]: . http://www.alligator.org...[6]: . http://www.broowaha.com...[7]: . http://www.nathanielbranden.com...[8]: . http://www.cato.org...[9]: . http://mises.org...[10]: Addison, John T. Hirsch, Barry T. , "Union Effects on Productivity, Profits, and Growth - Has the Long Run Arrived? "[11]: . http://www.forbes.com...[12]: . http://www.gallup.com...

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

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

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

positive: A minimum wage is an important part of our econonmy I believe your incorrect. The federal minimum wage for covered nonexempt employees is $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007. The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Many states also have minimum wage laws. In cases where an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher of the two minimum wages also, you say that only employers can only pay so little, because then people would not work. They will eventually bring it up until people work. So if they get rid of it, then it would have no point in keeping the law. Also, we wont do what China did because China made that mistake and as we see that they messed up their economy, but we dont have too.

positive: On balance, a minimum wage is detrimental Im kind of new so here's my stuffzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 1. Minimum wage helps people in the way that they know that they wont live like the chikdren in china with 2 pennies per hour. (Can I bring up this china thing in the debate against you?) 2. Minimum wage helps people so that if they are paid under the $7 or so they can tell a law person (Police officer) and have them arrest the man and then the person will get all the money they would've received if they were working at minimum wage. 3. Minimum wage is the bare minimum and is very low no-one should think of going under a very low price, its like I give you an inch and you take a mile.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

positive: The US economy is in good shape And you have a good point. With minimum wage, you can't win for losing. Both ends of the spectrum seem to have a bad result. But as stated earlier, raising it will take many people's jobs as they may be fired or the business may be shut down. I think it is better for someone to make a fair amount of money compared to having no job and making no money. America has made a lot of jobs. According to CNN, America has made over 1,000,000 jobs in 2015 alone. And 280,000 jobs in May 2015 (http://money.cnn.com...).Yes, I do not agree with most of what our current administration does and usually look at opposite ends of what our President does, but I must say that this job growth is impressive. I am glad I accepted this debate! You too had very excellent points. Thank you for giving me a good debate!

negative: The Minimum Wage Thank you. Can you post arguments as soon as possible so we can speed this out?

negative: Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment. Because some workers currently work m... Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment. Because some workers currently work more than would be allowed after the introduction of such a rule, afterwards there would be a need to recruit new workers to do the work which was formerly done by workers in their “additional” hours.

negative: The Minimum Wage should be increased. I concede. I do not agree with everything you wrote, but I acknowledge the facts. Voters, please vote for my opponent. I have been defeated.

negative: The Minimum Wage should be increased. I am a strong debater on most topics. However, economics is a topic I am not very knowledgable about.

negative: Resolved: The Minimum Wage Should be Increased Sorry 16k. I've been just selecting debates that would be challenging and I think I can win but it's not a good enough reason to accept them. I just can't focus enough to debate this topic, as it doesn't interest me. I apologize for accepting and wasting your time. I'm going to try and just do debates my heart is into, even if it means I debate significantly less. Once again, sorry for wasting your time.

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

negative: The Minimum Wage I would like to congratulate my opponent for qualifying for the semfinal round of lannan's tournament.

negative: The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution. Welcome to the final round of the March Tournament Bracket, hosted by Wylted! Congrats to my esteemed opponent, Lee001, on making it to this round! I look forward to a stirring debate on a controvertial topic. Just a note to voters: the ELO minimum has been set to 2500. I think this resolution is relatively straightforward, but I'll be as clear as possible. This is a policy-based resolution, and as such, it is my burden to present a case. The burden of proof is on me, as I am seeking to change policy, though if my opponent decides to present a counterplan, our burdens will be shared. The United States Federal Government: In this case, since we're referring to U.S. policy and what it allows for, we're necessarily referring to what should be done by the U.S. Legislature. To be clear, we're not talking about the political will for this to be done, but rather the positives and negatives of the legislature passing my proposed bill into law. Legalize: "make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law." Prostitution: "the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment." This debate will have a total of 4 rounds. The usual rule of no arguments in the final round still applies as always, first round is acceptance, and the opening rounds may include no rebuttals, in order to balance the debate. With that, I await my opponent's acceptance.

negative: The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution. Thanks again to kasmic, and let's kick this debate off in style! I'll start by presenting my policy, which expands the system currently available in U.S. a state where prostitution is legal (Nevada) to all states by federal legislative means. This means that legal brothels will be opened and regulated like any other business, including wage laws, employment laws, and taxation. Brothels will be required to allocate a fair amount of money to their prostitutes rather than taking out a huge cut for themselves, as is currently the case. They will be required to have clean facilities, hire only adults, get their prostitutes tested regularly for STDs, and require the use of contraception to prevent the spread of disease and pregnancy. Now that that's out of the way, let's move into advantages. 1) Safety The reality is that prostitution is alive and well in this country, and that it will happen whether or not we do anything about it. That system, however, allows the widespread harms that currently exist for them, and as this encompasses as many as 2 million people, it's not a problem we can ignore. The women involved in this system are often so afraid to leave it due to abuse by their pimps that even those who find it untenable cannot leave.[1] Beyond that, many women are simply dependent upon the money they earn in this system as other job opportunities are not available to them, often because they have suffered so much abuse as children, including rape and incest, that they simply don't have the wherewithal to take on another job.[2] This means that we're currently forcing them into these abusive situations in order to survive. Enforcement is, itself, harmful. 62,668 people were arrested in 2010 are arrested each year for solicitation of sex, taking up valuable police time and crowding our prisons and jails at huge cost through both the trial and incarceration.[3] This isn't just a cost issue (more on that later). There are actually two substantial problems with this. The first is a lack of reporting actual crimes like rape and forced sex, both things that happen in the current system. In many countries, police are actually contributing to the problem, and police in the U.S. have actively shut down information services that would ameliorate the problem.[4, 5] The second is that the psychological implications go well beyond the duration of imprisonment. Whether we're talking about PTSD, diminished self-worth, severe difficulties with reintegration into society, social withdrawal, interpersonal distrust, or any of the many other documented psychological harms to prisoners, this is a tremendous problem, and one that leads to breaking down families and lives.[6] The law also consigns prostitution to being a criminal enterprise, which is the reason why things like human trafficking are such tremendous concerns " an industry built on crime is not going to care if they add a few more illegal practices to the mix. A legal industry has a lot more to lose by engaging in blatantly illegal activities. Criminalization of prostitutes has actually done more harm than good, as "anti-trafficking discussions on demand have historically been stymied by anti-prostitution efforts to eradicate the sex work sector by criminalizing clients," which means that these efforts have simply "not reduced trafficking or sex work".[7] Looking at STDs, even the World Health Organization advocates for decriminalization for the sake of public health.[8] Nevada has substantially lowered their prevalence and incidence, to the point that a job that's more broadly legalized, namely porn stars, are actually in worse shape than prostitutes.[9] Even decriminalization, a very basic response that is only the most basic part of my policy, has been effective in other states like Rhode Island at reducing STD rates, as well as rape.[10, 11] Please note that this isn't just a benefit for the prostitutes themselves " sexual violence and STD incidence both decreased in the state population as a whole. Other studies have found that reduced homicide and rape rates country-wide are "anti-correlated with the availability of prostitution. It is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year."[12] The protection from physical abuse is even stronger. There are fewer instances of violence, rape and disease in the Nevada system.[13] I solve for a great deal of this just by allowing prostitutes mobility out from under abusive pimps and johns, who are responsible for an average of 16 and 33 reported rapes per year, respectively.[14] 82% are physically assaulted, 83% are threatened with a weapon, and nearly 70% have been raped since becoming a prostitute.[15] If implemented on a country-wide basis, it's estimated that we would have 25,000 fewer rapes in this country.[14] Murder, which goes at 20 times the national average among prostitutes, would also be ameliorated by both regulation and dramatically improved reporting structures.[15, 16] All of these impacts to life loss and suffering are dramatic. 2) Justice There are a number of reasons why prostitution should be legal for the sake of justice. But in order to understand this, I first need to frame what a job is. Fundamentally, a job is a negotiated task agreed to by legally consenting individuals, usually involving some pay being given to the person completing the task. As adult human beings, we have the freedom to take on any number of jobs, ranging from the mundane and safe to the extraordinary and dangerous. And the only thing that gets in the way of any individual adult's ability to acquire these jobs is finding someone who will hire you for the purpose. I would say that the ability for these negotiations to proceed is itself a civil liberty. Human beings have a fundamental right to work, something that can easily be established by looking at international law. We can look to any number of sources. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states it plainly in Article 23.1.[17] The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is unequivocal as well, and this can be found in Part III, Article 6.[18] I think these all firmly establish the right to work quite clearly, and as long as this right exists, it must be extended to all adult, capable human beings. So what does it mean to deny this right? It's dehumanizing. Denying work to people who would otherwise be able to get it denies their agency as individuals. The law is currently engaging in this dehumanization, engaging in the unjust decision to illegalize a line of work that 1% of all American women have engaged in at some point in their lives.[9] Since this is an industry dominated by women, it's even more unjust, as it's a discriminatory practice that predominantly affects a single sex. 3) Costs This breaks down into 2 sources of cost savings included in my policy. A) Arrests, court and incarceration fees Taken together, these average roughly $2,000 per arrestee. For cities, this means an average of $7.5 million on prostitution, and taken country-wide, that cost adds up to roughly $200 million per year.[19, 20] While the costs of regulation replace some of these, those costs are already built into basic regulation systems already in place, and the cost of expanding them to a new industry are minimal by comparison. B) Taxation Prostitution is an $18 billion industry, and even if we assume 0 growth following legalization, the government stands to earn $6 billion in federal income taxes and $2 billion in licensing fees.[21] In both cases, the resulting finances are substantial. Most of the costs and bureaucracies of regulation, as in Nevada, are borne by the brothels themselves, creating a barrier to entry that also ensures that unsavory owners simply cannot even start in the industry.[22] But these costs aren't the only ones that affect the capacities of criminals to engage in basic harms like human trafficking. A black market keeps prices high. Legalization reduces the pricing schemes for prostitutes, mainly as a result of competition and increased availability.[23] As such, those engaging in human trafficking garner reduced compensation. results in much reduced revenue for human traffickers. This might seem like a small issue, but a human trafficker is doing it for the money, and it costs quite a bit to kidnap someone, hold them against their will, transport them over long distances, and keep them docile after they arrive. These are not small concerns, and these costs are actually enhanced by regulations that would screen many of these women regularly, regulate these brothels directly, and allow these women contact with police that doesn't result in their incarceration. All of these reduce the economic benefit of acquiring sex slaves, and thus reduce their value. All of this means the government is receiving billions in revenue and paying hundreds of millions fewer to boot. Those funds can be spent on better enforcement of human trafficking, more effective education systems and rehabilitation facilities to give these women more job options, better health care systems, the list of possible options is tremendous. Any of them is a more effective choice than a failed system of enforcement that drives prostitution underground, leading to pimps controlling law enforcement with sexual favors and feeding organized crime.[24, 25] Over to Con! 1. bit.ly/1yfSJuL 2. bit.ly/1E7wL4w 3. bit.ly/1CVL5rx 4. bit.ly/1G2q1Dj 5. bit.ly/1ITpOpo 6. 1.usa.gov/1FOkAu5 7. bit.ly/1ETll3H 8. bit.ly/1qLoOpK 9. huff.to/1E7wpLI 10. on.wsj.com/1n3kAx5 11. wapo.st/1G4iy9E 12. bit.ly/1xjgS8z 13. bit.ly/1EI2KU2 14. bit.ly/1Cfg4Ra 15. bit.ly/1xDkByi 16. bit.ly/19pV7YM 17. bit.ly/1bnFjmW 18. bit.ly/J1E1V3 19. bit.ly/1HO6Yzy 20. bit.ly/1BPdv4F 21. bit.ly/1FOjv5h 22. read.bi/1H2Rggx 23. ti.me/1cU8ICJ 24. bit.ly/1Bx22Yz 25. bit.ly/1m3Hllw

negative: Professional Sport players should not get that much money. Look as I have said before the free market should decide the wages of individuals. You accept this principle and yet don't see that it applies to athletes as well as everyone else. Athletes do possess a skill that is more or less unique to them. The reason that they get paid so much is because there are none or very few people who possess the skills of athletes. In this circumstance the free market decides that wage and the wage that the free market has decided is the wage they currently have.

negative: introduce mandatory salary capping High salaries incentivize people to do difficult or unpleasant jobs

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

negative: Raising the minimum wage won't solve anything The resolution is that raising the minimum wage can't solve anything for the middle and working classes.

negative: The collective bargaining rights of teachers should be removed Thanks to Darkkermit for his argument. I’m now going to pick up where I left off in refutation. My opponent speaks of increasing efficiency in education by removing collective bargaining. He hasn’t shown though, that bargaining itself, is responsible for the inefficiencies. I’ve seen no fix so far that warrants an intrusion on the rights of teachers to make choices about their representation. Finances are a consideration, but school districts are NOT able to raise taxes. They can ask for an increase in the budget, but are unlikely to see any change, other than negative, when times are bad. A union can not “raise the price of it’s labor”, it can only ask for that raise in negotiations. One of the biggest expenses in any industry is labor costs. That will not change by removing bargaining. Common sense dictates that making a profession less financially secure, and denying rights based on public sentiment will dissuade people from joining the profession. This will lead to having to keep bad teachers, not because of the union, but out of necessity. We’re going to get what we pay for. My opponent talks about differences between public and private sector bargaining, and percentage of union workers. Those things are largely irrelevant to the resolution. It should be noted that the decrease in private sector union members coincides with the loss of middle-class manufacturing jobs, and also an increase in worker protection mandated by law. Many things workers enjoy today, OSHA safety regulations, 40-hour work week, overtime pay, vacations, FMLA and military leave, etc., can be attributed to the struggles of unions. Those benefits aren’t only given to union workers though, thus my contention that unions affect ALL workers in a good way. Unions act as a check and balance system, the only options are to keep them, or depend on increased governmental regulation. Below is an excerpt from a very interesting, and relevant article that all should read.(4) "Legislated labor protections are sometimes considered alternatives to collective bargaining in the workplace, but the fact of the matter is that a top-down strategy of legislating protections may not be influential unless there is also an effective voice and intermediary for workers at the workplace—unions. In all of the research surveyed, no institutional factor appears as capable as unions of acting in workers' interests (Weil 2003). Labor legislation and unionization are best thought of as complements, not substitutes."He argues against education being a public service, but it is what it is. He is free to fight for change, but in the meantime, his disagreement with the system does not warrant punishing teachers. They have a right to fight against that change, just as he does to fight for it. Teacher strikes are becoming a thing of the past. Many states are passing no-strike laws. Though pro-union, I agree with this trend, and so do many teachers(1). I do not defend teacher's strikes, and refer back to my argument about finding a middle ground and not allowing the hard-liners, on either side, to be in complete control. There is a middle ground, and many states are finding it, where strikes are concerned. My opponent keeps alluding to difficulty in firing teachers. I've shown that tenure and dismissal is set by the states, not the collective bargaining process, and should not be part of this debate. These videos and articles do nothing but attempt to prejudice the reader, and distract from the issues. They are highly prejudicial, and should not be given weight in the decision. They are evidence of the highly political nature of my opponents position.Introduction Sorry that my opponent resents my statement. Perhaps if the status quo were being challenged for the right reasons, and teachers weren’t scapegoats for the anti-union movement, I might be more receptive to his cause. With due respect, having a financial stake in something does not make us experts in what the real problems are in that system. Teachers are there everyday, in the classroom, they know what the problems are, they are the experts, not us. If my opponent valued teachers, as he claimed, he would respect that fact. He would also respect their ability to know what they need, and allow them to make choices for themselves, rather than protest against them under the guise of protecting them. The only “hijacking” being done, is that of their individual rights and freedom of association. Protection My opponent’s argument seems to me to be a clear impact turn. First he argues that it’s too hard to fire a teacher, but here he has presented evidence as to why it SHOULD be hard. This argument shows why it is not in the best interest of education, or the public, to fire teachers except in clearly egregious cases. Also, I restate that tenure is usually a matter of law, not bargaining. What if the bottom 6-10% of teachers are those in the most difficult schools, with the most difficult students?? Does that mean that they should be fired just to make room for unproven college grads?? Of course not, that’s absurd and unless they can be shown to be deserving of termination, my opponent’s above argument is why it’s in no one’s best interest. My opponent has yet to address the issue of teachers being at the mercy of the quality of students.I’ll say again that teachers are the only ones who know what protections they need. For someone who isn’t a teacher to claim to know what workplace issues they face, and need help with is absurd. Unions provide many protections for the rights of teachers, not just disciplinary issues. Past Practice There is no pre-set framework that I must abide by in this debate. My opponent is free to make whatever arguments he wishes, as am I. We could not do justice to a debate on this subject if we did not consider legal issues. Past practice means that if an employer gives a right to workers, and it is clearly understood by both parties, they cannot just arbitrarily remove that right without due process. Creating a mob mentality and attacking the rights of a group without due process is immoral. As I said this is a case-by-case issue, applicable in some, not so in others, depending on laws in that state. When laws are passed banning the right, then we have a different discussion. Until then legal issues must be considered. Other Legal Issues My opponent seems to be injecting his morals here, but what makes his morals the authority that all should be bound by?? He doesn't like unions, that's fine, he has the right not to join one. Yet he's in favor of taking away another's right to decide for themself. Why is that the correct moral position?? I maintain that if one group of public employees has a right, it is discriminatory to remove the right from another group. The strike issue has been addressed. The same checks exist in the public sector. ALL employees are bound by budgets, whether they're public or private sector.Specialization It is not the job of unions to create jobs, to use that as an argument them is misleading. Doctors and lawyers usually work for themselves, under their own license. There are many organizations that represent the interests of these professions. The AMA (2), APA, the Bar Association (3), to name a few. Are they politically active?? Yes. Do doctors and lawyers have a right to have a voice in our political system, where it affects their profession?? Yes, and so do teachers. “Society should not bare the risks of an individul's choice”- Society demands specialized degrees for this service to the public, those who comply should be rewarded, not penalized and raked over the coals just because there are a few bad teachers.1. http://www.nysdeputy.org...2. http://www.ama-assn.org...?3. http://www.americanbar.org...4. http://www.epi.org...

negative: The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States I will have to pass this round. I do not have enough time to post my opening arguments. I will post them in the third round. Please award my opponent conduct. Thank you.

negative: Obama Care Do you think Obama Care should be gotten rid of? I for one think it is possibly the worst thing Obama came up with it and believe it doesn't work the majority of the time. People want a quick and easy way to get their medicare and healthcare. Obama Care obviously failed to accomplish that goal.

negative: Minimum Wage I believe that the minimum wage should be abolished.

negative: Universal Basic Income Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. I believe that the advancement of technology will decrease the workforce demand, Which will increase unemployment, Necessitating the need for a UBI in the near future.

negative: Minimum wage I apologize for the concession. And for sure. I would love to restart the debate another day.

negative: Minimum wage Sadly, this ends in a concession. But nonetheless, thank you so much for taking part in this debate, Con! With you, this was very interesting! If you would like, later on, we can restart the debate. :D

negative: Living Wage Although my opponent indicated his real arguments would come in this round, he made no case. Extend all arguments.

negative: The Government was the Primary Cause of the Great Depression (Sources@comments)The question at hand is whether or not the government was the primary cause of the great depression. In arguing that it is I will, of course, talk about how government caused the initial fall in the economy from 1929-1932. But of more importance is the discussion of how the policies that followed created an environment that stopped the economy from recovering for more than a decade. After all, recessions had come and gone many times in American history prior to the great depression. What made this one different was that the government attempted to intervene into the economy in a way never seen before. The results were disastrous.Monetary Policy:The federal reserve first contributed to the great depression by fueling the speculative bubble that led to the stock market crash of 1929. From 1921 to 1929 we see a 61 percent increase in the money supply and yet no increase in currency in circulation (Rothbard 93). One thus sees then that the expansion was in credit nor currency. One can further see that a substantial cause of this expansion was a rise in the prominence of time deposits in commercial banks which, under, and because of, the regulation of the federal reserve, had a lesser reserve requirement than the previously more popular demand deposits(Rothbard 99-100). More over, the expansion was led by an increase in total reserves which was not only caused by federal reserves policies, but in fact overpowered the deflationary pressure exerted by reserves outside of the fed's control(Rothbard 108). We also see that the treasury increased the money supply, via the purchase of silver, by some 211 million dollars (Rothbard 117). All of this loose credit allowed leveraged speculation that was ultimately put an end to in 1929.Thus the fed led the credit induced boom in the stock market. It is no surprise then that it was key in ending it. The fed, frightened by an unsustainable stock boom as-well the outflow of gold from the united states into Europe (Smiley), decreased total reserves by $261 million in 1928 (Rothbard 160). On top of this, the Federal Reserve raised its discount rate and tightened credit in the stock market.(Rothbard 165-166). The picture drawn here then is one of the Fed fueling a credit induced speculative bubble and then going out of its way to make that bubble pop.Once the depression began the Fed allowed the money supply to contract sharply (Wheelock 11) and allowed its real discount rate to rise in order to halt gold outflow (Fisherback 5). Thus the often noted bank panics of the early depression which took the 1932 bank holiday to stop (Smiley). To its credit the fed did begin to engage in open market operations in 1932, but, in the words of the Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, it was too little too late (Fisherback 7).Following 1932 the Fed led a more sensible, though still much too timid, policy. The economy as a whole was improving as the 30's progressed. That is, until the fed, and others, had a sudden change of heart in 1937. Due to absurd fears of inflation the federal reserve DOUBLED reserve requirements (Smiley). Not surprisingly this, in conjunction with bad fiscal policy, caused a second recession in 1937 which saw unemployment shoot up 7 full percentage points in a year (Smiley).Fiscal Policy:Now that I have addressed monetary policy I can move on to fiscal policy. The place to start, of course, is Herbert Hoover. Herbert hoover did a great number of things to harm the economy in the early 1930's. In 1930 he passed the Smoot Hawley Tarrif which doubled taxes on import, and contributed heavily to a 66% fall in imports between 1929 and 1933 (Fisherback 27). Perhaps even worse, Hoover raised taxes in 1932, thus further dampening aggregate demand (Smiley). But Hoover's greatest attack on prosperity came in his actions towards wages. He help a conference which ensured that industrial wages would be kept stable (Ohanian 8). Due to deflation, nominally stable wages actually entailed an increase in real wages in the first years of the depression (Ohanian 29). During this time period industrial production fell by 34%. compared to total factory productivity which only fell 5%. We can make sense of this only if we look at hours worked which fell by 40%, no doubt due to the artificially high wages imposed by hoover (Ohanian 3-4). Hoover further raised the cost of labor by requiring all federally aided projects to pay the union wage with the davis-beacon act of 1931 (Horwitz 5). If that wasn't enough he passed The Norris-LaGuardia Act in 1932. This act gave unprecedented power to unions and even went as far as to make union-free labor contracts unenforceable in federal courts (Baird). Given hoovers destruction of aggregate demand via tariffs and taxes in conjunction with his artificial increases in real wages and the sharp contraction of the money supply allowed by the fed is it any surprise that our economy looked like it did in 1933?Now for Roosevelt. Roosevelt's first offense is his policy towards labor. He passed the Wagner act in 1935 which gave the unions even greater power. They could now force collective bargaining, and an employer could now longer engage in the practice of choosing to hire non union workers (1). It further allow union workers to force non union works of the same firm into a union with a majority vote thus allowing unions to monopolize labor (Smiley). Fdr also, of course, created social security and with it a new tax on labor in 1936 (Smiley). The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 brings into existence the minimum wage as-well as forced overtime pay (2). These policies in conjunction, not unlike hoovers, massively discouraged firms from purchasing labor.Next we have the NIRA. The NIRA was implemented by Roosevelt in-order to fight competition. In purposely instituted monopolies and oligopolies, kept prices high, and restricted output (Cole and Ohanian). It would be difficult to think of a policy which would have a greater negative effect on the efficiency of the market. Fortunately though, it was declared unconstitutional in 1935.Then we have 1937. As I have noted elsewhere, the economy took a turn for the worse in the recession of 1937 after having progressed forward in the years prior. And while this is partly to blame on the federal reserve for doubling reserve requirements Roosevelt also shares in responsibility. In 1936 Roosevelt, in the midst of the great depression, tried to balance the budget. He did this by increasing taxes. He upped taxes to such a degree that income tax revenues increased by 66% from 1936 to 1937 (Velde 19). As a result of such policies we see that government had collected 57% more total revenue in 1940 than in 1927 (Higgs 573). The exact opposite of how tax policy should work in an economic slump.And lastly we have the psychological affect of FDP's policies. He caused what is known as regime uncertainty. He left investors worried about the future of the market. Would FDR create a primarily government run economy in the near future? Would new taxes be introduced? Polls from the time period show that many businessmen were unsure (Higgs 577-578) and that they were consciously aware of the fact that this uncertainty, caused by the policies of FDR, was stopping business from expanding (Higgs 577). After all, why would one make an investment that would reap its profits 5 years from now when one is unsure if profits will substantially exist 5 years from now! This hypothesis helps explain the fact that private investment took a huge fall in the 1930's that didn't sustainably recover until 1946 long after FDR's rain and the age of the New Deal.Thus FDR's policies of increased taxes, making labor artificially expensive, creating regime uncertainty, and purposeful contraction of industrial output, helped to create the great depression. One can see then that government caused demand to fall, MS to contract and Unemployment to rise for over a decade.

negative: The Government was the primary cause of the great depression (Sources@comments) The question at hand is whether or not the government was the primary cause of the great depression. In arguing that it is I will, of course, talk about how government caused the initial fall in the economy from 1929-1932. But of more importance is the discussion of how the policies that followed created an environment that stopped the economy from recovering for more than a decade. After all, recessions had come and gone many times in American history prior to the great depression. What made this one different was that the government attempted to intervene into the economy in a way never seen before. The results were disastrous. Monetary Policy: The federal reserve first contributed to the great depression by fueling the speculative bubble that led to the stock market crash of 1929. From 1921 to 1929 we see a 61 percent increase in the money supply and yet no increase in currency in circulation (Rothbard 93). One thus sees then that the expansion was in credit nor currency. One can further see that a substantial cause of this expansion was a rise in the prominence of time deposits in commercial banks which, under, and because of, the regulation of the federal reserve, had a lesser reserve requirement than the previously more popular demand deposits(Rothbard 99-100). More over, the expansion was led by an increase in total reserves which was not only caused by federal reserves policies, but in fact overpowered the deflationary pressure exerted by reserves outside of the fed's control(Rothbard 108). We also see that the treasury increased the money supply, via the purchase of silver, by some 211 million dollars (Rothbard 117). All of this loose credit allowed leveraged speculation that was ultimately put an end to in 1929. Thus the fed led the credit induced boom in the stock market. It is no surprise then that it was key in ending it. The fed, frightened by an unsustainable stock boom as-well the outflow of gold from the united states into Europe (Smiley), decreased total reserves by $261 million in 1928 (Rothbard 160). On top of this, the Federal Reserve raised its discount rate and tightened credit in the stock market.(Rothbard 165-166). The picture drawn here then is one of the Fed fueling a credit induced speculative bubble and then going out of its way to make that bubble pop. Once the depression began the Fed allowed the money supply to contract sharply (Wheelock 11) and allowed its real discount rate to rise in order to halt gold outflow (Fisherback 5). Thus the often noted bank panics of the early depression which took the 1932 bank holiday to stop (Smiley). To its credit the fed did begin to engage in open market operations in 1932, but, in the words of the Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, it was too little too late (Fisherback 7). Following 1932 the Fed led a more sensible, though still much too timid, policy. The economy as a whole was improving as the 30's progressed. That is, until the fed, and others, had a sudden change of heart in 1937. Due to absurd fears of inflation the federal reserve DOUBLED reserve requirements (Smiley). Not surprisingly this, in conjunction with bad fiscal policy, caused a second recession in 1937 which saw unemployment shoot up 7 full percentage points in a year (Smiley). Fiscal Policy: Now that I have addressed monetary policy I can move on to fiscal policy. The place to start, of course, is Herbert Hoover. Herbert hoover did a great number of things to harm the economy in the early 1930's. In 1930 he passed the Smoot Hawley Tarrif which doubled taxes on import, and contributed heavily to a 66% fall in imports between 1929 and 1933 (Fisherback 27). Perhaps even worse, Hoover raised taxes in 1932, thus further dampening aggregate demand (Smiley). But Hoover's greatest attack on prosperity came in his actions towards wages. He help a conference which ensured that industrial wages would be kept stable (Ohanian 8). Due to deflation, nominally stable wages actually entailed an increase in real wages in the first years of the depression (Ohanian 29). During this time period industrial production fell by 34%. compared to total factory productivity which only fell 5%. We can make sense of this only if we look at hours worked which fell by 40%, no doubt due to the artificially high wages imposed by hoover (Ohanian 3-4). Hoover further raised the cost of labor by requiring all federally aided projects to pay the union wage with the davis-beacon act of 1931 (Horwitz 5). If that wasn't enough he passed The Norris-LaGuardia Act in 1932. This act gave unprecedented power to unions and even went as far as to make union-free labor contracts unenforceable in federal courts (Baird). Given hoovers destruction of aggregate demand via tariffs and taxes in conjunction with his artificial increases in real wages and the sharp contraction of the money supply allowed by the fed is it any surprise that our economy looked like it did in 1933? Now for Roosevelt. Roosevelt's first offense is his policy towards labor. He passed the Wagner act in 1935 which gave the unions even greater power. They could now force collective bargaining, and an employer could now longer engage in the practice of choosing to hire non union workers (1). It further allow union workers to force non union works of the same firm into a union with a majority vote thus allowing unions to monopolize labor (Smiley). Fdr also, of course, created social security and with it a new tax on labor in 1936 (Smiley). The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 brings into existence the minimum wage as-well as forced overtime pay (2). These policies in conjunction, not unlike hoovers, massively discouraged firms from purchasing labor. Next we have the NIRA. The NIRA was implemented by Roosevelt in-order to fight competition. In purposely instituted monopolies and oligopolies, kept prices high, and restricted output (Cole and Ohanian). It would be difficult to think of a policy which would have a greater negative effect on the efficiency of the market. Fortunately though, it was declared unconstitutional in 1935. Then we have 1937. As I have noted elsewhere, the economy took a turn for the worse in the recession of 1937 after having progressed forward in the years prior. And while this is partly to blame on the federal reserve for doubling reserve requirements Roosevelt also shares in responsibility. In 1936 Roosevelt, in the midst of the great depression, tried to balance the budget. He did this by increasing taxes. He upped taxes to such a degree that income tax revenues increased by 66% from 1936 to 1937 (Velde 19). As a result of such policies we see that government had collected 57% more total revenue in 1940 than in 1927 (Higgs 573). The exact opposite of how tax policy should work in an economic slump. And lastly we have the psychological affect of FDP's policies. He caused what is known as regime uncertainty. He left investors worried about the future of the market. Would FDR create a primarily government run economy in the near future? Would new taxes be introduced? Polls from the time period show that many businessmen were unsure (Higgs 577-578) and that they were consciously aware of the fact that this uncertainty, caused by the policies of FDR, was stopping business from expanding (Higgs 577). After all, why would one make an investment that would reap its profits 5 years from now when one is unsure if profits will substantially exist 5 years from now! This hypothesis helps explain the fact that private investment took a huge fall in the 1930's that didn't sustainably recover until 1946 long after FDR's rain and the age of the New Deal. Thus FDR's policies of increased taxes, making labor artificially expensive, creating regime uncertainty, and purposeful contraction of industrial output, helped to create the great depression. One can see then that government caused demand to fall, MS to contract and Unemployment to rise for over a de

negative: Taxes on the affluent should be increased. I will limit my response to only address your last post out of respect to you. I acknowledge that we all have circumstances in our lives that take a toll on our time. Even though there are plenty of things I want to address, I"ll save them for later. It is true that the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party are more likely (than establishment Republicans) to condemn corporate welfare, and to accept that Washington D.C. is beholden to special interests. That"s why many billionaires and defense contractors have been turned off by them. However, their ideology is largely predicated on corporate welfare. Consider Ron Paul, whom I can glean from your profile that you support. He voted for every tax cut put before him, including oil subsidies. In a interview with Cenk Uygur (video displayed) he was questioned about oil subsidies, and why he casted a vote in favor of them. His response was: "Well, how do you define a subsidy? See, I don"t consider any tax break as a subsidy. That was not a spending bill, that was not a grant. So if they get benefits, I cut..I never vote to increase any taxes, I vote to always give tax credits, and I always cut spending." He then endorsed an income tax rate of 0%. Obviously, income tax rates are progressive, designed so that the affluent pay more " though today the tax is fairly flat. Under this measure (provided that his position on the corporate tax is identical), he is supporting massive tax cuts for corporations as well as affluent individuals. Then, he justifies his support for corporate welfare by attempt to redefine the word "subsidy." Is your case that oil subsidies " to the most profitable companies in the world " do not qualify as corporate welfare? If oil subsidies don"t qualify as corporate welfare, then what is corporate welfare? There are also a lot of problems with his consistency, though. First, the definition of "subsidy" from Investopedia is: "A benefit given by the government to groups of individuals in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction." Here"s the problem though: not only is his position inconsistent with what he said back in 1988 when he spoke out against farm subsidies (video displayed), but there seems to be a double standard in the way he votes. He sponsored a bill that was introduced on April 12, 1984 " H.R.5484 (below) " calling for a ten percent flat income tax. The problems with the bill are as follows: "Disallows income tax credits for any taxpayer who is not a corporation" -- I don"t think it could be more explicit than this. It goes on: "Repeals the income tax credits for: (1) the elderly; (2) contributions to candidates for public office; (3) earned income; (4) the purchase of a new principal residence; (5) dependent care services expenses; and (6) residential energy conservation expenditures." He said in his interview with Cenk Uygur that he always votes for tax credits " so why did he support eliminating several? The answer is simple: these tax credits benefit the poor and the middle class, rather than the wealthy or large corporations. He wanted to eliminate with the Earned Income Tax Credit, the child care credit, elderly credit, etc " while, at the same time, repealing estate taxes and gift taxes and slashing income tax rates to 10%. This plan raised taxes on poor and working class Americans, while cutting taxes for the very rich. So, he at least lied in saying that he also votes to give tax credits. Is it peculiar that the Earned Income Tax credit is considered welfare, but oil subsidies are not? I think it is. But it"s quite similar to Mitt Romney"s "47 percent" comment, and to Paul Ryan"s "takers and makers" comment, and to Rubio"s, Bachman"s, and Perry"s support of tax hikes on the poor. Oddly enough, the Ryan Budget included huge tax cuts for the rich, too, and maintained oil subsidies, whilst gutting social programs. I"m mentioning Ryan, of course, because many people consider him a Libertarian " and because, as an article I linked below delineates, he and his family actually would benefit from the $45 billion in oil subsidies in his budget. Coincidence? I think not. But why is Ron Paul doing these things? After all, when Michelle Bachmann " who founded the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives -- argued in 2012 that "half the country who pays no taxes" needs to pay "at least a dollar" (and, by the way, I linked to an article below showing that Bachmann received $250,000 in federal farm subsidies " so she and Paul Ryan have both benefitted from "corporate welfare" that they should oppose), Ron Paul argued that this was a step in the right direction. But when he was questioned about how he would fund the government without an income tax, his answered "Non-punitive tariffs." Who pays those? Well, they"re regressive taxes, so of course the middle-class and the poor pay them. Why is he supporting the rich at the expense of the middle-class? And I haven"t even addressed the massive spending cuts he has proposed (e.g., eliminating the Department of Education). The case is not much different for 2012 Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, who wants to abolish all income and corporate taxes and replace them with the Fair Tax " a consumption tax, purpoetedly 23%, which is supposed to be revenue neutral. But not only is the rate much higher than it is often promoted as (a panel under George W. Bush held that the rate must be 34 percent, rather than 23 percent, for the plan to be revenue-neutral), but it also poses a huge burden on middle- and lower- income individuals. The panel found that the plan raises taxes on people earning between $15,000 and $200,000; they even called the prebate "a new entitlement program " by far the largest in American history." Again, Mr. Johnson is protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, which his huge, 43% across-the-board spending cuts also attest to. I want to step back, though, and explain why this type of thinking is so popular. Perhaps you"ve heard of Peter Schiff, C.E.O. of Euro Pacific Capital and former advisor to Ron Paul. Here"s a quote from him (video displayed) regarding his views on taxes: "If you raise taxes on the upper-income earners, all you do is you diminish their ability to invest and grow the economy. So if we"re going to raise taxes at all " if we really want to reduce the deficit with tax increases " we have to raise taxes on the middle class, because those are the people who are spending money, and we have to reduce consumption, not investment if we want economic growth." So Peter Schiff agrees that the middle class are the consumers in this economy, and that the wealthy are likely to spend some of their money, but invest the rest " without any genuine savings. Again, he"s falling victim to Say"s Law. I pointed out earlier that corporations are sitting on literally trillions in capital that they"re not investing, and taxes are at all-time lows. Not to mention, consumption is 70% of G.D.P. " to say that the investment component of G.D.P. is more important than the consumption function is simply wrong. And what"s his solution? Raise taxes on the middle class, who are struggling " not because they"re not working, but because many of them are earning low wages, declining incomes, or can"t find work (there are three unemployed people for each job vacancy, for instance) " and give more tax cuts to the rich, who are doing better than ever. I sense a case of social Darwinism, and not only do I find his ideas destructively economically, but also morally. His case is essentially that the wealthy will work harder if they have more money, but if you give poor and middle class people more money, they won"t work as hard. Do you see the fallacy in his logic? So, the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party support corporate welfare. Tax cuts " especially for the very rich " are part and parcel of their ideology: their claim that the rich are the "job creators." Obviously I completely disagree, as does the business community, who say that lack of sales is the reason they"re not investing; Bruce Bartlett, Ben Bernanke, the NBER, and small business surveys (link with quotes and data below) agree that the drop in aggregate demand is responsible for the current economic woes. Here"s my final point (video displayed) and I think it"s quite relevant given Schiff"s comments: in 2008, the federal government was funded by regressive payroll taxes (36% of total) and individual income taxes (45%), while corporate taxes only accounted for 12%. Compare that to 1950: the corporate income tax accounted for 26% of total revenue, the individual income tax accounted for 40%, and payroll taxes were only 11%. To say that the poor and the middle class are not paying enough in taxes is simply wrong " factually and morally " and I would submit that it"s bad economics. Videos: http://www.youtube.com... -- Ron Paul with Cenk Uygur http://www.youtube.com... -- Ron Paul on farm subsidies http://www.youtube.com... -- Peter Schiff http://www.youtube.com... -- sources of tax revenue Other Sources: http://www.slate.com... -- Perry, Bachmann, Rubio http://www.businessdictionary.com... -- what is a subsidy http://www.factcheck.org... -- fact checking Fair Tax http://thomas.loc.gov...; -- H.R.5484 http://thinkprogress.org... -- Paul Ryan and oil subsidies http://www.politico.com... -- Bachmann and farm subsidies http://mediamatters.org... -- aggregate demand

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

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

negative: Minimum Wage Laws In The USA Should Be Abolished You're right, I'll be arguing for the abolishment of both federal & state minimum wage laws. Here is a summary of my arguments: 1. A law should be abolished if it either fails to accomplish its primary objectives, or works against its primary objectives. 2. The primary objectives of Minimum Wage laws are to reduce net poverty and net unemployment. 3. At best, Minimum Wage laws have no net effect on poverty or unemployment. At worst, they cause a net increase in poverty and unemployment. 4. Therefore, Minimum Wage laws should be abolished. To clarify, I need only prove that Minimum Wage laws do not cause a net reduction in poverty and employment to win. Let's begin! Minimum Wage Laws Don't Reduce Unemployment 10% raises in the Federal Minimum Wage generally correspond to a 4.5% increase in unemployment rates.3 The Congressional Joint Economic Committee published a paper based on 50 years of research on the Federal Minimum Wage. They summarised it this way: “The minimum wage reduces employment. ”1 In states that have a minimum wage higher than the federal one, unemployment is 2% higher than in those states with a minimum wage equal to the Federal Minimum Wage.5 When employers are forced to pay wages higher than they can afford, they cut costs by laying off entry-level workers. Their positions are then either automated (replaced by machinery), or outsourced to a country without minimum wage laws. Minimum Wage Laws Don't Reduce Poverty The Employment Policies Insitute, a non-profit organization, also published a paper on this subject. After analyzing poverty rates and increases in state & federal minimum wage laws from 2003 to 2007, they determined that raises in the minimum wage requirement have no effect on poverty.4 Even when the analysis was repeated using a 50% broader definition of “poverty”, the results were the same. An explanation for this is the lack of ability these laws have in reaching their target population. Minimum wage laws disproportionately effect those who are already well-off. Of those who benefited from the increases in the Federal Minimum Wage between 2007 and 2009, 90% weren't in poverty!2 Your turn, Con. Goodluck! 1. http://www.jec.senate.gov... 2. http://www.academia.edu... 3Richard Burkhauser, Kenneth Couch et David Wittenberg, “Who Minimum Wage Increases Bite: An Analysis Using Monthly Data from the SIPP and CPS”, Southern Economic Journal, 2000 4. http://www.epionline.org... 5. http://blog.lib.umn.edu...

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

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

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

negative: The minimum mage should be abolished Round 2 Rebuttal Regarding the Consumption, the Efficiency Wage Hypothesis, and Income inequality sections, my opponent makes the case that increasing wages for low-wage earners and reducing inequality would be beneficial to society. I do not dispute this point and am not making the case that inequality and poor wages for low-wage earners are desirable. ResponsiblyIrresponsible does not explain why or how the implementation of a legally enforced minimum wage is necessary or the best option in increasing the wages of low-wage earners and reducing inequality, and he or she does not consider or address other non-governmental possible ways of achieving these goals such as collective bartering or unionizing. Again, I am not suggesting that increasing wages for low-wage earners and reducing inequality are not desirable. I am arguing that the minimum wage should be abolished and considering the fact that there are other non-governmental options which can work towards the same goals the minimum wage was designed to reach more effectively. Points regarding Minimum Wage:1. Job Losses: Ever since the implementation of the Minimum wage, evidence of job losses was observed. The first 25-cent minimum wage introduced in 1938 resulted in significant job losses. Minimum wage increases in American Samoa resulted into adverse and detrimental effects. A 2006 review of more than 100 minimum wage studies by David Neumark and William Wascher found that about two-thirds found negative employment effects. In 2010, Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser estimated: “nearly 1.3 million jobs will be lost if the federal minimum wage is increased to $9.50 per hour.” 2. Effects on low-skilled workers: Evidence shows minimum wage increases substantially hurts the very people they were designed to help. The 2006 Neumark and Wascher review found the literature “as largely solidifying the conventional view that minimum wages reduce employment among low-skilled workers. A 2012 analysis of the New York State minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $6.75 per hour found a “20.2 to 21.8 percent reduction in the employment of younger less-educated individuals. A 2010 analysis by Michael J. Hicks found: “the latest round of minimum wage increases” account “for roughly 550,000 fewer part-time jobs,” including “roughly 310,000 fewer teenagers working part-time.” 3. Reducing Poverty: The minimum wage doesn't reduce poverty. In the previous federal minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $7.25, only 15 percent of the workers who were expected to gain from it lived in poor households, according to a 2012 Wilson review. If the minimum were today raised to $9.50, only 11 percent of workers who would gain live in poor households. The 2012 Wilson review noted: “Since 1995, eight studies have examined the income and poverty effects of minimum wage increases, and all but one have found that past minimum wage hikes had no effect on poverty.” The 2012 Wilson review noted: “One recent academic study found that both state and federal minimum wage increases between 2003 and 2007 had no effect on state poverty rates.” 4. Who Pays? Someone has to pay for increases in the minimum wage. The 2012 Wilson review noted: A 2004 “review of more than 20 minimum wage studies looking at price effects found that a 10 percent increase in the U.S. minimum wage raises food prices by up to 4 percent.” A 2007 study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that restaurant prices increase in response to minimum wage increases. 5. Detrimental effects of the minimum wage oversees and other options. There are seven European Union countries in which no minimum wage is mandated (Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Sweden). If we compare the levels of unemployment in these countries with E.U. countries that impose a minimum wage, the results are clear. A minimum wage leads to higher levels of unemployment. In the 21 countries with a minimum wage, the average country has an unemployment rate of 11.8%. Whereas, the average unemployment rate in the seven countries without mandated minimum wages is about one third lower — at 7.9%. Many of these countries however have organized labor which engage in collective bartering. 6. Income Inequality: Let's observe the gini coefficient of the nations in the European Union without a mandatory minimum wage and the European Union overall. (Austria - 0.26 Cyprus - 0.29 Denmark - 0.24 Finland - 0.269 Germany - 0.306 Italy - 0.36 Sweden - 0.25). The average gini coefficient of all members within the European Union is 0.305, so nations within the European Unon without a mandatory minimum wage are on average more equal than nations which have a government set minimum wage. A minimum wage is not necessary for a relatively economically egalitarian country. Of course many individuals in these nations are involved in organized labor and organized bartering, but there is no legally enforced minimum wage. Sources: http://object.cato.org... http://www.nber.org... http://www.cato.org... http://www.people.vcu.edu... http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu... http://cms.bsu.edu... http://data.worldbank.org...

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