Question: Should the federal minimum wage be increased?

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

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

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

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

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

Title: The minimum wage should be raised Content: I accept the challenge and will debate that we should raise the minimum wage. The resolution or the con speaker did not define or say how far reaching this raise was or how much it will be, so I will debate that this will be a increase on the existing federal minimum wage. I would first like to state the purpose of the minimum wage. It has been and still is needed to prevent a slave like wage for work. FDR, who put the first minimum wage in place, stated that this was needed so people can support themselves. This minimum wage has to change and grow with the gain in inflation and growing cost of living. We still have now that the minimum wage still ends up getting you below the poverty line and in need of welfare programs which is of more cost to or already large deficit. A raise in the minimum wage and its effect on the economy has had a lot of research over it but nothing has come up with much conclusiveness. Many do show that there is a job loss in youth or low-skilled work, though usually only a small amount. However, I would argue that the majority of people will be helped by this increase in wage and the small amount hurt is insignificant. I am not saying that we raise it to 15 dollars an hour, just a modest dollar or two. Over half of the states already have a state minimum wage greater than the federal on so this increase will have little change. The Con speaker has brought up the problem of immigrant and youth workers. The problem is is that those workers are already competing with natives. Yes, immigrants may offer to work less but the work is the same. Many immigrant fill jobs with low supply. Also the change in youth employment would be very negligible and also is a non-issue. Many teenagers are already supported by their parents and the job is mostly for just spending. Many places of work also depend on teenage workers because the supply of older ones are not their, again showing that a raise would not change much. The issues that face black Americans are real and need to be dealt with. It will be with better focus on education and vocational training. Not raising the minimum wage is not a solution to the problem. We must also take into consideration that the raise increase will give more money to lower wage workers who will spend it, and thus, stimulating the economy. The faults in raising the minimum wage are present but there is a net gain in doing so modestly.

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

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

Title: should the government raise minimum wage Content: The question here is whether the government should raise the minimum wage. CON seems to be talking about the United States, so I'll assume that we're talking about the United States. To win, CON has to prove that the government should NOT raise the minimum wage. On the other hand, I have to show that the government should raise the minimum wage. Current minimum wage in the US is 7.25 USD/hr. Nothing in the resolution says that I have to show how much the minimum wage should be raised. I just have to argue that it should be raised to win. First, I'm going to say why the minimum wage should be raised. Second, I'm going to rebut CON's case. Minimum wage should be raised: 1. Minimum wage should be raised because it does not pay a livable wage which creates an unfair burden on taxpayers and charities. The minimum wage should be raised because keeping the minimum wage where it is creates an unfair burden on taxpayers What basically happens is that because the federal minimum wage only pays $15,080.00/yr government benefits and private charities have to pick up the difference between "what minimum wage-paying employers pay their employees" and "what it costs employees to survive". Chris Lu, former deputy secretary of labor under the Obama administration writes in Time that: "the federal minimum wage amounts to just $15,080 a year for full-time work. That translates into declining living standards, reduced economic mobility and a shrinking middle class. It mires workers and our economy in an impoverishing cycle created by inadequate pay. Far too many workers earning minimum wage turn to government assistance and food pantries to make ends meet. " (Source: . http://time.com...) When workers earning the minimum wage have to turn to government assistance and private charities like food pantries to make ends meet, that means that corporations are passing off the external cost of employee labor to society and to taxpayers. This is basically a corporate handout that comes out of the pockets of hard working taxpayers, which is an unfair burden to place on society. The minimum wage should therefore be raised to alleviate this unfair burden on taxpayers. 2. Raising the minimum wage will stimulate economic growth. Economic growth in the service sector has not grown as fast as should have because the amount of disposable income for the majority of working Americans has not kept up with inflation. To illustrate, the minimum wage of 1968 would be $10.90 today. Except the problem is that inflation has exceeded minimum wage increases by a third. (Source: . https://www.pbs.org...) PBS reports that the unemployment rate was 3.6 percent in 1968 with a higher real minimum wage. (same source) So, that means that the unemployment rate is higher today " at 5 percent " than it was in 1968, while the real minimum wage is lower today than it was in 1968. Part of the reason for that is because consumers had more disposable income then, than they do now. By increasing the minimum wage, working consumers will have more money to spend locally, which they will (see source from Time above) and that will result in economic growth. One implication of that growth will be increased jobs. CON doesn't really have individual arguments, so I'll just rebut the ideas he talks about: CON claims that "A higher minimum wage, would be too heavy a burden on employers, especially small business owners. " This is false. Former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explains that a higher minimum wage minimum "won"t result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it " thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. (When I was Labor Secretary in 1996 and we raised the minimum wage, business predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history. )" (Source: . http://robertreich.org...) The only way that a higher minimum wage would harm business owners is if revenues didn't keep up with the increased cost of labor. The problem with that assumption is that it ignores the second-order implication of a higher minimum wage: more domestic economic spending, which would result in increased revenues, as the sum of the available literature suggests would be the case. CON claims: "And those employers, in turn, would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to hover at about 8 percent. " Again, this is wrong for the same reason as stated above. Increases in disposable income are going to translate into increased local spending, which will increase revenues and likely increase profits overall. In order to make the argument that companies wouldn't be able to hire more people, you have to assume that the only part of the business's account sheet which would change is how much they have to pay their employees. Except, the evidence above shows that this is false because of predictable increases in economic activity. (The Time and Robert Reich article) CON Claims: "Young workers willing to accept $5 per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so" This has absolutely nothing to do with the minimum wage. If young workers want to gain experience and are willing to work for substandard wages, they can still take unpaid internships. The minimum wage has nothing to do with that issue. (. https://www.forbes.com..., discussing unpaid internships). More importantly, as Reich explains, "Most low-wage workers aren"t young teenagers; they"re major breadwinners for their families, and many are women. " So, talk of teenagers is a red herring more or less for this issue. CON further claims "increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate, according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. " CON doesn't cite to this source so it automatically should be struck; he just makes a vague reference to it. But the question isn't whether increasing the minimum wage is "proven" to lower the poverty rate, because we're not talking about a specific amount to raise the minimum wage in this debate. To illustrate, if we raised the minimum wage by 0.01 USD, then that obviously would have very little if any impact on ameliorating poverty of any kind. The question is whether or not raising the minimum wage is a good idea or not. The evidence I've provided shows that it is, because raising the minimum wage will increase the standard of living, which (implicitly) means reducing poverty.

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

Title: $15 Minimum Wage Content: The minimum wage debate played a massive role in the 2016 election, and has swept the nation. I will be advocating against raising the federal minimum wage to $15. My opponent must advocate in favor it. The structure of the debate is simple: Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Arguments Round 3. Rebuttals Round 4.

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

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

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

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

Title: We should raise the minmum wage Content: Hello. I welcome Adam to this debate. I would like to start off by stating that I do not have to state a specific amount the minimum wage should be raised to, therefore, my evidence can conflict in that regard. I would also like to note that in this topic we are speaking on a federal level; that is, we are assuming this is something the government would pass. In my opponents conclusion, he talks of how it is better to earn five dollars than no dollars. That would be lowering MW (minimum wage), therefore, he is in conflict with himself there. My opponent must maintain that the MW should be kept at the same rate. First, Small businesses say MW has little to NO IMPACT on small businesses. Eight in 10 small-business owners say they hire their new employees at a wage level that exceeds the current minimum wage. Of the 14% of small businesses who do hire employees at the minimum wage, two in three say they do not expect to keep their new employees at that wage for more than a year. One in three of these new minimum wage employees are also hired on only a temporary basis. http://www.gallup.com... And later, Forty-six percent of small-business owners say they believe the minimum wage should be increased while only 34% believe it should remain where it is now. Only 2% believe the minimum wage should be reduced although 14% think it should be eliminated altogether. And more! Eighty-six percent of small-business owners say the minimum wage has no effect on their businesses. Now you may say, "These are arguments for MW to stay", but look at the 2nd stat! The majority of small business owners think it should be increased! It is completely logical then, to refute my opponents C2 and C4, as business owners are fine with it. These are gallup polls BTW. Next, the American people want a higher MW. More than two-thirds of Americans say lawmakers should raise the national minimum wage to $10 per hour from its current $7.25, a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute finds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So, since we are speaking of the federal government, and the government represents the people, then the government has an obligation to obey the peoples wishes and RAISE THE MW. Also, American people want more money, even if it risks their job. The three most-mentioned financial concerns in the Jan. 7-9, 2011, poll have been at the top of Americans' list for the past two years, with little change in the percentages who name each one. Note the first chart at http://www.gallup.com... (source) Next, an increase of MW was found to have no effect on job loss David Card and Alan B. Krueger, two leading economists, however, believe that small to moderate increases in the minimum wage will not increase unemployment. These two economists observed the impact of minimum wage on employment by researching 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after a minimum wage rise. In April of 1992, New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05, Pennsylvania's minimum wage remaining constant. Under the traditional theory, the increase in New Jersey's minimum wage would predict higher unemployment. The study, on the other hand, suggested that raising the wage floor would in fact open new jobs. Card and Krueger also introduced the idea of wage levels influencing productivity. Higher productivity may offset the increased production costs. The minimum wage increase occurred during a recession in the New Jersey economy. Secondly, New Jersey's economy is greatly influenced by nearby states due to its small size. However, when minimum wage increased, full-time employment increased in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania full-time employment. And more! Economically conservative lawmakers traditionally argue that raising the minimum wage hurts small businesses because they cannot afford to pay higher wages, and therefore are forced to layoff workers, further augmenting poverty. In a study done by the Levy Institute, the vast majority of small business owners interviewed said a raise in minimum wage would not cause them to layoff workers, or decrease the number of new workers they could hire. The Levy Institute interviewed 560 businesses with under 500 workers each, asking them questions about their hiring practices, particularly with regard to a possible increase in the minimum wage. Of those businesses, only 6.2% said a raise in the minimum wage would negatively affect their hiring practices. When the minimum wage was increased in 1997, economists and lawmakers feared there would be significant job losses, but instead it was the best job market in 30 years. This shows the demand for labor is wage inelastic; meaning changes in wages does not affect the amount of labor demanded. From http://wiki.dickinson.edu... And next, the rising inflation calls a need for a higher MW. From the same source as above The Problem with the current Minimum wage is that it has failed to keep up with inflation and rising cost of living. This means that over time the purchasing power of the minimum wage has decrease. The current minimum wage is not longer enough to keep working families from meeting their most basic needs such as cost of housing and food, health care, education and child care. According to Economist Jared Bernstein from the Economic Policy Institute the cost of basic necessities has increase by almost 50% between 1991 and 2007. As a result low income families are stock in poverty and the income gap between the low and high class is continuously increasing. The federal poverty guideline released in 2007 shows that the minimum wage is insufficient. A minimum wage worker that works full time: 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year will only earn about $12,000 annually. This means that at the current minimum wage, a full time worker earns 40% below the poverty guideline. The established federal poverty guideline for a family of three is approximately $17,000 So it can be obviously seen here that we should raise the MW, and there are numerous things about it. Next, to rebut my opponents contentions: C1: Well what have we here? His source also admits that an alternate explanation could simply be the bad economy. And also, this makes no sense, considering the many polls I have provided. The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. Congress began raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in July 2007, and there are now 691,000 fewer teens working. (from his source #2) C2: source was from 1996. Thats before adam was born. The current recession had not hit yet, and so this source is hopelessly outdated. C3: His argument makes no logical sense. All of the high schoolers I know know that if you spend the extra 2 years and finish, that instantly opens up a motley amount of options for you. It simply makes no logical sense C4: Wait… So high income families spent $86 a YEAR? Are they all starving themselves or something? There is now way that stat makes ANY real sense. To talk on teenagers for a bit: The thing here is that teenagers technically don't need a job, and whenever they finish high school, they are automatically more eligible for jobs. Oh yes, and notice the subtle not bringing up of the General welfare?

Title: The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Content: Full Resolution - Resolved: The United States should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.Rules:Do not trollNo semanticsKritiks of the topic are unaccepableVulgarity is unacceptableRefrain from utilizing a counterplan - debate the resolution as it isMaintain a civil and decorous atmosphere throughout the course of the debateIf necesssary/applicable, sources may be provided via an external linkFailure to comply with any of the above mentioned rules results in an automatic lossRound Structure:Round 1: - Con: Rules- Pro: Acceptance and Initial Arguments/CaseRound 2:- Con: Opening Arguments/Case- Pro: RebuttalsRound 3:- Con: Rebuttals- Pro: Defense and RebuttalsRound 4:- Con: Defense and Rebuttals- Pro: Waive RoundDefinitions:The resolution should be self-explanatory. To avoid dispute or ambiguity:Ought: refers to obligation or logical consequence/necessity [1]I look forward to an engaging and stimulating debate!Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com......

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

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

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

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

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

Title: BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States Content: The minimum wage in the United States is currently $7.25. My opponent will be arguing that it should be raised. My opponent shall argue that it should be raised any increment higher then 1 dollar so any wage $8.25 or above. All definitions in this resolution are self explanatory.

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

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

Title: Living Wage Content: I accept. Per our discussion in the comments, I will be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be raised to $10/hr. We will both assume for purposes of this debate that $10/hr constitutes a "living wage," regardless of whether in actual fact $10/hr is sufficient to provide for necessities throughout the United States.Good luck.

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

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

Title: Raising the minimum wage Content: I accept and will be arguing in favor of raising the minimum wage. CON has instigated this debate, but nevertheless I feel it is customary that we share the BOP. I would advise our audience to vote for the person who most successfully evidences their position. I will begin by rebutting CON's opening arguments, within which I will provide my own contentions, and then move on to cover why I believe we should raise the federal minimum wage. I. Inefficiency vs. EfficiencyCON asserts that raising the minimum wage will lead to companies laying workers off or cutting back on hours, which would lead to falling output. Of course, he provides no evidence for this claim whatsoever. I will demonstrate that it is false. First, it is simply wrong to say that raising the minimum wage, ipso facto, would shed jobs. Indeed there may be a point where this is so -- a "Laffer Curve," if you will -- but this does not mean that any modest increase (say, to $10.10 an hour) would lead to job losses. The basic logic behind this, which I will prove later on when I begin my contentions, is that employers will look to ways to become more productive, will employ more efficient technologies, or will reduce their own profits, which isn't exactly difficult given the massive disparity in CEO: pay of the average worker, another point that I will touch on later. The point is, there are and have been aways to circumvent rising labor costs brought on by raising the minimum wage. In fact, CON disregards that people earning the minimum wage have a higher MPC than people who aren't, meaning that they will consume with most if not all of their income. Therefore, the additional labor costs would simply go right back into the circular flow of the macroeconomy, increasing economic activity and leading employers to increase hiring, for they cannot hire without customers. What CON refuses to realize is that employing workers below their marginal product of labor -- that is, paying poverty level wages -- this is in fact inefficient. They would be much more loyal and much more productive, and companies would more likely succeed, with higher wages.II. Law of Supply and DemandI believe that CON meant to say the "law of demand," as he has not referenced the law of supply in this initial argument. I would like to note that this is a concession on CON's case that people actually WILL be making more money, so much so that it will result in a net increase in demand. If employers laid off workers and reduced their hours because they were unable to afford their labor, that would led to a net decline in aggregate demand and less consumption, which would drive prices down and lead to a death spiral of layoffs, as lack of demand begets lack of demand. If CON concedes that raising the minimum wage would lead to a net increase in demand, it is safe to say that this debate is largely over.The point is, CON cannot have his cake and eat it, too. He cannot say that the minimum wage will kill jobs and depress wages, which would lead to a deflationary spiral, and at the same time be inflationary because people are earning more and spending more. He needs to choose which argument he would like to stick to. III. Does the Minimum Wage Create Inflation?There are two kinds of inflation: demand-pull and cost-push. For the minimum wage to create inflation, there would either need to be a wage-price-spiral on a large scale or an intense shock to supply comparable to the oil crisis of the 70s. Is the minimum wage remotely comparable to that?No, not even close. Jeannette Wik-Lims explains (1): "This fear of inflation from the minimum wage is not based on any reasonable description of how these minimum wage hikes will likely impact businesses, or the economy more generally. The potential impact of minimum wage hikes on the overall price level is simply too small to have any appreciable impact on inflation...Past research on how business costs rise with minimum wage hikes indicates that a 10-percent minimum wage hike can be expected to produce a cost increase for the average business of less than one-tenth of one percent of their sales revenue...If the average businesses wanted to completely cover the cost increase from a 10-percent minimum wage hike through higher prices, they would need to raise their prices by less than 0.1 percent."Sara Lemos addresses this same point, as well as some of CON's other concerns regading possible reductions in employment (2):"The overall reading of the above evidence on price effects, together with the evidence in the literature on wages and employment effects is that the minimum wage increases the wages of the poor, does not destroy too many jobs, and does not raise prices by too much..This suggests that firms respond to minimum wage increases not by reducing production and employment, but by raising prices."Converse et al. came to a similar conclusion in 2008 (3):"The most common types of responses to the increase in the minimum wage were price increases and wage ripples. No single type of disemployment response was reported with nearly the frequency of these."Of course, we have already covered that those prince increases will be minute, hardly worthy of being called "inflation." IV. Con's HypotheticalObviously CON's numbers are not rooted in reality, but I assume that he knows this and is merely offering a hypothetical scenario. Of course, there are a number of problems with it right off the bat: he is admitting that raising the minimum wage will lead to a net increase in demand, rendering the "job loss" narrative in his first contention null. Next, he appeals to the "inflation" narrative which I have already debunked.Third, his view of the market's reaction to a minimum wage is highly flawed. If demand for a product were to rise, the employer would be able to provide more of that product and would want to provide more of that product to meet the rise in demand. Because there are more customers and thus higher profits, the business now has the ability to expand its investment in inventory, meaning that an increase in the quantity supplied of the product offsets the increase in the quantity demanded for the product. Again, changes in prices are negligible, and wages adjust even in the case of inflationary pressures, of which of course, this isn't one. I run low on characters, but I'm going to present some preliminary arguments in favor of a minimum wage increase and then pass this back to CON. V. Does the Minimum Wage Cause Job Losses?There's a wide body of empirical literature on this, and the answer on balance is "no." I pointed to some studies earlier, and now I'll point to a few more. John Schmitt says the minimum wage has "no discernible effect on employment" (4):"[T]wo recent meta-studies analyzing the research conducted since the early 1990s concludes that the minimum wage has little or no discernible effect on the employment prospects of low-wage workers. The most likely reason for this outcome is that the cost shock of the minimum wage is small relative to most firms' overall costs and only modest relative to the wages paid to low-wage workers."There were also a study conducted by UC Berkeley economists which revealed that increasing the minimum wage up to $13 per hour has no "measurable effect on employment" (5). Lynn Thompson of the Seattle Times summarizes (5):"Businesses absorbed the costs through lower turnover, small price increases at restaurants, which have a high concentration of low-wage workers, and higher worker productivity, the researchers found."Obviously I have more contentions that I would like to make, including the addition of a philosophical component to this discussion on the minimum wage, but I am short on characters. Sources:(1) http://tinyurl.com...(2) http://tinyurl.com...(3) Converse at al.: "The Minimum Wage: An Employer Survey," Report of the Minimum Wage Study Commission, 6, 241-341.(4) http://tinyurl.com...(5) http://tinyurl.com...

Title: The Minimum Wage should be increased. Content: In this debate, I will argue that the Minimum Wage should be increased. Unfortunately, most Republicans oppose the notion because they call it a "job killer." I would like to prove them wrong. I look forward to debating this topic with anyone that disagrees with my view.The rules of the debate are the following:1. Sources, if any, must be cited correctly.2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.3. Arguments must be sophisticated.4. Arguments must be as least biased as they can be. They must be based on fact, not opinion. 5. There will not be any forfeiting. If my opponent forfeits, he automatically loses the "conduct" points. I will not state the structure of this debate:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Main ArgumentRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Further RebuttalRound Five: Conclusion

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

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

Title: Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour Content: Rules 1. No trolling 2. Please keep some sort of format when responding 3. BOP is shared 4. 1st round is a constructive speech round Definitions Federal minimum wage: The wage set by the American government as the lowest possible wage for American workers set at $7.25 an hour. https://www.dol.gov...... I negate the resolution that the US federal government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour for the following contentions: Contention 1: States are much better actors The economies of different states vary drastically for a reason. Certain states may be able to only support one minimum wage due to circumstances such as the labor pool, average education of workers, and how many businesses pay at minimum wage to any of their employees. Mr. Holzer, a previous chief economist of the Department of Labor wrote for the Brookings Institute in 2015 and has stated the following: “In a city like Washington D.C. where unemployment among those with a high school education or less is at a worrisome 15%, jobless rates will almost certainly rise. Many employers will be very reluctant to pay high wages to workers whose skills – including the ability to speak English, in the case of many immigrants – are so modest. A likely result would be not only increases in unemployment but also drops in formal labor force activity (where workers work or search for legal jobs) and perhaps some growth in undocumented work among immigrants.” http://www.brookings.edu...... We can see proof of this in the status quo with the failed project in Washington D.C where the minimum wage was raised, which failed miserably as there was little job growth in industries with low-wage workers as well as the fact that benefits and expenses on employees were cut so businesses could stay in the red. http://www.forbes.com...... This gives a valid example of how a minimum wage can actually harm the very people we are trying to help federally, which applies to the whole country. However, individual states are more understanding of their own limitations and can fairly regulate, and possibly raise, the minimum wage to fit the needs of the people while not being too stressful on the job market. A much more reasonable way to fix the problem would be to mandate that states raise the minimum wage by at least five percent, and at most 15%. We could see a moderate increase in revenue for people that could push more people into jobs with a higher incentive to join the labor market. However, as it stands, we cannot pass the resolution on the pretext that we are relying on the federal minimum wage, and not the states. Contention 2: Increase price for consumers Businesses exist for a one, primary goal: to make a profit. So, if we raise the minimum wage, we would see that businesses would be paying more on their employees and less on their products while demanding a higher price to still maintain a profit. A fifteen-dollar minimum wage, which is a huge increase for many states, would no doubt have this affect. In fact, we can look at Breitbart in August of 2015 which shows this exact problem occurring as pizzas, an everyday consumer item, cost thirty dollars at one pizzeria. This is only one example listed in the article. There have been estimates in the article from the National Federation of independent businesses that point out other harms as well as illuminate the problems associated with the minimum wage hike as well which includes the following escribing a possibility of legislation that would come through the state congress in California: “…The state’s 2013 legislation raising California’s minimum wage rate to $9 per hour in 2014 and $10 by 2016 would shrink the state’s economy by $5.7 billion in the next 10 years and would cost the state roughly 68,000 jobs–63% of which would come from small businesses.” http://www.breitbart.com...... We can see another example of this problem if we were to look at the American Enterprise Institute in 2016 where it is shown that: “• In our weekly survey of ten of Chipotle’s markets, we found the company implemented price increases in half of the surveyed markets this week—San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Orlando. In most markets, the price increases have been limited to beef and average about 4% on barbacoa and steak, toward the lower end of management’s expectation for a 4% to 6% price increase on beef. • San Francisco, however, saw across-the-board price increases averaging over 10%, including 10% increases on chicken, carnitas (pork), sofritas (tofu), and vegetarian entrees along with a 14% increase on steak and barbacoa.We believe the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of increased minimum wages (which rose by 14% from $10.74 per hour to $12.25 on May 1) as well as scheduled minimum wage increases in future years (to $13 next year, $14 in 2017, and $15 in 2018).” https://www.aei.org...... We can clearly see from the examples shown that there is no such thing as a minimum wage that does not affect prices for consumers, showing that there is a balance that needs to be achieved between the personal need of people working the minimum wage and the consumer’s need for affordable goods and services. Since the fifteen dollar minimum wage does not account for this, we need to negate, if only to keep a fair and balanced system that can be tweaked later to bring about better effects. Contention 3: Counter-plan I will concede the following, the minimum wage needs to be increased moderately and on the state level to ensure that the previously mentioned points do not take effect. What also needs to happen is that we need to guarantee that there is a happy medium between the hike of the price for consumer goods and the individual need of money to support families for the people on the minimum wage. That being said, we should also incentivize getting into higher education and high-skilled jobs through prioritizing education in less affluent regions of the country and try to make college more attractive to those who come from poverty. Finally, we need to ensure that small businesses do not fail, so an annual audit of small businesses in all states should be done by the Department of Labor to ensure that progress is being made economically and to combat poverty and raise the standard of living. This will also help determine what states would need higher minimum or lower minimum wages. Until my opponent can refute my counter plan as a worse idea, we can’t pass today’s resolution with a clean conscience as we can tell there is a much better solution that could be enacted. As clearly shown, one must negate the resolution and favor the counter plan instead to ensure that the previous points mentioned will not occur and we can have job security. Thank you.

Title: Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised Content: I accept this challenge to debate upon the fact that the minimum wage should be raised. It is unjust in my opinion that millions of the working class will have to partake more than one job to support their families. I will be arguing on the basis that the last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in 2009. And the fact that numerous citizens will have to survive on meager means from the minimum wage pay. I acknowledge you for providing this debate so I can provide my opinion on the issue at hand. Okay, that sums up what I'm gonna do.

Title: Minimum Wage Content: I will be arguing that the minimum wage in US should be lowered (perhaps as much as being totally removed), my opponent will be arguing that the minimum wage should be raised. Any questions can be answered in comments.

Title: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15. Content: Thanks for accepting. There are many reasons that the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. 1. Raising the minimum wage will benefit the economy. http://www.cnbc.com... By raising the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour the economy will raise with it. "The U.S. economy is constituted by 70 percent consumer spending. Raising the national minimum wage would inject as much as $450 billion in the U.S. economy each year, money that entrepreneurs would have the opportunity to chase after. A $15 minimum wage would also save taxpayers an estimated $153 billion a year, according to a study by the University of California, Berkeley. This is because companies that pay low wages force workers to get food stamps and other benefits to help offset their low wages." http://www.globalresearch.ca... 2. Benefit Americans, Americans are in favor of a $15 minimum wage. "No one deserves to live in poverty. The last 30 years have drastically skewed labor relations in favor of the employer, lowering workers wages, health care, pensions, and job protections in the process, creating massive poverty and economic uncertainty. This dynamic is now considered "normal," where 30 years ago it was considered a radical anti-worker ideology. A $15 minimum wage is the quickest, most direct route to empower working people, and directly intervene into the labor market on the side of the workers." http://www.globalresearch.ca... An employee working a 40-hour week at the federal minimum wage would earn $15,080 per year. This income would leave a two-person household -- say, a single parent with one child -- just below the federal poverty threshold of $15,130....... Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage to $9.80 -- about $20,400 for a year of full-time work -- within two years. In subsequent years, the required pay rate would be increased each year by the same percentage that the federal Consumer Price Index rises. http://www.salary.com... 3. Benefit the world. If the US economy stays on it's feet, it will benefit the world economy. Since we learned in point one that raising wages will help the economy, if the economy is benefited the dollar goes up helping much of the world. http://www.worldfinancialwatch.com... In closing. I wish to say more but my internet is going wacky on me. Again I would like to thank my opponent for accepting and I apologize for the time it took for me to get'er done. I personally believe I have stated how and why it is important to raise the minimum wage to $15. Happy AIDS day!

Title: Raising the Minimum Wage Content: My side will be Pro, I will be arguing that the minimum wage should be risen. My opponent will be arguing that it shouldn't be risen. First round will be acceptence, a forfeit is an automatic loss. Good luck!

Title: Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people Content: I am Gatermouth, and I believe the minimum wage should be raised. I hope my opponent accepts this challenge.

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

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

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

Title: Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage. Content: Your personal opinion has nothing to do with this debate " Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage." Deals with what the politicians want to raise the minimum wage to not what you want it as. The government will not raise it to $10 they will raise it above that as I have argued. Even if they were to raise it to $10 it would still be bad. take for example a business, this business pays it's employees livable wages and all is good. however if that minimum wage is raised then what is the point of paying someone $10 to bag food at the local convenience store, clean the halls of a building, or flip burgers. It is not economical nor is it logical; if I have to pay my employees more for average performance then I would fire the under performing one's that I could have afforded before and keep the more skilled hard working ones. then I would just replace the expandable labor with machines, because they would cost cheaper in the long run. But keep believing that business owners will just keep paying lazy people foe crap performance. You want to pay people at Walmart $10 an hour, be my guest, just don't expect there to be Walmart there or that it will help the economy with it's donations like it has been doing.

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

Title: We should raise the Minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour Content: Because there are no rebuttals in round 2 I will just state my argumentsReason 1:Increasing the minimum wage would cause an extreme loss of jobs. Why is this? Many businesses cannot afford to pay workers above the regular 7 dollars an hour. An estimated 500,000 jobs will be lost if we increase the minimum wage just to 10.10 dollars. Imagine the job destruction that would occur if we raised it to 15 dollars an hour.While easing poverty and helping the poor is nice we shouldn't do it at the expense of destroying over a half a million jobs.http://www.npr.org... Prices would increase:While it may sound nice that workers get a boost in income there is a price. Prices for all products go up. Why is this? Businesses wont just give up a majority of their income just like that for workers. They will have to make up for the fact that since they are giving 8 more dollars to workers they need to increase prices to avoid failure.Prices for example restraunts go up .4-.7 percent. You may not think that .4 percent increase is a lot but it is when you calculate it into your living and compare it with your old life without the 15 dollar minimum wage.https://www.epionline.org...If the minimum wage is increase then only a few of the poor benefit:"Research published in 2010 by economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser concluded that if the federal minimum wage were increased from $7.25 an hour to $9.50 an hour (remember that the president’s proposal is to increase the minimum wage to $9 per hour), only 11.3% of workers who would gain from the increase belong to poor households.Why?First, many people who live in poverty do not work, and would thus be unaffected by an increase in the minimum wage. In addition, workers who earn the minimum wage are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. They are secondary earners – an elderly parent earning some retirement income or a spouse with a part-time job. Or they are young people living with their parents. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that while workers under age 25 make up only about 20% of those who earn hourly wages, they constitute about half of all workers earning the minimum wage or less. Raising the minimum wage is therefore an ineffective anti-poverty proposal."http://www.aei.org...The minimum wage is not intended for a full time job and should be treated as such. Making workers benefit more off minimum wage jobs than regular jobs that required higher education is not the direction we should be heading towards.Thank you Pro for the debateSources:http://www.npr.org...https://www.epionline.org...http://www.aei.org...

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

Title: The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour Content: This debate regards the following statement:"The minimum wage in the United States should be raised to $15 an hour to support the economy."I am arguing against the statement and believe that the minimum wage should not be raised so high. My opponent must argue for a $15 minimum wage.

Title: Raise the minimum wage Content: I accept. Small raises in the US federal minimum wage is beneficial to low wage employees and has never been shown be a financial detriment to the US economy or employers, when spaced out over spans of time.

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

Title: Raising the federal minimum wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Content: Thank you to BobtheCanOpener for agreeing to this debate.Resolved: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Definitions and ParticularsFederal Minimum Wage -"The minimum hourly rate of compensation for labor, as established by federal statute and required of employers engaged in businessesthat affect interstate commerce. Most states also have similar statutes governing minimum wages" (1).Raising - We'll be using the most recent proposal being debated by Congress, which is increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Detriment - "a cause of loss or damage" (2). Net - "remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross) (3). As is probably self-explanatory, we're dealing with whether the net effects of raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would be positive or negative. PRO will argue that raising the minimum wage will be, on balance, harmful to the U.S. economy, whilst CON will argue that raising the minimum wage would be, on balance, beneficial to the U.S. economy. The burden of proof will be equally split for both debaters.StructureRound 1: CON provides rules and structure. PRO provides affrmative case.Round 2: CON provides negative case. PRO rebuts CON's case. Round 3: CON rebuts PRO's case. PRO defends his case.Round 4: Con defends his case. PRO passes to even out the rounds. Rules1. Accepting this debate is consenting to the rules and guidelines laid out in this opening post. 2. Failure to adhere to any of these rules will result in forfeiting this debate.3. Forfeits are not allowed. 4. Any semantial games or resolution trolling is not allowed.5. Be respectful. No personal attacks or changing the goalposts. 6. The burden of proof is shared. Sources (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...;(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...;(3) http://dictionary.reference.com...;Thank you again to BobtheCanOpener. I look forward to a productive discussion.

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

Title: The minimum wage should be raised Content: The con side has forfeited the 2nd round so I will keep this short to keep it fair. The point of the minimum wage, as put by FDR, is to make sure someone can have a decent level of living. The current minimum wage is a poverty wage and needs to be raised. I do not want 15 dollars but more likely 10 dollars and will be implemented over a long time. The economic downfalls will be negligible and we will end up with a net gain.

Title: The Increase of Minimum Wage Content: I'll accept your challenge. Con's theory is perfectly sound on paper: an increase in the minimum wage should translate into higher prices, contributing to inflation and nullifying the increase. In the real world, however, economic forces are much more complicated. However much theory says it shouldn't, study after study shows that base wage increases have a minimal impact on prices and that base wage increases are strongly correlated to economic improvement. Economists differ strongly on the relative value and importance of the minimum wage, but history shows that economic strength typically improves after minimum wage hikes and that jurisdictions with higher minimum wages enjoy stronger economies than jurisdictions with lower or no minimum wage law. I will try to briefly demonstrate that minimum wage increases have historically resulted in little inflationary effect, but are strongly correlated to economic growth.

Title: Minimum Wage should not increase to $15. Content: Resolution: The US Minimum Wage should not be raised to $15 an hour. Rules:- No semantics. - The time-frame for increase must be reasonable. - Sources may be in an external link. - Spelling and Grammar / Conduct sources are void. Summary:The topic of the US Minimum Wage has been a hot spot for political and economic debate since it's creation in 1938. Created by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and set to $0.25 an hour, the wage has been the centerpiece of an unchallenged quantity of studies and academia. Pro (LordHelm) and Con (Romanii) will debate whether the Minimum Wage should be increased to $15 an hour within a fair time-frame (as high as 2025). Voters may only use Sources and Arguments to decide a winner. The debate has been reset to allow the opponents a chance to review their arguments, as neither side felt satisfied with their rounds. Romanii has been picked for the debate, as he was the most qualified debater.

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

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

Title: Minimum wage is better off the way it is now. Content: I would like a debate where I as the con suggest we do increase minimum wage and the pro that minimum wage is good at what the price is today. to make sure were on the same page Today: 7.25 a hour and 40 hours is full time on averaged 10,000 is what people make on minimum wage yearly If it was 10 dollars: full time would still be 40 hours a week and is on average 15,000 dollars a year

Title: Bernie Sander's $15 a hour proposal would do more harm than good. Content: Though it is a good idea, I do not think this could work. My reasoning being: as soon as minimum wage increases, everything else will increase also. Ultimately the value of money would decrease, as all other prices increase. "In 2014, fast-food workers in the United States were asking for a minimum wage of $15 an hour, or almost double what they were earning. Had their demand been granted, a typical burger flipper or order taker at McDonald"s would have ended up earning more than $30,000 per annul. Suffice it to say, raising the minimum wage to an excessively high rate would exert inflationary pressure on the economy, but increasing it to keep pace with inflation would only have a minimal effect." Also commonly unconsidered, is the increase it will cause in unemployment: "There"s our cut off point. 45 to 50% of the average wage: go above that level and we"re harming low paid workers (by making them no longer workers) not helping them. And the median hourly wage for the US is $16.71. The proposal for a $15 an hour minimum wage will make the minimum wage 90% of the median hourly wage: at which point we know very well that we"ll be harming low income workers, not aiding them." This being because: "In the brand new video below, he points out that minimum wage hikes may sound good in on their face, but in reality they result in job loss because they increase the cost of labor, making low-skilled employees more expensive for employers to hire." It is also unnecessary because: "In the brand new video below, he points out that minimum wage hikes may sound good in on their face, but in reality they result in job loss because they increase the cost of labor, making low-skilled employees more expensive for employers to hire" A few citizens who oppose the rise of minimum wage were asked to explain their beliefs. Shawn Patrick Sweep a 17-year- old who is unemployed to focus on academics says, "If you want to make money so badly, go out and do something about it. There're people out there with college degrees who barely make $15 an hour, so why should a job that doesn't even require a diploma make that much? The reason capitalism works so well is because there actually is social and economical mobility [sic], which this minimum wage increase obliterates. Not everybody is equal on the economic spectrum, we all have equal opportunities, but not everyone is equal. And until that thought gets through everyone's mind we will constantly be fighting over who gets what." 34-year-old Marcel Porter offers a more practical reasoning. "Don"t get me wrong, if the cost of living rises, so should minimum wage. Most business raise their prices, but not the employees pay. Right now my wife earns minimum wage working as a hallway monitor for my son's elementary school. I love her to death, but even she knows $15 an hour for that job is just too much. I think minimum wage should be in the $10-11 range and it should depend on what industry you're in." These businesses also do not have as much as one would think. Here is the effect $15 an hour would have on Wal-Mart: "$15 an hour would be an increase of $7 per hour. $7 multiplied by 30 hours per week, multiplied by 52 weeks a year, multiplied by 1 million workers is $10.92 billion, well over half Wal-Mart"s profit." In conclusion raising the minimum wage would increase other prices, create more unemployment, harm small businesses, and some large ones as well. Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to this debate.

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

Title: Minimum wages should be raised Content: 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.

Title: Minimum Wage should be abolished Content: If you accept this debate you are in favor of keeping and/or raising the current minimum wage. The following rounds will work as followed: Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Argument Round 3. Rebuttal Round 4. Conclusion Good luck!

Title: The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020 Content: I believe raising the minimum wage to $12.50 would benefit The American economy. Round 1 will be acceptance only. This is my first debate so I don't really know what to expect, but please just be cordial. Thank you.

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

Title: A just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage. Content: I under stand that there are different numerical values for a minimum wage, but I have chosen the most mentioned minimum wages as a middle point to argue here. Contention 1: Jobs I agree with my opponent that these minimum wage jobs can provide a great opportunity to get experience, but the fact is that these jobs cannot afford such a minimum wage boost. You see that as I have brought up last round that minimum wage jobs are typically teenager jobs working through high school or college. I showed that in Wisconsin, in 2009, when the minimum wage was last raised that the teenagers lost out on these opportunities, because the minimum wage increase harms fast food industries due to the fact that they only make X a week and have to pay their employees Y, but with the minimum wage increase it is now Y+Z meaning that the company is going to have less money to buy goods for their service, so they will have to resort to cutting back on their employees, especially teens, in order to save money. My opponent brings up a invalid argument as she states that minimum wage increases jobs. The debate is about increasing to a living minimum wage not about having the minimum wage. "The Congressional Budget Office is projecting job losses as a result of a proposed federal minimum wage increase. The raise to the hourly wage has been a cornerstone of President Obama's recent policy speeches. According to predictions by the non-partisan CBO, approximately 500,000 jobs would be lost by late 2016 due to such a law's implementation." (http://www.npr.org...) From the above quote, one can see that we will be losing jobs in result of a minimum wage increase. That is only for what Obama's doing, but let's apply this resolution to it and we'll find that it will be a whole lot worse. Even in Kansas, which isn't a very populated state, they predict that the cost for a nuclear family (2 adults and 2 children) will be $18 per hour! That's only for Topeka, could you imagine the numbers for that in Boston or New York City? I'll post the link to the Living Wage Calculator so you can even see for yourself. (http://livingwage.mit.edu...) Contention 2: Character Growth? I'm not completely sure on the relevance of this point, but let's get to it. Most of the minimum wage jobs will actually be obsolete and nonexistent in 20 years due to technological advancements. Waiters, Cashiers, and even assembly line workers are all expected to be gone and be replaced by machines in 20 years and if you do not have technical skills then you will find yourself unemployed. (http://www.ilookforwardto.com...) Contention 3: Rich Poor Divide Though most people associate the Democrat Party with caring for the poor and trying to protect them it has actually been seen that their welfare and minimum wage increases/programs have actually increase the Rich-Poor Divide than the Republicans! (http://poliwogg.wordpress.com...) s://poliwogg.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" /> Contention 4: Egalitarianism and Utilitarianism The equality that she is talking about is impossible to achieve, because though this might seem very blunt, but Not all Men are created equal. Whites will never be socially equal with blacks and homosexuals will never truly be equal with heterosexuals, now before you write me off as a racist let's look at history. In the 1870's, Congress passed a Civil Rights act that ensured things for blacks like the right to vote, abolishing anything to discriminate against those with the ability to vote, it also did all the things that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did, and it banned the KKK. (http://www.arch.ksu.edu...) The thing is that they gave up on their rights , because they believe equality could never be achieved. There was also an amendment in the 1970's, (though I can't remember the name of it) the amendment would legalize gay marriage in all US states and it would legalize women in combat. This amendment failed. Allan Bakke lead a Supreme Court Case about the University of California denying him the right to go their just because he was white. Luckily the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke. (http://www.pbs.org...) Many people today already recognize the discrimination against whites. (http://godfatherpolitics.com...) For the second part here, I will apply the economic system of Capitalism. Here in the United States, the harder you work the better off you will get paid. This is to show that you as an individual must work hard or if you do not then you only have yourself to blame, but in a society that my opponent is purposing is that you can show up for woke, half do it, and get paid a bucket load of cash just for slacking off. You see under Capitalism people get paid on how well they do their job. Contention 5: Equal Rights I truly agree that we should have equal opportunity to jobs, but as I brought up with the Affirmative Action turning against the whites and being reverse racism it is actually counter-productive. I agree that you should get paid based on what you do, but there is no way that putting a patty on a bun down at McDonald's is worth the $18 that I had shown for the living wage in Kansas.

Title: Raising the minimum wage is a negative action for the citizens of The United States of America Content: SunGod, before I begin my argument let me say thank for accepting my debate, I hope that by the end of this debate you will see the consequences and problems that come along with a higher minimum wage. In a perfect society on a perfect planet raising the minimum wage to decrease poverty levels is a stellar idea, however since sadly since we live nor work in a perfect society raising the minimum wage has consequences that defeat the purpose of the initial raising of the minimum wage. One of these unfortunate consequences is called inflation. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Today many lower and middle class Americans live under the hope that their minimum wages will continue to rise, they believe that a bigger salary will lead to more purchasing power, which allow them to continue a safe, average life and maybe once in a while that they will be able to treat themselves. Wether this treat be a new car, a Caribbean cruise, or a more affordable education for their children. However sadly, since macroeconomics is not taught in public schools, most of these people do not understand the effects of inflation on the economy. Due to inflation raising the minimum wage is a useless weapon in combating poverty because the economy will simply boost their prices in response to a raise of the federal minimum wage. Below is a link to a list which contains a few items whose prices have been inflated over time in The United States. (http://www.thepeoplehistory.com...) In conclusion, raising the minimum wage does practical nothing as inflation is always on guard, waiting to pounce as soon as the government officials put pen to paper.

Title: February Beginners // The USFG should raise Minimum Wage Content: I will assume that we are arguing whether America should raise the minimum wage or not, to make our debate more specific to a situation. The main argument in favor of raising the minimum wage is adding more money to the pockets of those with low wages. However, I will be offering evidence that those people will ultimately be worse off, and it will also harm others as well. Contention #1: Raising the minimum wage will lead to higher prices. Raising the minimum wage will increase the amount companies have to pay to employees. To deal with the increase in expenses, these companies will have to raise the price of their products to deal with this problem, so the change does not cut into products. This study shows a correlation between prices and the minimum wage[1]. This makes sense, since companies have to make a profit. An increase in expenses leads to an need to increase revenue. Therefore, while minimum wage benefits a few people, but it will harm the rest of us. For the greatest benefit to the biggest amount of people, raising the minimum wage is a bad idea. Think about this for a second. Would you enjoy paying higher prices, for no benefit to you? I will be arguing that this change does not help anybody in any economic class, while actually harming many. Contention #2: It increases unemployment [2] Let's say that this person, named Bob, is a employee working at minimum wage. His employer, a company, gets slightly more than minimum wage from his work. What happens when the minimum wage is increased? Bob will get fired. This is because the company will no longer be gaining money from the arrangement. There would be no point in keeping him around anymore. This is a big failure, since it is people like Bob minimum wage is supposed to help. Clearly, using minimum to help people at this income level is counter productive. Some people may get lucky and recieve a wage boost, but some will get laid off. This is extremely harmful, making those that are poor even poorer. In addition, those without specialized skills will find it even harder than it is now to find a job. With no skills, it is difficult to make a profit off of a worker. The problem gets much worse with this change in place, due to the higher wage that no-skill workers must be paid. Unless the revenue gained from an employee is greater than their wage, then they will not be hired. Earning any money at all is much better than earning no money, so these people will be greatly harmed by the minimum wage. For this reason, raising the minimum wage is an ineffective method of helping out low-income families. Many of those that need the money do not even work anyway, and so it only succeeds in forcing companies to raise the price of their products to cover the added cost of paying workers with no skills. Contention #3: Companies will have a greater inclination to outsource. Who wants our jobs and can work for cheap? Foreign workers. One of the only things keeping American companies from hiring foreign workers is that workers here are more convienient. However, if the minimum wage here gets difficult to deal with, then they have much more incentive to hire the cheaper workers in other places. Why is this not a good thing? Unemployment! Any job sent to India is a job that an American does not have. This goes against the American Dream[3]. When people cannot get jobs, they are unable to have the opportunity for prosperity and success. This alone is a reason for opposing the increase of the minimum wage. Contention #4: It does not reduce poverty. There are several types people that are seen as being in "poverty. " One type is those that are unable to get a job. Raising the minimum wage will only make it harder for them to get a job, as I showed before. Another type is those working at low wages. These people are likely to be laid off, with the increase in minimum wage, and even those that aren't will hardly be benefited. "Our results provide plausible evidence that state minimum wage increases can have substantial adverse labor demand effects for low-skilled individuals that are outside the consensus elasticity range of -0.1 to -0.3. " [4] This study plainly shows the problems with thinking that the minimum wage has more than slight benefits for those with this income level. There are mixed effects, some people having increases in wage, some being laid off. Overall, the negatives of this far outweigh the positives. These points show that the minimum wage should not be increased. I look forward to seeing my opponent's arguments. Sources: 1. . https://www.purdue.edu... 2. . http://object.cato.org... 3. . https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...

Title: Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Content: Resolved: Raising the federal minimum wage would not be economically beneficial Shared burden of proof.

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

Title: should the government raise minimum wage Content: The government shouldnt raise minimum wage because though you would get more money minimum wage jobs are temporary jobs and meant to be treated as such. The minimum wage was never designed to be a "living wage" it was for all intent and purpose to be a safeguard against legalized slavery. If a company wants decent workers they will pay a decent wage. If the jobs are too low paying no one will want them and it will force the rates to be increased. Also if the rates are too low it will also discourage illegal immigration which we all know is a problem. A minimum wage job is a starting point not a career. And continuously increasing that wage only raises the costs of all goods and those earning that minimum wage will have their income gone sooner. Also raising minimum wage will raise taxes and big businesses will hide behind it taking it away and instead businesses should just offer better jobs and working environments A higher minimum wage would be a heavier burden on employers especially small business owners. And those employers in turn would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to exist "Young workers willing to accept five dollars per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so Jacoby argued especially if the alternative is being unable to find a job at all. Furthermore increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. Multiple studies have demonstrated little to no relationship between a higher minimum wage and reductions in poverty the institute says in a policy brief". Where does this all leave the minimum wage? Harkins bill has been referred to committee which means it is several legislative steps away from becoming a law. And in a highly polarized election season action on such a controversial issue is unlikely. raising the minimum wage will hurt the smaller businesses that cannot afford to pay their employees more than what the minimum is now. Raising minimum wage is a vicious circle the government raises it because it hasnt been raised in years and as soon as its raised everything else goes up immediately to compensate. If it were easy for businesses to pay higher wages than they would! Now think about this. If a business has three people working for it and it is a very small business but the people want to be payed more. So they start getting people to protest and then the minimum wage gets raised. The business can no longer pay all three so they fire one. Now that person that wanted more has nothing at all. This is precisely what happened in Detroit. Detroit was known for having amazing cars. But after a while the people in Detroit wanted the wage to be higher so they made the car companies pay them more. In the end the companies could not afford to pay them so after laying thousands of people off they eventually all moved to a place where the minimum wage was lower to prevent shutting down. This completely crashed the economy. Many people dedicate mass amounts of their precious time fighting to raise minimum wage. Their perception of minimum wage on the other hand only goes skin deep their belief is that it should be a living wage so that a low income laborer could provide for his or her family. The problem with that concept as previously mentioned is that they only scratch the surface when they decide what minimum wage should be set at.

Title: Minimum Wage Laws Harm the Poor Content: It seems to me that my opponent is still confusing the issue. The question of whether an increase in the minimum wage would help the poor is very different from the question of whether or not the poor would be better off if there were no minimum wage in the first place. My opponent appears to be arguing an issue that is not the topic of this debate. Aside from this false premise though, my opponent"s numbers are seriously flawed. First, his math is wrong, because he calculates the increase in income before accounting for a decrease in employment. Even using my opponent"s numbers, the total gain should come out to $25 million per hour, not $26 million. (Because 500,000 should be subtracted from 15.5 million before it is multiplied by two. 15.5-.5= 15 15*2=30 30-5=25) Also, the $30 million number does not account for inflation. According to studies I have cited previously, every 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to an approximately 4% increase in price level. Increasing the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour is a $2.85 or 39.3% increase which will lead to a roughly 15.7% increase in price level. This means that the real benefit to poor workers, even using my opponent"s numbers is only $21.075 million per hour. But the real problem with my opponent"s argument is not mathematical errors, but that his numbers are wrong. My opponent says "Let's assume that the people with the 10% lowest wages will have their wages increased by $2/hr on average." The problem is that there is no reason to make this assumption. Barely more than 1% of workers earn the federal minimum wage. There is no evidence to suggest that the number of workers earning close to the minimum wage would bring the total number anywhere near 10%. The CBO report is NOT reliable, it is just the best source we have. While the CBO report does estimate that approximately 10.7% of workers work for less than $10.10 per hour, it fails to account for raises that would have occurred if the minimum wage had not been raised. (The CBO report actually acknowledges this flaw in a note on page 24) This is a very significant flaw to the CBO"s estimates, as TWO THIRDS OF MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS RECEIVE A WAGE WITHIN ONE YEAR. [1] (This is because most minimum wage jobs are learning wage positions) The subject of poverty rates, that my opponent references are misleading. This is because "poverty" in the United States is defined by an arbitrarily chosen "poverty line", which includes many people who are not very poor. 80% of people below this poverty line have air conditioning. The average "poor" person in the United States has more living space than the average European. Not the average poor European, the AVERAGE European. The point is that there is a large range in wealth among the people described as "poor". [2] Minimum wage laws have the effect of aiding the wealthier (higher skilled) poor, but hurting the truly poor, who have very few marketable skills. Rebuttals Breaking the limbs of poor people should not be construed as charitable, even if they happen to receive insurance money as a result of it. Similarly, raising the minimum wage should not be construed as a boon to the poor, even if it results in more welfare benefits for some people. If the goal is to increase welfare payments, welfare should be increased, not the minimum wage. Conclusion My opponent greatly exaggerates the benefits, but essentially, he is correct that an increase in the minimum could help the poor. However, this is irrelevant to the question of whether having a minimum wage law in the first place is beneficial to the poor. Due to increases in unemployment and price level, minimum wage laws harm the poor. Small increases are different because when minimum wage laws are in place, they create a malformed labor system. Thank you, please vote pro. [1]http://www.heritage.org... [2] http://townhall.com...

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

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

Title: Raising the U.S. minimum wage to $10/hour is a bad idea Content: My position will be that raising the U. S. minimum wage to $10.00 an hour is a bad idea whose negatives outweigh the positives. Opponent's position will be that raising the U. S. minimum wage to $10.00 an hour is a good idea whose positives outweigh the negatives.

Title: We should raise the minimum wage Content: I will first begin by very easily negating what has been presented thus far by my opponent. They brought up the lack of employment from younger individuals in New York when the minimum wage was increased. This point, however, is null and void. As of December 31st of 2016, New York's minimum wage has already been raised to fifteen dollars, supporting my argument. According to the New York government, the raise in minimum wage was actually due to input from both employers and employees. This means that the people 'wanting to work for less', as my opponent tried to argue for, do not exist, or are a very subjective minority of workers. Source(s): (https://www.ny.gov...) EPI states that raising the minimum wage to just ten dollars would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. This means my opponent supports a smaller economy and less jobs. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's economists predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. In 1994, an economic study done by the economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD studied employment rates between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the latter having a higher minimum wage. They found no difference in employment rates, meaning that my opponent's argument about lower employment is null and void and flows over to my side. Furthermore, economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, released in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found "little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment." Source(s): (David Cooper, "Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost," Economic Policy Institute website, Dec. 19, 2013) (Daniel Aaronson and Eric French, "How Does a Federal Minimum Wage Hike Affect Aggregate Household Spending?," Chicago Fed Letter, Aug. 2013) (David Card and Alan B. Krueger, "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania," The American Economic Review, Sep. 1994) (Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley, "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, June 2009) For these reasons, supporting my side of the argument and nullifying everything presented by my opponent, I heavily urge a strong Pro/Aff voter turnout.

Title: increases in minimum wage causes more damage than good Content: I believe that incremental increases to the minimum wage does more good and less damage to the middle and lower classes. I support a minimum wage of $10.10. Since, this debate is purely based on whether it does more good or more harm (costs vs benefits), I will let the voters weigh in. The costs- An estimated 500,000 workers could lose employment. The benefits- An estimated 900,000 workers would be moved out of poverty. You decide. http://touch.latimes.com...

Title: The minimum wage should be raised Content: My opponent claims that if we raise the minimum wage, that it would make such a difference that it would make employers not want to hire any laborers. But my opponent didn"t state how much the wage would be increased by. Therefore I can argue that we should increase the wage by one cent. And a one cent difference to someone"s wage, will not deter an employer from hiring someone. My opponent states that someone who works minimum wage has enough to be in a livable state. But the poverty iine for one person is 11,880, but A full-time minimum wage employee earns $15,080 annually. Yes it"s livable wage, but barely, there people also want things like education, clothes, and better food and be able to enjoy themselves. Plus the poverty line for a family of 2 is about 16,00, therefore if a mother is raising a children working as a fast food worker, this wage is unlivable. Also the wage is livable, means someone can get only the necessities they need to live. Shelter is not a necessity to live since people can live without a house, but people can"t live without food and water. Being able to live is not the only thing someone should strive for. "Seattle estimates that, before its historic decision, almost a fourth of its workers earned below $15 an hour. That translates into about $31,000 a year for a full-time worker. In a high-cost city like Seattle, that's barely enough to support a family. Most minimum-wage workers aren't teenagers these days. They're major breadwinners who need a higher minimum wage in order to keep their families out of poverty." Source- http://obamacarefacts.com... http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... http://www.cnbc.com... If this affects only 4% of people, then that mitigates the problems with raising the minimum wage. And people ages 19-25 are people I would say is not dependent on families. Under that probably, but not always. These people are still people that need to make money to do the things I have listed above. More jobs and faster growth. "The gains from a higher minimum wage extend beyond those who receive it. More money in the pockets of low-wage workers means more sales, especially in the locales they live in " which, in turn, creates faster growth and more jobs. A major reason the current economic recovery is anemic is that so many Americans lack the purchasing power to get the economy moving again." This is a good reason for raising the minimum wage, since it"s better to have more jobs and economic growth.

Title: The Us should raise th minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour. Content: 3rd round rebuttals 4th round closing arguments and rebuttals LMF will argue that the minimum wage should be raised to fifteen dollars per hour. I will argue we shouldn't.

Title: should the government raise minimum wage Content: We are now at the point where there is no doubt that I have won this debate and CON has lost. CON concedes that he has no evidence to support his argument in the last round. Therefore, everything he's said so far is out in terms of determining who won this debate. But, worse, CON is wrong that I don't have evidence to support my rebuttals of his claims. Without re-posting a list of links and wasting character space, the judges are encouraged to review the foregoing rounds and see all the evidence I posted. As a point of consideration here: CON should lose the conduct point and the sources point. He should lose the conduct point for lying about the fact that I posted evidence, and he should lose the sources point because he has no sources. He has no links at all, just citations to articles that may or may not exist. Now, regarding the stuff he posted in the last round.... CON asked whether the "U.S. government increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $15?" The question here is whether, as I said above, the US should raise the minimum wage at all. The question here IS NOT HOW MUCH should it be raised. So, in talking about raising the minimum wage by a specific amount, CON is making an irrelevant argument. But there's another problem... and it's much murkier... CON literally stole his argument, verbatim, from this website: http://mitsloan.mit.edu... He did not link his argument to this website. He did not cite to this website. He literally plagiarized, and now must lose this debate for cheating. Like, read the article. It is word for word the same thing. In review, I have proven my side. CON has failed to prove his. I rebutted everything CON said that wasn't plagiarized. CON made no rebuttals at all, and tried to pass off this article (http://mitsloan.mit.edu...) from MIT school of management as his own... as if I wouldn't find it. So, even if you weren't convinced above that I should be winning the conduct point, now you have to be convinced because CON is a cheater.

Title: Minimum Wage Content: Lets hear why not. By having a minimum wage, The government is quite literally forcing companies at gunpoint to pay their employees a certain amount. This makes it harder for more businesses to grow, Since they have to pay employees a large amount of money. This doesn't help the economy at all. My second point is by abolishing the minimum wage, It will create more jobs. If you don't force companies to pay their employees a certain amount of money, The companies will have enough money to hire more people, Which will help them grow, In return boosting the economy. My final point is that by raising the minimum wage, Everything else will raise with it. Taxes, Rent, And everyday products and services. This will drive people out of the area, Causing the economy to fall. If minimum wage works, Why don't we just raise it to $100/hr? Wouldn't that make everyone rich? . . . . (hint: absolutely not)

Title: Do anything Content: Firstly to address wage increases, the upper-class is irrelevant because THEY are not the ones who need wage raises. The poor are the ones in need--the ones that have the minimum wage increased to $10.10 would be benefited so much that they move out of the poverty zone. The Congress has already signed a Fair Minimum Wage Act (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...), and it shows the benefits of the raising of the minimum wage. Again, I stress this, the more money people get, the more they can spend. I already said this in the previous rounds, and I'll say this again--this would only HELP my opponent's huge federal debt, NOT raise it. raising the minimum wage to $10.10 keeps the employees ahead of the game, and can out-weigh the inflation. As the previously cited website notes itself, "Raising the minimum wage boosts consumer demand, as low-income workers spend their higher wages at local businesses." And "Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would generate more than $22 billion in new economic activity, translating to 85,000 new full-time jobs as higher sales lead businesses to hire more employees, according to estimates by the Economic Policy Institute." So we see here EVEN IF a ton of people do lose their jobs (for reasons my opponent has not even asserted), more people are helped, and THE GOVERNMENT is helped economically-wise as well. This singular contention can defeat both my opponent's first contention AND his second contention AND his third contention. All of them are null against the positive benefits of having the minimum wage at $10.10. In conclusion, my plan helps people get better life-styles, and boosts the government economy. Raising the minimum wage would HELP most people as my opponent proves himself with his own graph, which I picture again below: The poor people NEED TO KEEP UP WITH THE INFLATING ECONOMY. The minimum wage is ancient compared to modern prices. We should take action and put the Fair Minimum Wage Act to play so as to boost America's economy! Go, minimum-wage $10.10!Good debate. You almost won me over with the repetition of inflation, inflation, and pretty much nothing but inflation (because job losses were moot against job gains/raise of wage/improvement of life-style/draggin out of poor zone), but repetition does not make a point stronger. As much as you repeat, I know for sure that with the increasing amount of money, people will work harder to gain wages; people will spend more to consumer products and benefit the economy enough to defeat the so-called inflation. Vote me.

Title: Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour Content: The current minimum wage is 8$ an hour. I'm arguing that we should raise it to 15$ an hour, you're arguing that we should keep it at 8$ and that the Fight for 15 is nonsense.

Title: welfare should be abolished Content: Why don't they just increase the minimum wage then rather than taking money from us?

Title: Minimum wage is better off the way it is now. Content: Your whole argument was based around helping the people on minimum wage. Of course raising minimum wage would help those people. I somewhat agree with you that minimum wage should be increased. For younger people I believe there should be a different minimum wage than there is for older people. As I have said before minimum wage shouldn't be for an adult in his 40s with kids and a wife. The minimum wage jobs should be a start for people, not a permanent job. If we raise the minimum wage for younger people that will give them a good start off to their future endeavors. Then the regular minimum wage of $7.25 should be enforced when they are in their late 20s. You talk a lot about people on minimum wage receiving food stamps and things that cost the taxpayer money. If we raise minimum wage then the Walmarts, Mcdonalds, etc... will raise their prices as a result causing more money to the taxpayer. Food stamps should not go to people who can't find a job or are poor because they are get into trouble with the law. To get food stamps you should prove that you are a good person to society and are actually trying to find a good job. Minimum wage will hurt small businesses too. If we were to raise minimum wage by that much it would hurt small businesses a lot, especially the ones that have a lot of minimum wage employees. I can see how increasing minimum wage for younger people would be good so that they can sustain themselves and worry about getting ready for the real world as opposed to worrying about money. However, if we get adults in their 40s sustaining their families on minimum wage then that becomes a problem because then there is no motivation. In America, you are suppose to have to work hard to obtained a job to support yourself and if you have one a family.

Title: Minimum Wage Should be Abolished Content: I thank Valladarex for the opportunity to debate a highly contentious topic. While it unusual to go first in a debate where I technically don’t have the burden of proof, I will have a chance to refute Pro’s argument in the next round. I will provide some arguments as to why Minimum wage should be implemented, which is slightly different from the resolution as I have the burden of proof in this instance. This is to outline my side of the argument, rather than set the tone of the argument. Anyway, I’ll stop prattling on… Increases the standard of living for the poorest and most vulnerable class in society Young, a working parent often not only have the demands of taking care of themself or his or her partner, but also a child/children. Evidently, it is not hard to imagine that some of the poorest people in America are young, working parents because they essentially support three people in a developed nation (higher standard of living costs than an undeveloped nation). “Analysis of the 2005 Current Population Survey reveals that the workers potentially affected by a minimum wage increase are mainly adults who typically work full time and provide significant income to their families. If the federal minimum wage were increased to $7.25 per hour by 2008, 14.9 million workers would see their wages rise. The vast majority (80%) of workers affected are adults age 20 and above. Twenty-six percent of these workers are parents, and as a result over 7.3 million children of low-wage workers would see their parents’ income increase if the federal minimum wage was increased to $7.25 per hour by 2008.1 From a historical perspective, this demographic portrait is consistent with the make-up of workers benefiting from the last federal minimum wage increase” (Bernstein and Schmitt 1998). Clearly, the minimum wage would vastly improve the situation for these parents, in turn dealing with the poverty to some extent. This is the fundamental reason to employ a minimum wage: to prevent people from living below the poverty line because businesses will pay people virtually nothing if they are allowed to. If people refuse to work for such a low pay, the business will simply not employ them or look for someone whom will (overseas if need be). It isn’t like there are only a handful of people whom a business can employ to do minimum wage work for them. Business exploitation and the Anchoring effect In theory, businesses would pay what they thought an employee was worth, so the incentive would be to work harder to get payed more. Keep in mind that this argument is about minimum wage, not high-end wage negotiation where there are few other potential employees due to the qualifications required. This theory is skewered in practice due to an effort called ‘the Anchoring effect’. The Anchoring effect occurs when someone bases the validity or worth of something by comparing other things of a similar nature within the vicinity (and is a fallacy because it works off relativity rather than objectivity). To put this into context, there is no way to objectively gauge what a person’s working time is worth (i.e. what is a person’s time worth if he or she is stacking boxes?). Arbitrary standards will be set, and will be (unfairly) set by the business (as there are no restrictions on them AND there is a conflict of interest for the business, the conflict of interest inciting exploitation because the bottom line of running a business is to make money). But here is where the fallacy comes in. Say I’m packing boxes full of clothing and getting payed $0.5 an hour. I’m doing a better job than the guy next to me, who is getting payed $0.3 an hour. So, logically, it would seem that I’m getting payed extra for my extra effort, right? This is below the amount necessary to sustain my life, but I’m told to ‘work harder’ if I want to get anymore pay. In reality, the business has set a very low standard, exploiting people by use of the anchoring effect and paying them less than what a person who sees the situation objectively would demand. This is another reason businesses must have minimum wages set by a separate entity (one which can see the situation objectively and can set objective standards, otherwise the business will set low wage rates which are unsustainable in a developed world (and make people believe that the rates are fair). To demonstrate exploitation in action (not necessarily the Anchoring effect in all instances), in 2006, “the earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker (working 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year) with a family of three would earn $10,712 a year, thus falling 35.5% below the official 2006 federal poverty level of $16,600. Although the federal poverty line is an inadequate measure of the income needed to support a family, this comparison highlights the severe insufficiency of the current minimum wage” (Fisher 1999). I’ve outlined the crux of my argument and an important correlation. I don’t think I should go much further because in this argument, seeing that I’m Con, I’m supposed to counter-argue the arguments of my opponent. I will await your response, Valladarex. References Bernstein, Jared and John Schmitt. 1998. “Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-1997 Minimum Wage Increase.” Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Fisher, Gordon. 1999. “Income (In-) Adequacy? The Official Poverty Line, Possible Changes and Some Historical Lessons.” Community Action Digest. Vol. 1, No. 1.

Title: Labor Regulations Content: Even right here on Debate.org, the vast majority of people side with Ben Carson in believing that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment. (See http://www.debate.org...). Beyond that, raising minimum wage across the board (such as the federal mandate proposed by Sanders) would inevitably result in businesses raising goods and services prices to account for the additional money they are spending in payroll which would not only negate any benefit, (maybe people make more, but if they have to spend more - it's a wash) but would also put even more financial strain on middle-class Americans who were meant to benefit from the wage hike in the first place. As businesses start looking to cut costs (to make up for higher wages), it's very likely that benefits (such as paid time off, employee reimbursement, tuition assistance, and other perks) would be drastically reduced or cut. Employees would then have to pay for these expenses out of their own pockets, further reducing their effective take-home pay. Raising the federal minimum wage is not an effective or sustainable way to accomplish the goals that Sanders is fighting for. Although it seems like a federally mandated minimum wage of $15 per hour would improve the financial situation of millions of Americans, it would actually bring about serious negative consequences for businesses, middle-class American families, and our economy as a whole.

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

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

Title: Minimum wage is better off the way it is now. Content: I was removing taxes and hypothetically getting sick. That's how i got the math i did. You do have a good point that people would settle for less is minimum wage was increased. But, it would lessen the amount of people on food stamps and may other government assistant programs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 1.57 million people in the United States make the minimum wage, and another 1.98 million make even less. These 3.6 million workers make up 4.7 percent of all hourly-wage workers. People who are supposedly paid tips and people under 20 can be paid less than this minimum. Some states allow businesses that are not engaged in interstate commerce (and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the federal government) to pay less. Some territories " notably American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands " also are allowed to pay less. Of those who make minimum wage or less 44% are in food preparation and serving related occupations, 15% are in sales and related occupations, 9.7% in personal care and service occupations, 6.5% in building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations, 6.8% in transportation and material moving occupations and 6.4% in office and administrative support occupations. (Note that the largest sector that is below minimum wage is in food preparation and serving related occupations, with 16.5% of all workers who make minimum or less.) The average age of fast-food workers is 29 and more than a fourth are raising children. 64% of those making the minimum wage are women. Raising Minimum Wage Boosts Economy The minimum wage was first enacted because economists understood that a wage floor is a floor for the economy. (This is why trade agreements that undermined wages and broke unions have undermined the middle class and led to the slow economy we have today.) Raising the minimum wage boosts the economy and does not "cost jobs." A 2011 Chicago Federal Reserve Bank study looked at 23 years of household spending data and found that increasing the minimum wage raises other incomes, and that every dollar of hourly wage increase for a minimum wage worker results in $2,800 in new consumer spending by his or her household over the following year. President Obama has endorsed raising the minimum wage to $10.10 and indexing it to inflation. Monday Economist Paul Krugman wrote about the effect this would have, in Better Pay Now, Early this year the Economic Policy Institute estimated that an increase in the national minimum wage to $10.10 from its current $7.25 would benefit 30 million workers. Most would benefit directly, because they are currently earning less than $10.10 an hour, but others would benefit indirectly, because their pay is in effect pegged to the minimum " for example, fast-food store managers who are paid slightly (but only slightly) more than the workers they manage. Raising Minimum Wage Cuts Safety Net Spending On November 1 the country went over the "Hunger Cliff" as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) " commonly known as "Food Stamps" " was severely cut, leaving millions of Americans in desperate straits and local food pantries overwhelmed. House Republicans currently are trying to cut the program by another $39 billion. (Senate Democrats voted to cut it by "only" another $4 billion.) Raising the minimum wage is a better way to cut spending on assistance programs because higher wages cut the need for assistance such as Food Stamps. Raising the minimum wage increases other wages as well, for example low-paid supervisors of minimum-wage employees would receive a boost as well. So it is not just the minimum-wage employees who benefit and who need less assistance. Currently 52% of fast-food workers get aid from public programs like food stamps. Raising the minimum wage cuts this need. And cutting the need cuts the cost of these programs. According to the National Employment Law Project, "Low wages and lack of benefits at the 10 largest fast-food companies in the United States cost taxpayers an estimated $3.8 billion per year. McDonald"s alone costs taxpayers an estimated $1.2 billion each year." A Berkeley Labor Center study, Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public cost of low-wage Jobs in the fast-food industry says "the cost of public assistance to families of workers in the fast-food industry is nearly $7 billion per year." and "Due to low earnings, fast-food workers" families " receive an annual average of $1.04 billion in food stamp benefits." That $7 billion " $1 billion of that for Food Stamps " is spent helping just the workers in the fast-food industry. Fast-food workers are just some of the "food preparation and serving related" occupation that is 44% of workers making the minimum wage or less. Again, we spend $7 billion on government assistance helping people just in the fast-food industry because they are paid so little. They are just some of the workers making minimum wage, which means $7 billion is just some of the spending we could cut if we just paid them more. If minimum wage workers receives a raise, and that increase ripples up through the ever-growing low-wage end of our economy, the need for government assistance will decrease and therefore so will the spending on the programs. The right way to cut spending on assistance for Americans is to decrease the need for that assistance, not decrease assistance for those in need. Don"t cut programs for the people who need them, cut those people"s need for the programs. It"s the right thing to do and it also makes money sense.

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

Title: Labor Regulations Content: While I believe that everyone in America stands by the right for individuals to earn a "living wage," increasing the federally mandated minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour is not an effective or sustainable way to help Americans support themselves and their families. Based on position statements on the Marco Rubio website, Rubio and other conservative Republicans indicate that increasing minimum wage through federal law would be seriously detrimental to small businesses across the country who would not be able to sustain the increase - and therefore risk going out of business. If that happens, unemployment would soar and the very people who were meant to benefit from the minimum wage increase would find themselves in a much worse financial situation, as a result. The logic that increasing the take home income of Americans will put money right back into the economy is fundamentally flawed based on the fact that it takes significant amounts of time for that money to trickle back up to the businesses that are supposedly sustaining the growth through payroll. Instead, I would argue that Marco Rubio's top-down approach - in which tax cuts for businesses, along with smarter economic policies, would help to create jobs that pay more. Historically, minimum wage laws have not helped the middle class attain more prosperity; they simply deplete small business' ability to sustain economic and fiscal growth.

Title: DDO Olympics: Abolish The Minimum Wage Content: Jumping right in: "Naturally, if the cost of living is higher in a certain area, businesses will have to offer higher wages if they want to hire anyone" A lot of minimum wage workers simply receive extra money off of welfare form the government because they can't afford to live by just a minimum wage alone: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... Your idea may sound good in theory, but in reality, minimum wage workers sometimes just have no choice and are forced to live in poverty with very little to no room for anything other than bare essentials. "If there were no minimum wage, employment rates would rise, and the employed would send their money right back to businesses, stimulating the economy even more" No evidence is given to demonstrate that it'd be more money, and I already demonstrated how businesses would not be inclined to fire people in my opening round. My opponent just makes bare assertions again. "In this case, increased consumer spending is a bad thing, because it occurs due to higher prices, which are harmful to lower income people such as those on minimum wage" There's a distinction between federal and state minimum wages... In addition many businesses would not raise prices in order to stay competitive. My opponent also neglects the fact that workers can afford to buy more which in time offsets these costs. "Workers who really need a living wage would most likely not have a minimum wage job. Besides, welfare should be abolished, so the government doesn't need to spend that money to begin with" This is refuted both by http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... And the fact that it's a bare assertion on both points raised. ""Many companies simply pocket the money and increase the salary of CEO's rather than employing more workers." Evidence?" The fact that some CEO's make tens of millions of dollars any ally shows they could have put a bit more effort into increasing their workers wages... "People on minimum wage jobs rarely have to support a family. The vast majority of them are just trying to make a little extra money" Actually 73% of US welfare expenditures go to workers with insufficient wages: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... A minimum wage increase would decrease the amount of money we would spend on welfare as a result. "As for your statistics, only 28% of those people have children. Most of those are probably people with spouses who support their family with a different job. You need more statistics than that if you're going to try to refute the fact that minimum wage workers don't need a living wage" Again, I already demonstrated that people are suffering from underpayment. The vast majority of those people are adults. My opponent's myths about "extra spending money" are completely refuted by these facts that he's neglected to refute this entire debate. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu... Thanks. In conclusion my points were not met with much evidence and my opponent made multiple logical fallacies over the course of this debate. Thank you.

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

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

Title: Minimum Wage Raise Content: I am against a raise in the minimum wage for a few reasons. 1. A minimum wage would force many jobs to be lost. Say for example, if there was a $15 minimum wage, then I will use Dunder Mifflin Paper as an example. They have 15 employees in one branch and they all get paid, say $9/hr. Dunder Mifflin is breaking even and doing ok. But, now that the federal government has stepped in and raised the minimum wage to $15/hr, Dunder Mifflin has had to fire people due to the higher wages. Now Dunder Mifflin can only have 6 people at a branch in order to keep themselves open. Many people lose jobs. 2. If the company is already going to go bankrupt, they will inevitably lose the business, and everybody will lose their job at that business. 3. Net Profit will eventually get lower and lower, for the highly successful businesses. Now let's pretend Dunder Mifflin is a huge national corporation. They now have branches in every state in the US. Now that Bernie's policies have taken place, they have to close down many of their branches, and fire many people. Profit would have drown due to having to pay every employee $6 more an hour. Let's see how much more a year. If Dunder Mifflin had 250 branches, each with 17 employees on average, $15 an hour, with an 8-5 job, with 345 days a year. That would be $135 a day for one employee, $675 a week per employee, and $46980 a year. Let's multiply that times 17, for the employees at the branch. $798,660 a year for one branches employees. Let's see the stats for the former $9/hour. $81 a day, $405 a week, $28107 a year. Now that sounds like a much better wage for a customer service agent or a salesman. It's $477,819 a year per branch. Let's multiply that by 250 branches. $119,450,750 for all of the employees salaries. On a $15/hr salary? $199,665,000. That's an $80 million difference. I don't think any company would want to lose $80 million. These are my main reasons why an increase in the minimum wage would highly affect our economy.

Title: Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour Content: Hello kkkkatie126, thank you for starting this debate. I look forward to an interesting and educational discussion (I accept this debate). I assume we will use the conventional definitions of terms such as minimum wage. I will not argue that raising the minimum wage is compete nonsense. What I am going to prove is that increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour will bring more harm than good. Throughout this debate, I will show significant disadvantages to a national minimum wage hike. These numerous disadvantages will outweigh any potential benefits. I await your arguments in the next round.

Title: The minimum wage should not be raised to $15/hr for fast food workers Content: MY TURN! C1: The Resolution is a Minor Concession by my Opponent Roy is advocating to that it ought to not increase. This must mean that my opponent concedes that there are benefits of the MW in the first place. If my opponent thought that the MW was more harmful than beneficial, he would have advocated for it's complete abolishment. Otherwise, there is at least some reason to keep minimum wage (MW). C2: The Role of the Government is Not a Factor Here I would like to point out that this debate revolves around the evaluation of a policy. The question is not what the government's role ought to be. The topic of this debate must assume that the government is already involved, and the question of this debate is whether it has been economically beneficial or not. Therefore, my opponents entire 4th point concerning welfare is completely irrelevant. Besides, MW and welfare are different. To justify keeping MW the same, he must in fact show the effects of this on the whole economy. When my opponent reverts to microeconomics to try and justify his position, this is null-and-void. Turn: Without raising MW, the costs to the state is substantial: we lose tax revenue, more people go on welfare programs, some look to the “shadow economy” and begin to commit crimes, etc... So by taking the position my opponent has maintained, he is actually making those dependant on the state worse off by opposing MW, instead of saving money by increasing wages. Besides, my opponent completely forgets that if MW increases, people will be encouraged to find a job through legal means. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] C3: MW Hasn't Been Abolished Due to it's Effectiveness Thought experiment: MW enters the US in about the 1930's under FDR's New Deal. Since then, the MW legislation has been increased in the US alone 22 times. Unless it was beneficial to the people, politicians, and businesses, then why has it not been abolished? In fact, why has it been furthered even surpassing federal levels in some states? Heck, why is it that in some parts of South Asia, Latin America, and Africa, a MW is simply customary? The answer is simple: MW legislation simply works. Well over 90% of the world has some form of a MW legislation, so there’s lots of data for us to analyze. [http://tinyurl.com...] C4: MW Improves the Gini Coefficient Pretty self-explanatory: when MW hikes happen, every single index from the Gini Coefficient to Atkinson indexes, or even standard deviation of logarithms, show great improvement for the US. Meaning when MW hikes happen, income mobility is dramatically improved, and ones ability to improve their financial situation from their parents is increased. (“the American Dream” folks?!)[http://tinyurl.com...] C5: Monopsonistic Competition Unfairly Favour Businesses Imperfect competition has resulted in a buyer being able to unfairly dictate it's terms to the seller (worker) because of the volume of sellers. When competition between sellers ensues, the marginal product of labour (MLP) drops. The seller is producing the same amount of goods, but at a reduced price. As a result when MW increases, employment and wages go up as well. When we ask how much MW should increase, we look to MLP for equilibrium. MW is a legislation that regulates a market failure, not some silly “free-lunch” handout my opponent dresses it up as. [http://tinyurl.com...] Re1: Labour Costs Are About 25-35% of Fast Food Costs If we were to have a controlled experiment between someone who does pay MW (Walmart) vs paying more (Costco) we find that Costco actually saves money due to less turnover rates in the long run. [http://tinyurl.com...] Re2: Increase Costs Actually Can Come From Revenue, in Fact My Opponent Himself Stated This in His First Paragraph (Price Increases) Senator Elizabeth Warren notes on raising MW, McDonalds would be able to raise their prices about 8 more cents per burger to off-set the increase in labour costs (assuming MW is up to $14.75/hour). Meaning that increase costs can be compensated with additional revenue, my opponent noted this himself. It doesn't make sense to claim that prices will increase, but somehow revenue is lost when prices compensate for those factors. Furthermore, this is NOT counting the fact that most people who make a yearly income of $5,000 or less (students) spend about 6.2% of their income at fast-food chains. This is also not including the fact that increasing MW, as economist Robert Reich notes, only effects industries such as fast food, hospitality chains, and retail. Far more people will actually have more money to spend, furthering productivity, and the amount of money McDonalds gets in return as a result is higher than what my opponent claims. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] Re3: My Opponent Assumes the Neoclassical Model of Supply and Demand When Claiming Half The Jobs Would Be Lost My opponent is assuming a basic supply and demand model in microeconomics. As OMGJustinBeiber points out: “To get that degree of precision would presupposing a kind of uniform rationality in regard to the consumer and producer, which obviously doesn't exist in the real world. Unfortunately, my opponent demands this exact precision – ["Raising minimum wage would costs half the jobs, jobs will be lost to technology"] -- to make his case. Short of believing this standard we must vote con.” For instance, my opponent notes a completely automated McDonalds in Tokyo, but as much as it makes complete rational sense for every single McDonalds to go this way (saves on labour costs substantially to the investor) they simply have not done it yet even after a MW hike in 2007! Rationally, this is the most illogical thinking I have ever seen if my opponents claim is correct! Meaning that some things demanded, or even supplied have absolutely no rational basis for them, and this assumption of actors always working for their own rational self-interests is nonsense. In fact, in his claim that jobs would be lost, he cites he following study: .Burkhauser, Couch et Wittenburg, “Who Minimum Wage Increases Bite: An Analysis Using Monthly Data from the SIPP and CPS”, Southern Economic Journal, 2000. Upon examining the study, it only used 3 points of data constituting a hasty conclusion. Turn: My opponent claims that if MW increases, McDonalds would have incentive to replace workers with technology, costing jobs. However, he actually made a de facto case for minimum wage, as technology is a benefit to the economy not a detriment! Furthermore, this article was made in 2003 as his citation notes. Lets not forget MW at the federal level was increased in 2007, yet this fear of a complete automated McDonalds has yet to appear in the US (to the best of my knowledge). This is an irrational position for my opponent to claim; if my opponent's claim was correct, McDonalds would have already automated everything in every store. [http://tinyurl.com...] studies show that jobs are increased or are unaffected when MW is increased. The studies done by Card and Kruger show this when comparing New Jersey to Pennsylvania. This was after New Jersey hiked their MW in 1992 by 18%. This was repeated using the data from a federal MW hike, and California hike and the findings stayed the same. When we drop the supply and demand model, and actually precisely look at the employment impacts of a MW hike, they either remain unchanging or increase. [http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com...] Re4: Role of the Government (See C2) Conclusion: My opponent displays kettle logic and agreed with me on some points: MW increases technological innovation, businesses would not lose money due to price increases. The monsopolistic society we live in would heavily benefit from a MW increase when we drop the “s/d” generalities, and observe precise impacts via Card and Kruger studies.I did not ask for special treatment! Thank You

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

Title: Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy Content: Notice the terminology the CBO is using... $30.bn in new economic activity. They aren't claiming it will create enhanced quality of life- or that it will result in new spending in the economy just that it will create " New economic activity." Let me show you why this is smoke and mirrors. http://finance.yahoo.com... Raising the minimum wage will do nothing to stop this behavior in corporate America...and it is the behavioral science that undoes your argument on the spot. Now, in round 2 I endeavored to explain to you that the government is in fact-in bed with big financial. Its not a conspiracy as we use the term in modern days, its corruption. That corruption is extremely relevant to this argument- this move to raise the minimum wage is a mechanism of alleviating inflationary pressures... you seem to have taken that point out of its actual context in this debate. I will apologize to pro formally, private matters have restricted my time and the amount of energy to allocate into debates how ever I believe I have sufficiently made the case for this debate that 10.10 minimum wage will NOT benefit the average person and the ones who come out on top will in the end be the big-financial sector- very much in collusion with the Federal government especially our current administration. The current admisnitration is no more-or-less corrupt than the former. Pro, feel free to send me a direct challenge any time you like. Thank you for the debate.

Title: Minimum Wage Content: As my opponent has failed to realize that if you raise the minimum wage everything else will go up in price. As I have said earlier in my second round. So you might as well keep the wage at a minimum. My opponent mentioned is his argument that not all wages should be raised. Well with the wages everything is supposed to be raised evenly. (Well, the manager or the owner gets to decide how much he can afford to pay his workers) You got to take in consideration that it also takes money to train you. This is not on who is better and who is not. For instance, a McDonald"s worker gets the same wage an hour as someone who is working at Kroger. It"s two different environment working facilities, but still get paid the same an hour. As me being a Conservative, I would like to point out that I do not want higher taxes and having to pay $5.00 for a burger at McDonalds. Also there would not be a value meal either for people who can"t afford $5.00 burgers. Some wages are different in pay. For instance, you come from college with a degree, you will get a higher pay. Also minimum wage job is a job just to get you started, not to be your livelihood. Thank you dear friend for debating me in this debate. I will say this right now, everybody who votes please vote fair and honestly. Thank you once again. Check this website please voters. It's long I know but it shows the different wages in the US. http://www.dol.gov...

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

Title: SHOULD THE BE A MINIMUM WAGE Content: I look forward to a good debate. I will respect your request to limit our discussion to the United States, although my arguments will apply in any case given; however, one good turn deserves another, so I ask that my opponent, liberty, limit his arguments to reality. Affirmed: There should be a minimum wage. "[F]irst of all minimum wage cost[s] many jobs to the economy and workers of it especially the lower qualified ones. " -Minimum wage exists in its common form as a way of protection for workers - especially the least qualified. It is in place as a shield from exploitation by employers. "Also, most people who work for minimum wage are student and workers in training e. t. c and do it just to tell potential interviewers that they indeed have work experience, so evidently most of them intend to achieve more. .. " -Certainly, many minimum-wagers are students or other young people, but certainly many are not. Without a given amount of innate intelligence, education, opportunity, and subsequently specialized skills - the state that many are in - minimum wage, with possible raises through the years, is the only kind of payment from legal work that they can expect throughout their lives. You also miss one of the primary, if not THE PRIME, reasons for any wage-labour in the first place: making money in order to survive, and beyond survival it is merely as matter of buying crap that you really don't need, which is of course produced by the employer of the wage-earner. From personal experience, I can say that I did not work as a host at Red Lobster when I was 16 (this was when they had those horrible fish shirts) to put it on my future resume - I did it for money. I personally intended to achieve more, as you say, but this isn't the case for myriad persons. ". .. the more the minimum wage rises the fewer of these people can be afforded to be hired by employers. " -False. Inflation outpaces the rise in minimum wage by football fields at a time. By the time minimum wage catches up, Employer X has made more than enough profit to offset this. I am not familiar with any cases of a minimum-wage labourer being either fired or not hired because the current rate of minimum wage was raised. Until recently, the minimum wage was set at $5.25 an hour. At 40 hours a week, this comes to $840.00 a month before taxes. So if a person were single, they are still below the poverty line even though they work full-time. I infer that most employers, according to you, would start labourers below this mark, as it is the cost that is the issue of primacy here. Certainly, they could hire more workers. .. that work for less than it takes to live, the purpose of working. Unemployment would be at an all-time low, but poverty would be at an all-time high. Interesting. .. "Additionally getting rid of minimum wage will eventually lower prices of every day products because of the lower cost for in training workers, so both the managers, the lower qualified worker (who otherwise would be unemployed) and the [consumer] gain. " -I doubt it. In any case, unfortunately, by the time that lower prices "eventually" came into sight, the gap between rich and poor would be a true chasm, and half of the new workers that were hired would be either homeless because they can't afford even the cheapest of rent or dead from starvation because they can't afford food. Civil strife would erupt, etc. 1. Why there should be a minimum wage: We tyrants, tycoons, captains of industry, CEO's, presidents, moguls, barons, dukes, princes, and other excellent and successful people should give the little people SOMETHING - at least enough so that we won't go to the guillotine. Understand that we do not OWE them anything, but it is in our own self-interest to give them enough bread and pocket change to distract them from their unimportant and, for the most part, useless (their only true use is to generate profit for us) lives. 2. Why there MUST be a minimum wage: Even if the minimum wage were set at $0.005 (two zeros on purpose), it MUST exist. Otherwise, employers could pay workers absolutely nothing, and they would be slaves or serfs. Back to you, liberty Britt