Instigator / Con
Points: 2

The Minimum Wage is Beneficial to the Poor

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Athias
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Economics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 0
Description
Round One: Opening Arguments
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: Rebuttals/Rejoinders
Round Four: Rebuttals/Rejoinders
Round Five: Closing Arguments
Stipulations:
1. Definitions:
Beneficial - producing good results or helpful effects (Merriam-Webster.)
2. Moral arguments (in addition to the Economic arguments) may be submitted since the topic solicits normative arguments.
3. The minimum wage itself, and not just juxtapositions of scale, will be included in the purview of this debate.
Round 1
Published:
Just to add a proviso, the poverty level will be defined as those who earn just about $18,000 or less per year. (This was derived from the Federal poverty level figures.)


Opening Argument:

The minimum wage is a statutory edict which designates a price floor in the labor market--i.e. a minimum amount payable to employees by employers. It should be noted that the minimum wage does not guarantee employment. It requires only that employees legally hired be paid at the minimum. Many notable and pubic proponents of the minimum wage while prone to allege its necessity to the poor neglect to mention the effects this price floor has on the labor market. One and perhaps the most prominent effect the minimum wage has is pricing out partitions of low-skilled/unskilled labor. A minimum wage of $7.25 (the federal minimum) for example makes it illegal to hire someone at $7.24 or less. From an employer's standpoint, this takes on a slightly different meaning. The minimum wage makes it illegal for an employer to hire labor whose marginal productivity generates $7.24 or less.

What do I mean by marginal productivity? It's the contribution a worker's individual output, usually described as a maximum, adds to overall production. I'll use an example that was taught to me when learning Economics: say for example that I'm a professor of a course and I need help erasing/cleaning an entire blackboard. I have just about four erasers, and I decide to enlist just two students to complete this task. Naturally, one assumes that with this assistance, the task will be completed much quicker than it would have had I done it on my own. If I were to enlist the help of four students, erasing the blackboard should be completed in no time. What if I were to enlist the help of 20 students? What is the addition to productivity the fifth to 20th student contributes? I have only four erasers, so employing the help of 20 students would add an unnecessary difficulty to the task. I suppose my students can use their shirts, but that adds to costs rather than diminish them (e.g. costs of laundry, soap, etc.) I can go out and purchase more erasers, but that adds to costs as well as subtracts time I could've spent erasing the board. And from this, we get the Law of Diminishing Marginal Productivity which delineates that the positive relationship between input and output will eventually reach its peak before it plateaus (and drops off.)

Now let's add compensation. Suppose I have $40 dollars to pay the students whom I enlist to help me with this task of erasing the blackboard. (It's a bit expensive considering the task, but I'm willing to go that high.) Now if I hire the two students I mentioned earlier, I could pay them each up to $20. But I want this done as quickly and efficiently as possible. So I've decided to hire the four students. There are four erasers; four sections of the blackboard; forty dollars; it works out quite nicely. Now the government steps in and enforces a regulation that states I must pay each of those students $13 to erase the blackboard. What does this do? It prices out the fourth student. Since I'm legally bound to pay them the minimum, I can hire only three students. While the three employed students can enjoy their bump in pay, the fourth student will enjoy no pay. Since the fourth student's marginal productivity ($10 he or she would have generated had I enlisted his or her help) is now legally unemployable, the student is legally unemployable. And the labor market itself loses $1 because I now pay $39 dollars for less efficient work.

What if I were to keep all four students. And I decide to pay the $52. That is $12 more than the work is worth so I have to find a way to redeem this loss. In order to keep the four students employed, I decide to bump up the price I charge for my course. Now depending on the price elasticity (the gauge of changes in demand with respect to changes in price) this may result in two things: the bump in price may discourage students from taking my course all together, or my students will incur an increased cost. And this too would depend on the nature of my course: elective (elastic) and requirement (inelastic.) What if Black & Decker releases an automated/robotic buffer exclusively for blackboards at the low price of $45.99. This buffer is advertised to the do the work of four men in half the time. I can forgo the employment of all four students because with the release of buffer, the opportunity costs of hiring the four students at the minimum increased.

My hypothetical, I trust you've acknowledged by now, is allegorical and microcosmic of the issues with the minimum wage. In essence, I've used economic reasoning in the context of a classroom setting to highlight:

The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.
The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.

And due to these effects and some yet to be elaborated, the minimum wage is not beneficial to the poor.

As this debate continues. I will further elaborate on the aforementioned points as well as supplement them with other considerations. At this point, I leave the floor to my opponent.

Published:
Opening arguments:
We live in a developed, first world nation, where 3rd world salaries simply will not cut it. Most companies do not set a value to a task and then seek to give the full valuation to whoever gets chosen to complete it, they will seek the minimal possible compensation.

With unskilled workers being a massive chunk of the workforce, especially in areas of lower educational opportunities, this creates a large supply, reducing their ability to negotiate effectively. History has shown how masses without power will accept horrendous conditions, or found alternatives by any (often violent) means. Neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world. Just because a group of people accept conditions does not mean those people had a choice, nor does it make it fair, just, or benefitial.

The second industrial revolution showed us how appauling worker conditions can get under the influence of the so called "invisible hand." Sweat shops, child labor, uncompensated workplace injuries, workplaces prone to injuries, a whole population destined to live short lives in squalor, unable to ever afford or invest in any form of advancement, much less an american dream. I think we can all agree the result of the unregulated free market setup of that time was not benefitial to those workers. Despite a lack of any investment in benefits or conditions, and despite the MASSIVE profits of the goliaths of that era, worker wages were unlivable and deplorable. A lack of regulation helped only those who had money and power, a tiny minority. 

Introduction of regulations, including minimum wage lead to a boom for the american economy and especially unskilled workers, whose assembly line monkey work (nob A into slot B all day every day), attained them a suburban house, 2 cars, and a comfortable life. Objectively a far better outcome then the lawless economic hellscape of the second industrial revolution.

In addition to the poor, a minimum wage is helpful to small local businesses, who although cannot afford to indivudally raise wages at the moment, would greatly benefit from the increased patronage they would get from an enriched public. One would be foolish to cut back on employment with a rush of customers at the door. Increased sales can balance out decreased margins, but increased demand will shoot our gdp through the roof, maintaining our greatest in the world title (that is currently increasingly contested).

Demand without supply = opportunity 
Supply without demand = nothing
Our economy replies on consumers who can afford to demand. If the invisble hand demands otherwise, we will be 3rd world within a generation.


Note: it is my opinion that this debate structure is ineffective. Next round my opponent will respond to this, but i will be responding to his statement. The next round we switch. We will be having 2 simultaneous discussions rather then focusing on one. 

As i am the one making the positive assertion, i should be making the sole assertion, with every following round being rebuttal/defense. At the least i should have been able to include some rebuttal rather then an independent opening argument. That would have unified our conversation. I suggest, but do not enforce, that my opponent drop his initial post and respond to me, leaving the BOP to me alone. This is just a suggestion that i will leave this to my opponents discretion. If he does not agree, no biggie, we will continue as layed out in the description.
Round 2
Published:
Rebuttal:

We live in a developed, first world nation, where 3rd world salaries simply will not cut it.
This is tautological.

Most companies do not set a value to a task and then seek to give the full valuation to whoever gets chosen to complete it, they will seek the minimal possible compensation.
The rational actor whether a seller or patron seeks to optimize his gain; this means that the seller will try to redeem a much higher value while the patron attempts to purchase at a much lower value. Since any transaction between the two embodies the subjective values of each party, an employer, in this case, using your words "will seek the minimal possible compensation [a prospective employee is willing to accept.]" And this distinction is important. Without the agreement of both parties, there's no labor contract. If coercion is involved, then it's a slave contract.

With unskilled workers being a massive chunk of the workforce, especially in areas of lower educational opportunities, this creates a large supply, reducing their ability to negotiate effectively.
Ambiguous reference. Large supply of what?

History has shown how masses without power will accept horrendous conditions, or found alternatives by any (often violent) means. Neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world. Just because a group of people accept conditions does not mean those people had a choice, nor does it make it fair, just, or benefitial.
This statement is riddled with contradiction and unsubstantiated assertions. If the masses were willing to accept what you allege are horrendous conditions, then it obviously would have been an "acceptable" outcome (contradiction.) And if these workers "accepted" but somehow did not have a "choice," are you alleging that these workers were placed under duress and coerced into taking/keeping their jobs?

The second industrial revolution showed us how appauling worker conditions can get under the influence of the so called "invisible hand." Sweat shops, child labor, uncompensated workplace injuries, workplaces prone to injuries, a whole population destined to live short lives in squalor, unable to ever afford or invest in any form of advancement, much less an american dream.
Please submit to this debate's purview references of worker conditions before, during, and after the industrial revolution.

I think we can all agree the result of the unregulated free market setup of that time was not benefitial to those workers.
Don't assume we agree. If you're going to allege that the free-market setup was not beneficial, substantiate your point through thorough reasoning or verifiable empirical data.

Despite a lack of any investment in benefits or conditions, and despite the MASSIVE profits of the goliaths of that era, worker wages were unlivable and deplorable.
Reference?

A lack of regulation helped only those who had money and power, a tiny minority. 
Please elaborate on the relevance of their being a tiny minority; furthermore, provide reasons or empircal data to the effect of only those who had money and power being helped.

Introduction of regulations, including minimum wage lead to a boom for the american economy and especially unskilled workers, whose assembly line monkey work (nob A into slot B all day every day), attained them a suburban house, 2 cars, and a comfortable life. Objectively a far better outcome then the lawless economic hellscape of the second industrial revolution.
Reference and citation please.

In addition to the poor, a minimum wage is helpful to small local businesses, who although cannot afford to indivudally raise wages at the moment, would greatly benefit from the increased patronage they would get from an enriched public. One would be foolish to cut back on employment with a rush of customers at the door. Increased sales can balance out decreased margins, but increased demand will shoot our gdp through the roof, maintaining our greatest in the world title (that is currently increasingly contested).
Assuming that the "increased demand" borne from the income effect isn't offset by the decreased demand from price inflation (Law of Demand.) And if a minimum wage can enrich a public to an extent where GDP would shoot though the roof, then why hasn't it done so already, since the U.S. has a minimum wage?

Demand without supply = opportunity 
Supply without demand = nothing
Our economy replies on consumers who can afford to demand. If the invisble hand demands otherwise, we will be 3rd world within a generation.
I don't understand your meaning in this statement. Can you elaborate?



Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
My opponent has forfeited round two. I sustain all arguments.
Published:
Defense:
 
“This is tautological.”
 
I’m glad we agree. I am not debating welfare here. A living min wage assumes full time employment, not a one time round of erase the board. These are people reporting to work every day, trying to support a family… in the richest nation in the world. That considers itself the greatest.
 
“The rational actor whether a seller or patron seeks to optimize his gain; this means that the seller will try to redeem a much higher value while the patron attempts to purchase at a much lower value. Since any transaction between the two embodies the subjective values of each party, an employer, in this case, using your words "will seek the minimal possible compensation [a prospective employee is willing to accept.]" And this distinction is important. Without the agreement of both parties, there's no labor contract. If coercion is involved, then it's a slave contract.”
 
Indeed, and as history has shown, those without power have been “willing to accept” some appalling things when given no choice. It is not called wage slave for no reason, and during those “free” market times, it wasn’t an exaggeration.
 
With unskilled workers being a massive chunk of the workforce, especially in areas of lower educational opportunities, this creates a large supply, reducing their ability to negotiate effectively.

 “Ambiguous reference. Large supply of what?”

The either subject nouns in that sentence work: unskilled workers, workforce.
 
History has shown how masses without power will accept horrendous conditions, or found alternatives by any (often violent) means. Neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world. Just because a group of people accept conditions does not mean those people had a choice, nor does it make it fair, just, or benefitial.

“This statement is riddled with contradiction and unsubstantiated assertions. If the masses were willing to accept what you allege are horrendous conditions, then it obviously would have been an "acceptable" outcome (contradiction.) And if these workers "accepted" but somehow did not have a "choice," are you alleging that these workers were placed under duress and coerced into taking/keeping their jobs?” 
What is acceptable to those without choice, may not always be acceptable to a society. Made clear by me saying “neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world.” They were not under duress, but they also had no path to escape. Workers couldn’t even organize as employers didn’t take them seriously and fired them all until the government stepped in to equalize the power that even collectively workers did not have. “individual responsibility” in this situation is a lie meant to enslave people. You can’t be an individual vs an institution.
 
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wagner-act/
 

Please submit to this debate's purview references of worker conditions before, during, and after the industrial revolution.
 
Seriously? I need to reference the common knowledge of the second industrial revolution? I’ll get the reference about the goliaths of that era by simply stating names everyone should already know. Rockafellar, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, Ford, Carnegie. These people amassed fortunes that made them legendary. How? Well lets look at the conditions under which they made their wealth!

https://www.historycrunch.com/working-conditions-in-the-industrial-revolution.html#/

"The final aspect of the working conditions that people faced in the Industrial Revolution was the lack of rights.  As previously stated, the political ideology of the time was classical liberalism.  This was a highly individualistic ideology that was based on little or no government involvement.  As a result, this meant that the government did little to protect workers from being exploited by the wealthy entrepreneurs of the time.  For example, child labor was a common feature of life in the Industrial Revolution.  Since there were no child labor laws at the start of the Industrial Revolution, factory and mine owners were free to hire children and employ them in incredibly dangerous situations.  Furthermore, in modern society, governments are often responsible for establishing minimum wage laws in order to protect workers from being underpaid.  However, during the Industrial Revolution, no such laws existed and as a result, industrial workers barely made enough to cover their cost of living.  Another example of how workers lacked rights was in regards to how they were treated if they were injured while at work.  As discussed in the previous paragraph, the workplaces of the Industrial Revolution were incredibly dangerous and workers often suffered from horrible injuries that made it impossible for them to keep working.  Because the government practised laissez-faire capitalism, this meant that they did not have initiatives in place to force factories to protect workers or to compensate them when they became injured and could no longer work. "
 
 
Introduction of regulations, including minimum wage lead to a boom for the american economy and especially unskilled workers, whose assembly line monkey work (nob A into slot B all day every day), attained them a suburban house, 2 cars, and a comfortable life. Objectively a far better outcome then the lawless economic hellscape of the second industrial revolution.

"Reference and citation please."
"Please elaborate on the relevance of their being a tiny minority; furthermore, provide reasons or empircal data to the effect of only those who had money and power being helped." 
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
 
The first link is a chart showing adjusted minimum wage by year.
The second link shows growth in gdp by year, I will be focusing on column #4 “GDP growth rate”
 
Min Wage was created in 1938, which is the start of the min wage chart.
In link 2, 1939 starts a series of years of incredible growth.
Min wage rises sharply after 1949
1950 and the next 4 years again grow exceptional compared to previous years.
1956 starts min wages rise to its adjusted peak at 1968, apparently amidst a recession (according to column #5), growth follows the rising wages yet again.
After that min wage starts a steady decline until finding a balance during the late 1980s, where they remain. The economy was a mix of a max of 5.5% growth (vs 7%/8% routinely, or even double digit growth when min wage was first started), and often in the negatives.
 
At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.
 
Assuming that the "increased demand" borne from the income effect isn't offset by the decreased demand from price inflation (Law of Demand.) And if a minimum wage can enrich a public to an extent where GDP would shoot though the roof, then why hasn't it done so already, since the U.S. has a minimum wage?
 
Min wage, adjusted for inflation has been stagnant. Costs have been rising. Spending power of many has decreased. Thus our GDP growth becomes increasingly limited. How low the margins of a business are is irrelevant if there are no customers who can shop there. That’s an important concept for a mom and pop who rely on their local consumer base. Not so much for Walmart that can  lose shop and move easy, international if necessary.

 
Demand without supply = opportunity 
Supply without demand = nothing
Our economy replies on consumers who can afford to demand. If the invisble hand demands otherwise, we will be 3rd world within a generation.
 
I have a biscuits for sale, but nobody wants biscuits. I have nothing but wasted inventory.
This also goes with I have biscuits for sale, but nobody can afford biscuits. Giving them away for free is nice, but not exactly a business plan. Thus we have nothing.
If there is no demand, there is nothing.
If people have demand, then there is opportunity for an entrepreneur to make money.
 


Rebuttal:

“The minimum wage is a statutory edict which designates a price floor in the labor market--i.e. a minimum amount payable to employees by employers. It should be noted that the minimum wage does not guarantee employment. It requires only that employees legally hired be paid at the minimum. Many notable and pubic proponents of the minimum wage while prone to allege its necessity to the poor neglect to mention the effects this price floor has on the labor market. One and perhaps the most prominent effect the minimum wage has is pricing out partitions of low-skilled/unskilled labor. A minimum wage of $7.25 (the federal minimum) for example makes it illegal to hire someone at $7.24 or less. From an employer's standpoint, this takes on a slightly different meaning. The minimum wage makes it illegal for an employer to hire labor whose marginal productivity generates $7.24 or less.”
 
 
Yes. May I add that in a debate regarding the effect minimum wage has on the worker, much of my opponents arguments are concerned with the employer.
 
 
“My hypothetical, I trust you've acknowledged by now, is allegorical and microcosmic of the issues with the minimum wage. In essence, I've used economic reasoning in the context of a classroom setting to highlight:”
 
It certainly is a very gross oversimplification of all the issues. We are not talking about students doing a one time task. You can hire your local teenager to mow your lawn for a few bucks, nobody is coming after you. These aren’t full time workers reporting for duty year round for an actual business, trying to make an actual living. They’ll do it for free for a bit of extra credit. This analogy falls flat.
 
“The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.”
It clearly hasn’t as we have record unemployment despite rising wages in many of the major urban hubs, while going down nowhere.
 
“The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
It may, but not all prices will be effected. Real estate is not dependent on much labor, mostly inherent land value. It will not rise at all. It makes up almost 50% of the spending of most poor people. 30% is the suggest portion of your income for all people. Thats a sizeable exception to your rule.

Medicine is another major cost for people, almost none of the price of medicine comes from low wage labor.


Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.”
 
Automation is fractions penny’s on the dollar, its essentially free labor after a certain initial investment. Eliminating the minimum wage will not slow down the transition to tireless perfect machines by an iota. This is a red herring.
 
“And due to these effects and some yet to be elaborated, the minimum wage is not beneficial to the poor.”
 
I look forward to it.
 







Round 4
Published:
I’m glad we agree. I am not debating welfare here. A living min wage assumes full time employment, not a one time round of erase the board. These are people reporting to work every day, trying to support a family… in the richest nation in the world. That considers itself the greatest.
 We don't. My statement was intended to make your redundancy clear.

Indeed, and as history has shown, those without power have been “willing to accept” some appalling things when given no choice. It is not called wage slave for no reason, and during those “free” market times, it wasn’t an exaggeration.
 "Wage-slavery" is a spurious term which describes no discernible legal, political, social, or economic effect. It's a false equivalence. To be a slave is to be de jure and/or de facto property of another. So, if it's all the same to you, let's dispose of its use. Furthermore, you suggest that they "had no choice" but concede below that they weren't placed under duress. So then they did have a choice. You can argue that their circumstances made taking the job a necessity, but ultimately they made the choice. Your mention of "having no choice" in this context is another false equivalence.

What is acceptable to those without choice, may not always be acceptable to a society. Made clear by me saying “neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world.” They were not under duress, but they also had no path to escape.
We are going to dispense with this as spurious. Until you can demonstrate how these people were being coerced, these false equivalences are not welcomed.

Workers couldn’t even organize as employers didn’t take them seriously and fired them all until the government stepped in to equalize the power that even collectively workers did not have.
That is not an "equalization of power." An employer's "power" is to hire or fire; a worker's "power" is to work or quit. Are the same provisos placed on a worker's power? No? Then there's no equalization.



Seriously? I need to reference the common knowledge of the second industrial revolution? I’ll get the reference about the goliaths of that era by simply stating names everyone should already know. Rockafellar, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, Ford, Carnegie. These people amassed fortunes that made them legendary. How? Well lets look at the conditions under which they made their wealth!


"The final aspect of the working conditions that people faced in the Industrial Revolution was the lack of rights.  As previously stated, the political ideology of the time was classical liberalism.  This was a highly individualistic ideology that was based on little or no government involvement.  As a result, this meant that the government did little to protect workers from being exploited by the wealthy entrepreneurs of the time.  For example, child labor was a common feature of life in the Industrial Revolution.  Since there were no child labor laws at the start of the Industrial Revolution, factory and mine owners were free to hire children and employ them in incredibly dangerous situations.  Furthermore, in modern society, governments are often responsible for establishing minimum wage laws in order to protect workers from being underpaid.  However, during the Industrial Revolution, no such laws existed and as a result, industrial workers barely made enough to cover their cost of living.  Another example of how workers lacked rights was in regards to how they were treated if they were injured while at work.  As discussed in the previous paragraph, the workplaces of the Industrial Revolution were incredibly dangerous and workers often suffered from horrible injuries that made it impossible for them to keep working.  Because the government practised laissez-faire capitalism, this meant that they did not have initiatives in place to force factories to protect workers or to compensate them when they became injured and could no longer work. "
 There's a specific reason I asked you to provide references of worker conditions before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. (You disregarded.)  That is to control for your allegation that worker conditions in the Industrial Revolution were particularly harsh. You neglected to mention Pauperism (poor recipients of relief laws) and subsistence farming (farming for survival.) They left their farms in droves because factory work provided them a means to acquire income--something they didn't have before. And many of them continued to work because they'd rather risk injury than return to subsistence. As for the paupers, they were de facto serfs under the auspices of the government. When the "poor law" was passed, paupers stopped receiving handouts and instead went to "workhouses" sanctioned and subsidized by the government. And as a condition of their relief, paupers had to work, work condition notwithstanding. The children who worked were separated into two categories: free children and parish (pauper) children. The free children were only allowed to work under conditions to which their parents consented. The pauper children had to work regardless of condition less they risk losing their relief from the government. There's actually a famous novel--perhaps you know it--that informs the effect of which I speak: the semi-autobiographical "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens. Dickens himself was a pauper (parish boy) and uses his own experiences in a workhouse (his parents were in debtors prison) to inspire the novel. And if you take note, Twist wasn't abused by his parents, or private shop keepers, he was abused by the keepers of the workhouse, most notably the beadle, Mr. Bumble.

Furthermore, the State cannot by definition practice capitalism. It is a centralized public institution. Lastly, none of this has anything to do with the resolution of this debate. The resolution to this debate is centered on the question "Is the minimum-wage beneficial to the poor?" Even if your points about the industrial revolution weren't easily rebutted, and I were to concede that all of what you've said happened, you would still have not demonstrated how the minimum-wage was a remedy. The minimum-wage is a price floor. How would that have ended child labor (I am actually going to some effect this point?) How would the minimum wage have the work place safer? Or allowed workers to organize? No, what you argument does is create an uninformed dichotomy before and after the minimum wage.


 
The first link is a chart showing adjusted minimum wage by year.
The second link shows growth in gdp by year, I will be focusing on column #4 “GDP growth rate”
 
Min Wage was created in 1938, which is the start of the min wage chart.
In link 2, 1939 starts a series of years of incredible growth.
Min wage rises sharply after 1949
1950 and the next 4 years again grow exceptional compared to previous years.
1956 starts min wages rise to its adjusted peak at 1968, apparently amidst a recession (according to column #5), growth follows the rising wages yet again.
After that min wage starts a steady decline until finding a balance during the late 1980s, where they remain. The economy was a mix of a max of 5.5% growth (vs 7%/8% routinely, or even double digit growth when min wage was first started), and often in the negatives.
 
At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.
 Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You took two trends and put them together. One could do the same with trends in technology or capital flows. Your argument was that the minimum wage lead to an economic boom, not that it "seemed" to be consistent with economic growth. "Seem" is not an argument; "Seem" is your impression. Second, your argument isn't that minimum wage did not stifle growth (that would actually help my point.) Your position remember is that the minimum wage is beneficial, not neutral.


Min wage, adjusted for inflation has been stagnant. Costs have been rising. Spending power of many has decreased. Thus our GDP growth becomes increasingly limited. How low the margins of a business are is irrelevant if there are no customers who can shop there. That’s an important concept for a mom and pop who rely on their local consumer base. Not so much for Walmart that can  lose shop and move easy, international if necessary.
Despite your error, you're still presenting contradictory arguments. The part I've emboldened contradicts this:

At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.
So can we take it from your own contradictions that you at least have yet to demonstrate how the minimum-wage itself has any benefit to productivity (GDP)?

 
I have a biscuits for sale, but nobody wants biscuits. I have nothing but wasted inventory.
This also goes with I have biscuits for sale, but nobody can afford biscuits. Giving them away for free is nice, but not exactly a business plan. Thus we have nothing.
If there is no demand, there is nothing.
If people have demand, then there is opportunity for an entrepreneur to make money.
 How is the minimum-wage shoring up demand (more than usual) if its pricing out low skilled labor? The minimum-wage only guarantees that those who have and keep their job get a bump in pay? What happens to demand if that bump in pay goes into savings? What does that do for the biscuit maker?


Yes. May I add that in a debate regarding the effect minimum wage has on the worker, much of my opponents arguments are concerned with the employer.
 This is false. The employer is a constant as a source of employment. From my conclusions, tell me which concerns itself more with the employer?

  • The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.
  • The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
  • Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.
It certainly is a very gross oversimplification of all the issues. We are not talking about students doing a one time task. You can hire your local teenager to mow your lawn for a few bucks, nobody is coming after you. These aren’t full time workers reporting for duty year round for an actual business, trying to make an actual living. They’ll do it for free for a bit of extra credit. This analogy falls flat.
 The analogy doesn't fall flat. The purpose of any analogy is to convey a logic through different environments (contexts.) Stating that the environments aren't the same is redundant. It's the logic that matters. And the logic would apply and does apply with full-time workers.

It clearly hasn’t as we have record unemployment despite rising wages in many of the major urban hubs, while going down nowhere.
 I don't know what you mean by this. What do you mean?


It may, but not all prices will be effected. Real estate is not dependent on much labor, mostly inherent land value. It will not rise at all. It makes up almost 50% of the spending of most poor people. 30% is the suggest portion of your income for all people. Thats a sizeable exception to your rule.

Medicine is another major cost for people, almost none of the price of medicine comes from low wage labor.
That's redundant. I stated that it may. It depends on the price-elasticity of the good in question, as I illustrated in my earlier example.

Automation is fractions penny’s on the dollar, its essentially free labor after a certain initial investment. Eliminating the minimum wage will not slow down the transition to tireless perfect machines by an iota. This is a red herring.
All the more reason a "minimum-wage" makes no sense. If automation is inevitable, then why speed up the process by making low-skilled/unskilled labor that much more expensive?

My opponent stated earlier that a living minimum wage was required for workers to support a family. (The average family being started at age 25.) But most people working minimum wage jobs are teenagers.



 


Published:
 “We don't. My statement was intended to make your redundancy clear.”
 
Then you must have picked the wrong statement. Calling something a tautology does dismiss the argument, but as something obvious, not something wrong. I agree it is obvious, although you are trying to argue against that obvious thing.
 
"Wage-slavery" is a spurious term which describes no discernible legal, political, social, or economic effect. It's a false equivalence. To be a slave is to be de jure and/or de facto property of another. So, if it's all the same to you, let's dispose of its use. Furthermore, you suggest that they "had no choice" but concede below that they weren't placed under duress. So then they did have a choice. You can argue that their circumstances made taking the job a necessity, but ultimately they made the choice. Your mention of "having no choice" in this context is another false equivalence.

What is acceptable to those without choice, may not always be acceptable to a society. Made clear by me saying “neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world.” They were not under duress, but they also had no path to escape.
“We are going to dispense with this as spurious. Until you can demonstrate how these people were being coerced, these false equivalences are not welcomed.”
I’m glad you no longer see any contradiction between acceptable to those without choice, and acceptable to a society that considers itself the greatest in the world. However if your definition of acceptable is “not slavery” then your ideal society, far from being the greatest, is horrendous. They certainly had a choice: work in shitty conditions, or don’t work at all and starve…. What wonderful choice. Yes it isn’t literal slavery, but its pretty damn close and should be just as unacceptable.
 
That is not an "equalization of power." An employer's "power" is to hire or fire; a worker's "power" is to work or quit. Are the same provisos placed on a worker's power? No? Then there's no equalization.”
All great in theory. I showed the results of this ideal in practice, it didn't end pretty. Perhaps equal is not the term, balanced is. If there is no balance in power, there are no negotiations. And if you remove the possibility of negotiations, and the possibility of rule setting, then your just damning these people. Quiting doesn’t work if your alternatives are all just as bad.
 
“There's a specific reason I asked you to provide references of worker conditions before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. (You disregarded.)  That is to control for your allegation that worker conditions in the Industrial Revolution were particularly harsh. You neglected to mention Pauperism (poor recipients of relief laws) and subsistence farming (farming for survival.) They left their farms in droves because factory work provided them a means to acquire income--something they didn't have before. And many of them continued to work because they'd rather risk injury than return to subsistence. As for the paupers, they were de facto serfs under the auspices of the government. When the "poor law" was passed, paupers stopped receiving handouts and instead went to "workhouses" sanctioned and subsidized by the government. And as a condition of their relief, paupers had to work, work condition notwithstanding. The children who worked were separated into two categories: free children and parish (pauper) children. The free children were only allowed to work under conditions to which their parents consented. The pauper children had to work regardless of condition less they risk losing their relief from the government. There's actually a famous novel--perhaps you know it--that informs the effect of which I speak: the semi-autobiographical "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens. Dickens himself was a pauper (parish boy) and uses his own experiences in a workhouse (his parents were in debtors prison) to inspire the novel. And if you take note, Twist wasn't abused by his parents, or private shop keepers, he was abused by the keepers of the workhouse, most notably the beadle, Mr. Bumble. “
 
 
Furthermore, the State cannot by definition practice capitalism. It is a centralized public institution. Lastly, none of this has anything to do with the resolution of this debate. The resolution to this debate is centered on the question "Is the minimum-wage beneficial to the poor?" Even if your points about the industrial revolution weren't easily rebutted, and I were to concede that all of what you've said happened, you would still have not demonstrated how the minimum-wage was a remedy. The minimum-wage is a price floor. How would that have ended child labor (I am actually going to some effect this point?) How would the minimum wage have the work place safer? Or allowed workers to organize? No, what you argument does is create an uninformed dichotomy before and after the minimum wage.
 
Citation please. Not to the novel, but the real world laws that you claiming. If you demanded I cite common knowledge of the second industrial revolution in general, why would you not provide citation for individual laws from that era?
 
I love how in the same post that you demand I provide more citations regarding what I agree is a tangent, you shame me for chasing this tangent that you demanded I provide citation for! Your solution to minimum wage is elimination of all such government interference. I referenced what happens without government interference, and cited it at your request, and then you try to shame me for delivering on your own request! This is poor conduct.
 
Minimum wage is just one form of government regulation. It does not increase safety nor eliminate child labor, however your vision of no government interference ensures that no laws are passed regarding child labor or workplace safety. Minimum wage is of the same theory that supports common sense rules for private industry. Government can certainly pass bad laws, it can also pass good ones. The question was what would happen if the government doesn't pass any rules, and that is clearly a horrible solution. I simply needed to show what the environment was like without/before government interference. I am claiming the government can do a lot of good, I am not claiming the government can do no wrong.
 
I do agree the state cannot, and should not, practice capitalism. The government should primarily be a rule maker, not a player in the markets. Those are completely different roles. By setting a minimum wage you are not selling a product or competing with businesses, thus I never implied the government should practice capitalism. The private sector is an amazing tool of our economy, so long as it plays by common sense rules, just like the rest of society. This counter argument is in response to something you made up, and not something I said.
 
 
The first link is a chart showing adjusted minimum wage by year.
The second link shows growth in gdp by year, I will be focusing on column #4 “GDP growth rate”
 
Min Wage was created in 1938, which is the start of the min wage chart.
In link 2, 1939 starts a series of years of incredible growth.
Min wage rises sharply after 1949
1950 and the next 4 years again grow exceptional compared to previous years.
1956 starts min wages rise to its adjusted peak at 1968, apparently amidst a recession (according to column #5), growth follows the rising wages yet again.
After that min wage starts a steady decline until finding a balance during the late 1980s, where they remain. The economy was a mix of a max of 5.5% growth (vs 7%/8% routinely, or even double digit growth when min wage was first started), and often in the negatives.
 
At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You took two trends and put them together. One could do the same with trends in technology or capital flows. Your argument was that the minimum wage lead to an economic boom, not that it "seemed" to be consistent with economic growth. "Seem" is not an argument; "Seem" is your impression. Second, your argument isn't that minimum wage did not stifle growth (that would actually help my point.) Your position remember is that the minimum wage is beneficial, not neutral.
 
These are not 2 arbitrary trends, they are both economic trends, the 2 trends we are discussing and the 2 trends you asked me to show a connection between. I took those two economic trends and showed perfect correlation across numerous decades. Variable controlled experiments for macro economics do not exist. Your asking for the impossible and that is a fallacy in itself. A repeated correlation over a sufficient time span is strong evidence.
 
 
Min wage, adjusted for inflation has been stagnant. Costs have been rising. Spending power of many has decreased. Thus our GDP growth becomes increasingly limited.How low the margins of a business are is irrelevant if there are no customers who can shop there. That’s an important concept for a mom and pop who rely on their local consumer base. Not so much for Walmart that can  lose shop and move easy, international if necessary.
Despite your error, you're still presenting contradictory arguments. The part I've emboldened contradicts this:

At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.

So can we take it from your own contradictions that you at least have yet to demonstrate how the minimum-wage itself has any benefit to productivity (GDP)?
 
Whats the contradiction? Rises in minimum wage have been correlated with faster GDP growth every time. Letting wages be stagnant is correlated with slower growth. I don’t see the contradiction, and I have demonstrated how raising the min wage has lead to accelerated growth in the follow years, while lowering it has lead to slower growth in my previous argument. I extend that argument.
 
*in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth*
 
I have a biscuits for sale, but nobody wants biscuits. I have nothing but wasted inventory.
This also goes with I have biscuits for sale, but nobody can afford biscuits. Giving them away for free is nice, but not exactly a business plan. Thus we have nothing.
If there is no demand, there is nothing.
If people have demand, then there is opportunity for an entrepreneur to make money.
 How is the minimum-wage shoring up demand (more than usual) if its pricing out low skilled labor? The minimum-wage only guarantees that those who have and keep their job get a bump in pay? What happens to demand if that bump in pay goes into savings? What does that do for the biscuit maker?
 
Trickle down economics does not work because it gives a boost to those who already have excess money and the gains will go to savings. The poor certainly need savings, but they also have more immediate concerns that demand their finances. Why would the poor save money they badly need to spend? This is illogical.
 
If nobody can afford biscuits, the biscuit seller will make zero profit no matter how big his margins are. By raising the min wage, people are able to afford biscuits. That shores up demand and creates an opportunity for the business to make profit by satisfying that demand, which will be difficult if they are cutting back on staff.
 
May I add that in a debate regarding the effect minimum wage has on the worker, much of my opponents arguments are concerned with the employer. 
 This is false. The employer is a constant as a source of employment. From my conclusions, tell me which concerns itself more with the employer? 
  • The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.
  • The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
  • Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.
1.      This discussion is about the employee, not the employer
2.      I negated all 3 of those in the previous round.

It certainly is a very gross oversimplification of all the issues. We are not talking about students doing a one time task. You can hire your local teenager to mow your lawn for a few bucks, nobody is coming after you. These aren’t full time workers reporting for duty year round for an actual business, trying to make an actual living. They’ll do it for free for a bit of extra credit. This analogy falls flat.
The analogy doesn't fall flat. The purpose of any analogy is to convey a logic through different environments (contexts.) Stating that the environments aren't the same is redundant. It's the logic that matters. And the logic would apply and does apply with full-time workers. 
I didn’t say the environments aren’t the same, I said the environments are extremely different. So different that the logic no longer applies and the analogy fails completely. I explained the vast differences in environment following that statement. Those differences were not addressed, I extend those points.
 
It clearly hasn’t as we have record unemployment despite rising wages in many of the major urban hubs, while going down nowhere.
 I don't know what you mean by this. What do you mean? 
Wages are going up in the areas where most jobs are.
Wages are going down nowhere.
Despite this, unemployment is at record lows.
Minimum wage is not pricing out anyone.
The work is necessary, and the companies are plenty profitable. They just want to be more profitable, which is within their right, but not within our society's or economy's best long term interests. Nor is it in worker interests. Its simply corporate self interest, and not for existential reasons.
 
It may, but not all prices will be effected. Real estate is not dependent on much labor, mostly inherent land value. It will not rise at all. It makes up almost 50% of the spending of most poor people. 30% is the suggest portion of your income for all people. Thats a sizeable exception to your rule.

Medicine is another major cost for people, almost none of the price of medicine comes from low wage labor.
That's redundant. I stated that it may. It depends on the price-elasticity of the good in question, as I illustrated in my earlier example.
“I stated that it may”
Which means you also stated that it “may not”. That makes for a weak argument.
They will get a raise on 100% of their income. 30%-50% of which is spent on costs unaffected by labor costs. Thus nearly 50% of their gains will not be offset by price adjustment, if such adjustments even happen. I sustain my point.

Automation is fractions penny’s on the dollar, its essentially free labor after a certain initial investment. Eliminating the minimum wage will not slow down the transition to tireless perfect machines by an iota. This is a red herring.
All the more reason a "minimum-wage" makes no sense. If automation is inevitable, then why speed up the process by making low-skilled/unskilled labor that much more expensive?  
All the less reason.
My point is that the savings of automation are so huge, and the investment for it is so huge, the substantial, but relatively miniscule difference of min wage will not affect its future. Any company that can afford to make that investment will and already has regardless of wage costs.
 
Also because automation is good if the wealth it generates is not hoarded by the few. Rather then a threat, it should be viewed as a tool. And a tool is as good as how we choose to use it. Can you imagine the effect of endless, tireless, perfect production on our nation’s industry? Do you want to remain #1? Do not let yourself be limited by fear so long as you take proactive actions to shape the future and not let it be shaped for you.
 
“My opponent stated earlier that a living minimum wage was required for workers to support a family. (The average family being started at age 25.) But most people working minimum wage jobs are teenagers.
 
 
It is possible, but I do not recall bringing families into this at all. Please quote me. A family unit often has 2 incomes (a tragedy for our children), so whether a person is raising a family, or living on his own, a minimum wage is necessary. The wage should be set relative to local costs, not personal expenses.

Furthermore, your link only covers workers working for the federal minimum wage. Most min wage jobs are in cities that have much higher local minimum wages, all of those workers are not counted in your federal minimum number. Thus your link is missing the demographics for the vast majority of minimum wage workers, and its conclusion useless. Remember your position is not a juxtaposition of scale, so whether they are at a federal minimum or a local minimum wage, they are still minimum wage workers, and should all be counted.

I look forward to the next round.
Round 5
Published:
I ask that the audience, prospective voters, as well as my opponent, give me some leeway to provide a final rebuttal/rejoinder before closing arguments given especially that this debate was essentially deprived a round.

"Then you must have picked the wrong statement. Calling something a tautology does dismiss the argument, but as something obvious, not something wrong. I agree it is obvious, although you are trying to argue against that obvious thing."

You stated:

"We live in a developed, first world nation, where 3rd world salaries simply will not cut it."  

"First-world" salaries are immediately embodied in the reference to a nation's status as "first world." Hence, for a nation to be considered "first world" it must reflect and be addressed by first world wages, which themselves reflect a first world's standard and cost of living (tautology.) Now, if the implication is that without a minimum wage, wages would reflect "third-world" rates, that would have to be substantiated. I would counter that by citing six "first-world" nations with no minimum wage:
Denmark
Iceland
Norway
Singapore (except for cleaners and security guards upon further research) Sweden Switzerland (where a majority voted against a national minimum wage.) List of First World Countries (The data also cites these nations as doing better than the U.S. on the Human Development Index.)

Here's a list of countries and the percent of their population who make less than $1.90, $3.20, and $5.50 per day (Third world wages.)

Denmark (0.2%, 0.2%, 0.5% respectively in 2015)
Iceland (0.0%, 0.0%, 0.2% respectively in 2014)
Norway (0.2%, 0.2%, 0.2% respectively in 2015)
Singapore (Upon further research, these figures were unavailable because Singapore has neither adopted a poverty line nor participated in international poverty reports.)
Sweden (0.5%, 0.5%, 1.0% respectively in 2015)
Switzerland (0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% respectively in 2015) United States (1.2%, 1.5%, 2.0% respectively in 2016)

I argue that your point is not only tautological but also invalid.

"I’m glad you no longer see any contradiction between acceptable to those without choice, and acceptable to a society that considers itself the greatest in the world. However if your definition of acceptable is “not slavery” then your ideal society, far from being the greatest, is horrendous. They certainly had a choice: work in shitty conditions, or don’t work at all and starve…. What wonderful choice. Yes it isn’t literal slavery, but its pretty damn close and should be just as unacceptable." 

No, the contradiction is still there; I'm rebuffing your sensationalism and demagoguery in your attempts to conflate wage-earning with slavery. You stated earlier that it was unacceptable, only to concede later that workers accepted employment in the absence of duress. Hence, the contradiction.

"All great in theory. I showed the results of this ideal in practice, it didn't end pretty."

You most certainly did not. You made mere statements.

"Perhaps equal is not the term"

Then you are conceding to my point.

"balanced is."

Inconsequential statement of lexical semantics.

"If there is no balance in power, there are no negotiations."

False. Negotiations can and still do occur. The "balance of power," as you put it, is contingent on the subjective values of each involved party. If the worker values the employment more than employer values his labor, then naturally the worker would have to give up more (lower his reservation wage) than his prospective employer to reach a mutual agreement; if the employer values labor more than the worker values employment than the employer would have to give up more (raise wages) in order to reach a mutual agreement. As it stands, there are no measures that give recompense for a worker quitting on whim. If anything, employers are afforded two weeks notice where they must assume the transaction costs themselves of searching for another employee. This "balance" of which you speak is not there.

"Citation please."

I did cite it
"When the "poor law" was passed, paupers stopped receiving handouts and instead went to "workhouses" sanctioned and subsidized by the government." Specifically, The Poor Law of 1834.

"I love how in the same post that you demand I provide more citations regarding what I agree is a tangent, you shame me for chasing this tangent that you demanded I provide citation for!"

First, let's dispense with this sophistic statement that I've somehow "shamed you." You are responsible for how you feel, not I. There are no arguments that were levied against you personally. Second, I requested that you cite worker conditions before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution, you did not. (You only provided information for during.) As I've stated before, this was to control for your allegation that worker conditions were particularly harsh. Not only that, it would've demonstrated the role of the minimum wage had if any since there were none even before the Industrial Revolutions. Furthermore, you are the one who brought up the Industrial Revolution; it's your responsibility to argue its relevance, not mine. You decided to focus on worker conditions and how the "invisible hand" was responsible for child labor, uncompensated work injuries, and such, when your argument should've focused on the lack of a minimum wage during that time, and the effect it had on poverty once imposed. But you didn't. That's your liability.

"Your solution to minimum wage is elimination of all such government interference."

Quote me (from our discussion in this debate.)

"This is poor conduct."

Nice try. Forfeiting a round is poor conduct; engaging a tangent isn't.

"Minimum wage is just one form of government regulation. It does not increase safety nor eliminate child labor, however your vision of no government interference ensures that no laws are passed regarding child labor or workplace safety."

First, you cannot quote me stating that there should be no government interference or that no laws should be passed because I haven't stated as much in this debate. Second, if you argue minimum wage has no role in workplace safety or child labor, then your mention of these conditions, as well as much of your mention of the Industrial Revolution, would have no relevance to the topic at hand.

"The question was what would happen if the government doesn't pass any rules, and that is clearly a horrible solution."

No, the question is implicated by the topic: Is the minimum-wage beneficial to the poor? No one entertained the notion of the government not passing "any rules (laws/regulations.)

"This counter argument is in response to something you made up, and not something I said."

It's neither something I "made-up" nor is it something you said. It was stated in your reference: "Because the government practised laissez-faire capitalism, this meant that they did not have initiatives in place to force factories to protect workers or to compensate them when they became injured and could no longer work. "

But you however are responsible for these statements/arguments since you referenced them.

"These are not 2 arbitrary trends, they are both economic trends, the 2 trends we are discussing and the 2 trends you asked me to show a connection between. I took those two economic trends and showed perfect correlation across numerous decades. Variable controlled experiments for macro economics do not exist. Your asking for the impossible and that is a fallacy in itself."

You took two trends and said that they're related. You have provided no argument that demonstrates how these variables are related or how they vary with each other. You've demonstrated no "perfect correlation." If I took my grandfather's yearly raises in income before he retired, and put them next to the increases of minimum-wage it would demonstrate a positive trend as well. Except it was my grandfather's investment in himself (human capital) that explained his raises in income, as he earned far above the minimum. Furthermore, asking for the "impossible" is not a fallacy, which I haven't done. I requested that you substantiate your claims that the minimum wage led to a boom in the economy. By presenting the data as you have, I could just as well make the argument that increases in the minimum wage were a result of increases in GDP rather than the other way around especially given that the minimum-wage is a policy measure. If you cannot define these trends and argue to how they're specifically related especially as it suits the context of your argument, then don't make the argument.

The only fallacy argued here was your cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

I will submit this for further consideration:

"In studies of OECD countries, the literature provides relatively little evidence that increases in minimum wages raise aggregate GDP. Rather, the results are more consistent with redistributive effects of the minimum wage across industries. A recent study of the US finds that a 10% increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 1−2% decrease in GDP generated by lower-skilled industries relative to higher-skilled industries [1]. The mechanism at work seems to be greater substitution of low- for high-skilled labor, rather than through inducing greater skill acquisition among low-skilled workers. Finally, the results suggest that the adverse labor demand effects of minimum wages among low-skilled workers may be greater during troughs as compared to peaks in the business cycle. There is very little evidence that minimum wage increases reduce poverty among low-skilled workers during economic recessions.

"Rises in minimum wage have been correlated with faster GDP growth every time. Letting wages be stagnant is correlated with slower growth. I don’t see the contradiction, and I have demonstrated how raising the min wage has lead to accelerated growth in the follow years, while lowering it has lead to slower growth in my previous argument. I extend that argument.   *in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth*"

You haven't demonstrated any of your claims. Once again, you merely took two trends and put them together. I extend that argument.

"If nobody can afford biscuits, the biscuit seller will make zero profit no matter how big his margins are. By raising the min wage, people are able to afford biscuits. That shores up demand and creates an opportunity for the business to make profit by satisfying that demand, which will be difficult if they are cutting back on staff."

If the biscuit maker is compelled to incur increased labor costs then this may result in one of three things:

The biscuit maker will have to either disemploy or undermploy his employees to cover the costs (biscuits are price-elastic.)
The biscuit maker will have to extend the increased costs of labor to the price of his biscuits, making them more expensive (assuming they are price-inelastic, which they aren't.)
The biscuit maker will incur the loss and eventually lose out to a competing bakery/biscuit maker.

None of that which you state is supported by economic reasoning. You're assuming "more money, more demand." But that money comes at a cost, as prospect you have failed to address. And if you look at the above reference, it's demonstrable that the minimum-wage creates a substitution for low-skilled labor with high-skilled labor (pricing-out low skilled labor.) Who buys the biscuits if the consumers either have no job or work too few hours to afford them? Your claim of the minimum wage shoring up demand is not supported by sound economic reasoning (considering all variables, rather than just one.)

"1.      This discussion is about the employee, not the employer "

You haven't answered my question. None of those statements are about the effects on the employer per se, but the effects on the employee through the employer.

"2.      I negated all 3 of those in the previous round. "

Tautology: negation is not the same as refutation.

"So different that the logic no longer applies and the analogy fails completely."

You have neither demonstrated nor substantiated this at all.

"Wages are going up in the areas where most jobs are.
Wages are going down nowhere.
Despite this, unemployment is at record lows.
Minimum wage is not pricing out anyone.
The work is necessary, and the companies are plenty profitable.
They just want to be more profitable, which is within their right, but not within our society's or economy's best long term interests.
Nor is it in worker interests. Its simply corporate self interest, and not for existential reasons."


The current unemployment rate must be scrutinize for the following reasons:







(2) The current labor force participation rate is 63%. That means more than a third of the population is not counted in either (legal) employment or unemployment.



"Which means you also stated that it “may not”. That makes for a weak argument."

"May" is not an indicator of a "weak" argument; "May" considers the likely prospects, most of which I listed above:

The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices (contingent on price elasticity.)
Another, would be disemployment or the reduction in labor hours as informed above. 



"It is possible, but I do not recall bringing families into this at all. Please quote me"

Here: 

"I’m glad we agree. I am not debating welfare here. A living min wage assumes full time employment, not a one time round of erase the board. These are people reporting to work every day, trying to support a family… in the richest nation in the world. That considers itself the greatest." [End of Round Three.]
 


"Furthermore, your link only covers workers working for the federal minimum wage."

As did your numbers when you attempted to correlate the minimum wage with GDP, or would you argue those numbers reflected an algorithm that incorporated every localized minimum wage? Furthermore, 21 out the 50 states either by statute or by the absence thereof abide by the federal minimum.(www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx


"Most min wage jobs are in cities that have much higher local minimum wages, all of those workers are not counted in your federal minimum number."

Which is typically commensurate to their State's cost index and population sizes. For example, California has among the highest minimum wages, but in return has the highest cost of living, particularly in San Francisco. 


"Thus your link is missing the demographics for the vast majority of minimum wage workers, and its conclusion useless. Remember your position is not a juxtaposition of scale, so whether they are at a federal minimum or a local minimum wage, they are still minimum wage workers, and should all be counted."

No. Read the description carefully: The minimum wage itself, and not just juxtapositions of scale... My position does not exclude juxtapositions of scale, it just doesn't limit the argument to them. Not to mention in one sentence, you argue that my submission of federal minimum wage workers was useless, while in another argue that they should be counted. This submission of information actually weakens your position. One need only provide a reductio ad absurdum incorporating the extremes of the minimum wage, and you'd have to argue it is beneficial whether it be one cents or nation's GNI. I however have adequately argued with sound eco comic reasoning as well as sufficient information why the minimum wage, whether it be the federal or a local minimum wage isn't beneficial to the poor.

Closing Arguments:

1. Through sound economic reasoning, I was a leader to convey with the use of anecdotal evidence that:

The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.
The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.

2. My opponent made an irrelevant reference to the Industrial Revolution, and in an attempt to reciprocate his poor conduct, have me blamed for engaging this tangent.

3. My opponent failed to demonstrate any substantial correlation between minimum wage and GDP. It can be argued that the minimum wage was a result of GDP and not the o thg her way around. 

4. I provided examples of First world countries that thrive without a minimum wage. 

Thank you, vote well.







Published:
I ask that the audience, prospective voters, as well as my opponent, give me some leeway to provide a final rebuttal/rejoinder before closing arguments given especially that this debate was essentially deprived a round.
 
 
This is extremely confusing. Whether we grant you leeway or not, your rebuttal/rejoiner/closing arguments are already presented in the same post as your request for leeway. If your argument required all 5 rounds, you had all 5 rounds, only my portion of the round was forfeit, instead of extending you had every opportunity to expand on your points in that round. Going out of your way to highlight my single forfeit two times with bold letters just stinks of a desperate attempt to cement a Conduct point you likely already earned with that forfeit. Personally I did not come here to play high score, I came here to debate, and the only vote I care about is the one related to arguments.
 
I will apologize to the viewers for the length of these post. With dueling BoP and 2 opening statements each with their own rebuttals and defenses, it has become quite unwieldy. I appreciate any voters who take their time to analyze this debate. Thank you.

 You stated:
 
"We live in a developed, first world nation, where 3rd world salaries simply will not cut it."  
 
"First-world" salaries are immediately embodied in the reference to a nation's status as "first world." Hence, for a nation to be considered "first world" it must reflect and be addressed by first world wages, which themselves reflect a first world's standard and cost of living (tautology.) Now, if the implication is that without a minimum wage, wages would reflect "third-world" rates, that would have to be substantiated. I would counter that by citing six "first-world" nations with no minimum wage:
Denmark
Iceland
Norway
Singapore (except for cleaners and security guards upon further research) Sweden Switzerland (where a majority voted against a national minimum wage.) List of First World Countries (The data also cites these nations as doing better than the U.S. on the Human Development Index.)
 
Congratulations, you just listed some of the most socialist 1st world nations to prove your free market point. Marvelous. In cultures that care about their workers and have decent wages to being with, minimum wages is not necessary. The CEO to worker ration in USA is 354:1, In Denmark it is 89:1, Norway is 58:1. That’s like pointing to a nation without cars to demonstrate why we don’t need speed limit laws. lol

Furthermore most of these nations have strong welfare programs for anyone who doesn’t earn a living wage, there is no idealistic expectation of unrealistic personal responsibility. If the government covers your healthcare, some of your food, your travel expenses, ect, a lower wage works perfectly fine. A tax funded welfare system is a valid alternative to a minimum wage, however my opponent is not arguing for a welfare state to support those who do not make a living wage, thus these welfare/pseudo socialist examples are invalid.

My opponent claims that any salary in the 1st world is by definition a 1st world salary even if they are earning a dollar a day in line with the 3rd world. THAT is semantics, irrelevant, and clearly dodging my point. 3rd world like salaries do not function mathematically in a 1st world society. That is indisputable. A certain minimum needs to be set or the economy wont function. People will need to find someway to put a roof over their heads and food in their belly, one way or another they will not be in the wrong in doing so. We will be for allowing such a situation to happen.
 
No, the contradiction is still there; I'm rebuffing your sensationalism and demagoguery in your attempts to conflate wage-earning with slavery. You stated earlier that it was unacceptable, only to concede later that workers accepted employment in the absence of duress. Hence, the contradiction.
 
So you are actively ignoring the clear distinction that the unacceptable was in reference not the society’s choice? It feels as if all my arguments are ignored. Child labor is not slavery either, and many “chose” to accept it. Does that mean we as a society cannot declare it unacceptable? We clearly did, are you saying we should revoke that law and bring back child factory labor because some children and families chose it? I made the distinction between acceptable to the worker vs to the society very clear.

"All great in theory. I showed the results of this ideal in practice, it didn't end pretty."
You most certainly did not. You made mere statements.
 
I demonstrated the conditions before government intervention during the second industrial revolution, they were objectively horrendous. I cited them at your request. If you do not dispute the links, you do not have the right to ignore them. Your ideal fails in practice, I showed the results. Numerous links are not mere statements.
 
"Perhaps equal is not the term" 
Then you are conceding to my point.
"balanced is.
Inconsequential statement of lexical semantics.
 
Do not quote fragments of sentences. That is dishonest. Elaboration is not concession.
 
No 2 different things can be perfectly equal, no 2 boxers are alike. They do have to be balanced, you don’t put a heavy weight against a feather weight. This is not semantics. This is how reality functions.
 
 
False. Negotiations can and still do occur. The "balance of power," as you put it, is contingent on the subjective values of each involved party. If the worker values the employment more than employer values his labor, then naturally the worker would have to give up more (lower his reservation wage) than his prospective employer to reach a mutual agreement; if the employer values labor more than the worker values employment than the employer would have to give up more (raise wages) in order to reach a mutual agreement. As it stands, there are no measures that give recompense for a worker quitting on whim. If anything, employers are afforded two weeks notice where they must assume the transaction costs themselves of searching for another employee. This "balance" of which you speak is not there.
 
Lets return to the worker, the actual subject of this discussion. Clearly if the value of labor was high, minimum wage would not stop wages from rising. What it is doing is stopping them from falling. Thus removing minimum wage will inevitably drop wages. As a consequence the poor, many of whom already live paycheck to paycheck, will fall into debt, become more of a public charge, or perhaps even a public hazard as work no longer meets even the minimum of costs. Most poor families already have both parents working. Record low unemployment means few job gains will be realized. How is this better for the poor? Your negotiations anecdote is more theory that does not play out in reality. Workers either accept the preset low pay, or go elsewhere with the same standards. With mom and pop shops workers had a power balance that allowed them to negotiate. Most workers are employed by corporations like amazon and Walmart. Their salaries are preset and nonnegotiable.
 
First, let's dispense with this sophistic statement that I've somehow "shamed you." You are responsible for how you feel, not I. There are no arguments that were levied against you personally. Second, I requested that you cite worker conditions before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution, you did not. (You only provided information for during.) As I've stated before, this was to control for your allegation that worker conditions were particularly harsh. Not only that, it would've demonstrated the role of the minimum wage had if any since there were none even before the Industrial Revolutions. Furthermore, you are the one who brought up the Industrial Revolution; it's your responsibility to argue its relevance, not mine. You decided to focus on worker conditions and how the "invisible hand" was responsible for child labor, uncompensated work injuries, and such, when your argument should've focused on the lack of a minimum wage during that time, and the effect it had on poverty once imposed. But you didn't. That's your liability.
 
1.      Attempting to shame me was not what I called you out for. Attempting to shame me *for providing the citations you requested* is.
2.      I never said I felt shamed. I called you out for your actions, not for my feelings. I explained it’s relevance, I provided the citation, at your request.
3.      Your request for before during and after is irrelevant. Before was a low industry economy that is irrelevant to the current discussion. I needed to show what happens during the time the market held the reins. It was horrendous, particularly to the “not technically a slave, but pretty damn close” workers.
4.      Any misdeeds of poor government programs negate the reality of what happened without government involvement. Nor do poor government programs negate the reality of good government programs and regulations.
5.      In addition to the working conditions, many of my quotes focused on their lack of compensations. From my quote in the 3rd round:
 
“Furthermore, in modern society, governments are often responsible for establishing minimum wage laws in order to protect workers from being underpaid.  However, during the Industrial Revolution, no such laws existed and as a result, industrial workers barely made enough to cover their cost of living.”
 
The minimum wage is part of their working conditions, and is part of government regulation of the workplace.
 
 
"Your solution to minimum wage is elimination of all such government interference. 
Quote me (from our discussion in this debate.)
“The minimum wage itself, and not just juxtapositions of scale, will be included in the purview of this debate.”
 
In other words, it is not about how much minimum wage, but the existence of any laws regarding minimum wage. Your solution, I assume, is not as extreme as eliminating all government regulations such as child labor, but it is to remove as much government regulations as possible, including all minimum wage laws, bringing us closer to the nightmare scenario I cited.
 
"This is poor conduct."
Nice try. Forfeiting a round is poor conduct; engaging a tangent isn't. 
There are more then one example of poor conduct, and my poor conduct does not exempt you from any and all future poor conducts.  
 
"The question was what would happen if the government doesn't pass any rules, and that is clearly a horrible solution."
No, the question is implicated by the topic: Is the minimum-wage beneficial to the poor? No one entertained the notion of the government not passing "any rules (laws/regulations.)
 
This was in reference to your request for me to cite the conditions before, during, and after. Please provide full quotations to maintain context. The question I was raising in that specific point was what happens when the market sets the rules of the workplace, aka the during. I answered that question, and provided all relevant citations.
 
It's neither something I "made-up" nor is it something you said. It was stated in your reference: "Because the government practised laissez-faire capitalism, this meant that they did not have initiatives in place to force factories to protect workers or to compensate them when they became injured and could no longer work. "
 
The part I said you made up was an arbitrary statement that the government should not practice capitalism… I agreed with you it should not, and never claimed that it should. You were responding to something that was never said here or by me anywhere, you made it up. Please don’t twist my message. Longer quotes can help preserve the context if you become overwhelmed.

Here is your quote that I said you made up and was not relevant to anything I said "Furthermore, the State cannot by definition practice capitalism." Please do not quote out of context.
 
You took two trends and said that they're related. You have provided no argument that demonstrates how these variables are related or how they vary with each other. You've demonstrated no "perfect correlation." If I took my grandfather's yearly raises in income before he retired, and put them next to the increases of minimum-wage it would demonstrate a positive trend as well. Except it was my grandfather's investment in himself (human capital) that explained his raises in income, as he earned far above the minimum. Furthermore, asking for the "impossible" is not a fallacy, which I haven't done. I requested that you substantiate your claims that the minimum wage led to a boom in the economy. By presenting the data as you have, I could just as well make the argument that increases in the minimum wage were a result of increases in GDP rather than the other way around especially given that the minimum-wage is a policy measure. If you cannot define these trends and argue to how they're specifically related especially as it suits the context of your argument, then don't make the argument.
 
You cannot because the minimum wage was consistently increased 1 year PRIOR to gdp growth, and was initially created during difficult economic times as a stimulus, that worked. The correlation is consistent throughout decades. I also did describe why it boosted the economy before I even showed the perfect correlation. By boosting incomes, you boost spending, which boosts the economy.
 
If the biscuit maker is compelled to incur increased labor costs then this may result in one of three things:
 
The biscuit maker will have to either disemploy or undermploy his employees to cover the costs (biscuits are price-elastic.)
The biscuit maker will have to extend the increased costs of labor to the price of his biscuits, making them more expensive (assuming they are price-inelastic, which they aren't.)
The biscuit maker will incur the loss and eventually lose out to a competing bakery/biscuit maker
 
If the minimum wage is raised the biscuit maker will not lose out to a competitor as the competitor has the same cost increase. Fair regulations do not change competitive advantage.
Not having a customer base who can afford his biscuits causes him to close his shop instead of losing on some profit.
Increased business from more local customers who can afford his biscuits is consistently ignored. As is the need for more workers to handle the increased demand.
 
None of that which you state is supported by economic reasoning. You're assuming "more money, more demand." But that money comes at a cost, as prospect you have failed to address. And if you look at the above reference, it's demonstrable that the minimum-wage creates a substitution for low-skilled labor with high-skilled labor (pricing-out low skilled labor.) Who buys the biscuits if the consumers either have no job or work too few hours to afford them? Your claim of the minimum wage shoring up demand is not supported by sound economic reasoning (considering all variables, rather than just one.)
I have been explaining the reasoning since the first post. A cost that is addressed by the increased demand. More money, more demand is not an assumption when discussion low wage workers. They are underpaid relative to costs and have massive pent up demand for home/car repairs, appliances, an education, child care, etc. Increasing their income will be an immediate adrenaline shot for the economy and will ripple all the way up through every business. You have not demonstrated any job loss effect.

You haven't answered my question. None of those statements are about the effects on the employer per se, but the effects on the employee through the employer.
 
You made several conclusion statements after your analogy, I answered all of them. Rising wages have not increased unemployment. Nearly 50% or more of costs will not be affected by minimum wage even if consumer costs do rise (which they may not). And automation will not be slowed or sped up through minimum wage due to the fact that the investment for it is high, and the gains immense. Your effects were all refuted.
 
 
"2.      I negated all 3 of those in the previous round. " 
Tautology: negation is not the same as refutation.

"So different that the logic no longer applies and the analogy fails completely.
You have neither demonstrated nor substantiated this at all.
 
Semantics. “I refuted all 3 of those in the previous round” happy?
Your students are not full time year round employees trying to live off your board erasing salary. You can pay them whatever you want, minimum wage laws do not apply to non-businesses. And your analogy implies an employer will waste all of his money hiring as many people as possible when in reality he will just hire the minimum amount people at the reduced cost and put the rest into profits. That’s what happens in reality. You claim businesses cannot afford higher wages, yet all we see are record profits being reported. I said all of this before. At this point I’m just repeating myself.
 
The current unemployment rate must be scrutinize for the following reasons:
 
(2) The current labor force participation rate is 63%. That means more than a third of the population is not counted in either (legal) employment or unemployment.
 
 
 
2. Yes, only 63% of the population, including young children, retired elderly, the disabled.
1. With record low unemployment, anyone who wasn’t seeking work but wants to work is back to seeking work. If the rest are not seeking work in a tight labor market, what makes you think they’ll jump back in for lower wages?
3. True, It would be nice if you would have provided such hours. You did insist on shared BoP.
 
 
"May" is not an indicator of a "weak" argument; "May" considers the likely prospects, most of which I listed above:
 
The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices (contingent on price elasticity.)
Another, would be disemployment or the reduction in labor hours as informed above. 
 
The “may” was clearly in reference to your "prices *may* go up" comment. This has nothing to do with switching to automation or reducing labor hours which would be an alternative to raising prices. Please use full context quotes to ensure your response is relevant to the actual point being addressed. Clearly you admit they “may not” go up, probably due to the effect of increased business covering the lower profit margins. I also listed large portion of costs that are not affected by low wage labor, like rent and medical, which will not go up or down based on wages.
 
"It is possible, but I do not recall bringing families into this at all. Please quote me" 
Here: 
 
"I’m glad we agree. I am not debating welfare here. A living min wage assumes full time employment, not a one time round of erase the board. These are people reporting to work every day, trying to support a family… in the richest nation in the world. That considers itself the greatest." [End of Round Three.] 
Again you take things out of context and argue the wrong point. What I said was the students in your example are not full time, year round, trying to make a livelihood workers. The family was simply a way to contrast workers from kids doing a task. I never outright stated minimum wage is necessary for families. I do agree it is, but I think it is necessary for non family people as well.
 
As did your numbers when you attempted to correlate the minimum wage with GDP, or would you argue those numbers reflected an algorithm that incorporated every localized minimum wage? Furthermore, 21 out the 50 states either by statute or by the absence thereof abide by the federal minimum.(www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx
 
A significant percentage of minimum wage jobs, if not the vast majority, are in cities with higher minimum wages. If you are talking about demographics, your example is leaving out most minimum wage workers in areas with most of the minimum wage jobs. This has no relation to my example which simply shows minimum wage go up, followed by GDP going up.
 
Which is typically commensurate to their State's cost index and population sizes. For example, California has among the highest minimum wages, but in return has the highest cost of living, particularly in San Francisco. 
 
You are implying a cause and effect without even speculating on any connection. I said how increased spending will outweight any negative effects of min wage and actually boost the economy, logic you couldn’t deny and simply leaned in on your “I said it may increase prices,” As clear cut logic in defense of my several decade long correlation.
Logically speaking, jobs form where people want to live. People wanting to live somewhere drives up demand. Demand for the land increases the cost to live there. The jobs follow the cost of living, minimum wage is an adaptation to the situation, it came in response to costs surpassing wages. How in any form of logic will you claim minimum wages caused the higher cost of living?! This is where people want to live, this is where the jobs are, these things drive up costs. Its very simple logic. Your just shooting blindly at this point.
 
"Thus your link is missing the demographics for the vast majority of minimum wage workers, and its conclusion useless. Remember your position is not a juxtaposition of scale, so whether they are at a federal minimum or a local minimum wage, they are still minimum wage workers, and should all be counted."
No. Read the description carefully: The minimum wage itself, and not just juxtapositions of scale... My position does not exclude juxtapositions of scale, it just doesn't limit the argument to them. Not to mention in one sentence, you argue that my submission of federal minimum wage workers was useless, while in another argue that they should be counted. This submission of information actually weakens your position. One need only provide a reductio ad absurdum incorporating the extremes of the minimum wage, and you'd have to argue it is beneficial whether it be one cents or nation's GNI. I however have adequately argued with sound eco comic reasoning as well as sufficient information why the minimum wage, whether it be the federal or a local minimum wage isn't beneficial to the poor.
 
My response was clearly in reference to your link being invalid, not the entirety of your argument. I will try to respond to what your saying, but your previous evidence from that link is still invalid due to it being about demographics while using a small and extremely nontypical example of a minimum wage worker. Your previous argument is thus invalid. The other example was a cause and effect of national policy on national GDP. Yes, in that example demographics are not relevant.

Too much of a good thing does not make it better. Obviously minimum wage should allow someone to cover a crummy neighborhood within reasonable travel distance to the regional work hub, with a big left over after the bills. That will be great for the economy. Setting the minimum wage to some absurd amount is not an argument against the minimum wage, its an argument against an absurd minimum wage. If I level has positive effects, but another level has negative effects, we don’t pretend the positive effects never happened.
 
Closing Arguments: REBUTTAL
 
This essentially the first post unphased by any of my criticisms.
 
1. Through sound economic reasoning, I was a leader to convey with the use of anecdotal evidence that:
 
The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.
The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.
 
Low skilled workers are plenty employed despite rising wages
Increased demand is an obvious consequence of increased wages, and a very significant portion of costs has no relation to low wage work (medicine, rent for example)
The insane cost of automation and the insane perfect tireless benefit means that the companies that can afford it will do it ASAP with 1penny wages, while companies that can’t afford it are nowhere near to affording it.
 
 
2. My opponent made an irrelevant reference to the Industrial Revolution, and in an attempt to reciprocate his poor conduct, have me blamed for engaging this tangent.
 
An example of what happened when the government was hands off, including the wages at the time. My opponent asked for references, references provided, then asked why am I providing these references. I forfeited a round, my opponent is desperately reminding you of that #4. Bold letters.

3. My opponent failed to demonstrate any substantial correlation between minimum wage and GDP. It can be argued that the minimum wage was a result of GDP and not the o thg her way around. 
 
The minimum wage gains happened the year before gdp went up, and gdp did not rise until the following years. My opponent simply ignored all of my data.
 
4. I provided examples of First world countries that thrive without a minimum wage. 
 
Pseudo socialist welfare states with low income inequality. Sure, if the taxpayer supports the poor and most costs are covered by the government, that will resolve the minimum wage problem, although I’m not a fan of that solution. This argument, LOL.

 
My Closing Arguments.

Currently much of the population is living paycheck to paycheck. They are one unfortunate event from becoming a public charge or a homeless vagrant. Assuming they are fortunate to make it to retirement, what savings can they possibly accumulate? Increasing the minimum wage increases their spending power whether prices rise or not, and the goods they buy can greatly improve their situation, from fixing their car/ac to paying for a skills program.
 
And even if they reduce someones hours, if they get paid the same amount for fewer hours, that’s time they can cook saving on food costs, or time to devote to a career or skill. Time is money!
 
A minimum wage is necessary for the health of the economy precisely because it is helpful to the poor who have pent up demand they could not afford.
 
I have debunked all of my opponents claims, from inevitable and unaffected automation to the idea that minimum wage will cost jobs, which it never has. My opponent did not do a good job criticizing my proofs and arguments, but made baseless claims without evidence of his own. He did not show any causation or correlation of any kind for job loss, for get about consistently across decades, despite his own insistence on shared BoP. No negative effect of minimum wage was demonstrated objectively, only a hypothetical and grossly simplified anecdote that has no connection to the actual real world outcomes as demonstrated by my arguments and citations.
 
Thank you for your time.
 
 
 
 





Added:
--> @Nemiroff
"except i did substantiate the consistent correlation across decades within the debate. The gdp increase typically happened exactly 1 year AFTER min wage rises, and lasted for several years. "
Post hoc.
"Btw both advancing technology and any form of investing often require capital inflows... that would also likely be an accurate and logical correlation."
And that makes it your burden to prevent and/or dispel doubt. Your being unable to control for minimum wage makes it a moot point.
"In comparison, you have not provided any empirical data yourself"
But, I did. I even hyperlinked some of arguments so that the reference can be summoned upon clicking them. Perhaps, you didn't read my arguments in their entirety.
Instigator
#85
Added:
--> @Athias
In comparison, you have not provided any empirical data yourself
Contender
#84
Added:
--> @Athias
except i did substantiate the consistent correlation across decades within the debate. The gdp increase typically happened exactly 1 year AFTER min wage rises, and lasted for several years. Years of min wage decrease or stagnation also never reach the highs achieved ONLY after a rise in min wage. *across decades* starting with the year it was introduced.
Btw both advancing technology and any form of investing often require capital inflows... that would also likely be an accurate and logical correlation.
Contender
#83
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
"Cum hoc ergo surely applies in any individual case. But when the correlation repeats itself *consistently* across *decades*, it is a completely different thing."
A different thing you are unable to substantiate. I could take almost anything else and argue the same "correlation" (e.g. capital inflows, advancing technology, human capital investment, etc.) Ultimately, you took two trends, put them together, and assumed they were related.
Instigator
#82
Added:
--> @Athias
Cum hoc ergo surely applies in any individual case. But when the correlation repeats itself *consistently* across *decades*, it is a completely different thing.
Contender
#81
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
"There is no moment when minimum wage was isolated. But i did show consistent correlation across decades of its positive effects."
Then don't make arguments that suggest that the minimum wage lead to a boom in the economy epsecially low-skilled workers. Regardless of how you argue this "correlation," it'll fall into the trap of cum hoc ergo propter hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc.
"I do understand that i failed to reconnect it back to the poor in my quest to respond to every quote."
How was it your quest to respond to every quote, when I had the first rebuttal? Who invoked the irrelevant subject of the industrial revolution? If you wanted to connect your argument to this debate's resolution, you should've done so in the beginning. Neither response, nor order was the reason for your poor argument.
"More spending is obviously good for the poor who need to fix the car, get rid of mold, a new fridge or ac..."
This is the reason you lost our debate. You make claims while failing to either explain or substantiate them. Scrutinize my anecdote all you want, but I clearly lay out the reasoning--soundly rendering conclusions from established premises--as well as lay out the "how's?" and "why's?" You just make statements and expect them to register. You haven't once in our debate considered "how does the minimum wage shore up demand?" "Why does the minimum wage shore up demand?" "Are there any examples that illustrate the minimum wage's effect on demand among a poor consumer base?"
Technicalities weren't the reason you lost; your poor use of reasoning was. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter much now. Good luck in your future debates.
Instigator
#80
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
"The relevancy was clearly stated."
Where?
"I showed what happens when the government is hands off and people "negotiated" their own terms. "
No you didn't. You cited a particularized snapshot of history, which I demonstrated was a product of government sanctioned workhouses. This "invisible hand" of which you speak wasn't there.
Instigator
#79
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
"Meanwhile my intuitive conclusion that rising wages will increase spending demanded empirical data, which was provided, but was not "empirical enough"."
You provided no data to that effect. Go ahead an look. You had the "intuition." You just didn't have sound reasoning.
Instigator
#78
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
"Thus you provided no data to back up the anecdote."
Redundant. I already stated as much. If you're implying that I did not provide quantifiable data that serves as an example of my anecdote, then that implication is categorically false.
Instigator
#77
Added:
--> @blamonkey
Didnt come across that way at all. 🍻
Contender
#76
Added:
--> @Christen
I dont understand what you mean by "what they are trying extra hard at".
I do understand what you are implying but with automation threatening everyone from warehouse and drivers to surgeons and accountants, what should they be trying at? Do you think ai cant code or repair other machines? Automation is a revolution which will require massive rethinking of our entire system.
But it isnt here yet, and their labor is still needed. Im talking about today's paycheck, not 20+ years in the future. What they are doing today is very necessary, they should be properly compensated for the value of their work, not devalued cause of the supply of their work or the tight margins with little wiggle room underwhich they live.
Contender
#75
Added:
"Economics is reasoning whether it be propositional, "intuitive," tautological, etc. That's the reason my opening argument was constructed in that manner. My intention was not to create a contest over cited "data" but to rigorously challenge the consistency of our reasoning."
Thus you provided no data to back up the anecdote.
Meanwhile my intuitive conclusion that rising wages will increase spending demanded empirical data, which was provided, but was not "empirical enough".
Baloney
The relevancy was clearly stated. You claimed government involvement ruined prospects and people would be better negotiating or agreeing to their own wages. I showed what happens when the government is hands off and people "negotiated" their own terms.
There is no moment when minimum wage was isolated. But i did show consistent correlation across decades of its positive effects.
I do understand that i failed to reconnect it back to the poor in my quest to respond to every quote. However that technical error does not make any claim against the validity of my arguments.
More spending is obviously good for the poor who need to fix the car, get rid of mold, a new fridge or ac. All of which can boost savings and or productivity, just to name a few. Perhaps they may even be able to save for the future for they will age. This is, in addition to being benefitial to them, benefitial for all of us.
Increases to costs will be minimized by competition over their increased demand which will demand more hiring. And large portions of their costs will not rise, such as rent or medical which do not rely on low wage labor. I did mention these.
Contender
#74
Added:
--> @blamonkey
I appreciate the vote. I actually had no intention entering this debate of citing quantification of any sort. Economics is a social science. While mathematics can be a useful tool to illustrate examples, it does not "inform" Economics. Economics is reasoning whether it be propositional, "intuitive," tautological, etc. That's the reason my opening argument was constructed in that manner. My intention was not to create a contest over cited "data" but to rigorously challenge the consistency of our reasoning. That perhaps explains the scant data. I provided the data only at the end to soundly refute Nemiroff's claims that without the minimum wage, wages would, as you put it, precipitously fall, and that the minimum wage led to a boom in the economy (boost in GDP) especially among low skilled workers. The rest of the data served as a rebuff to any redundant negation--if the reasoning of the anecdotal evidence didn't sink in, I thought that quantifiable examples would help.
I agree with you about your third point. The mention of the Industrial Revolution and Nemiroff's failure to argue its relevance to the debate's resolution could have been excised without issue. With all that said, your participation was most certainly welcomed, blamonkey, and your RFD was to say the least an interesting read.
Instigator
#73
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
"wouldn't you expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability? Trying hard should attain class growth and/or wealth! So shouldnt *full time* work doing necessary but simple tasks earn you a stable living without extra frills?"
Depends on what exactly you're trying "extra hard" at. This is because our world is rapidly changing and evolving. In the past, doing assembly line monkey work may have been enough to "earn you a stable living," but nowadays, more and more employers are looking for resilient people who can adapt to sudden changes, be creative, think critically, invent valuable things, and do more practical useless stuff than assembly line monkey work.
Nowadays, nobbing "A into slot B all day every day" won't cut it. That assembly line monkey work is becoming obsolete, with more and more people starting to use robots to do that assembly line monkey work instead of employees. If all you're doing is nobbing A into slot B all day every day, and you're making very little money off of that, then no, "trying" "harder" to nob A into slot B all day every day, "harder," won't help you much.
Back then, employers valued people who could "nob A into slot B all day every day" and they valued people who could it "hard" and "try hard," nobbing "A into slot B all day every day," but that was only because robots either did not exist back then, or were not very popular or advanced back then. Now, employers can have robots do that since robots are now much more popular and much more advanced, so you can no longer get paid much to do what a robot does, better, and for a cheaper price.
Trying hard is pointless if what you're trying hard at is becoming obsolete and being rapidly replaced by cheap robots.
So to answer your question... no. I do not "expect those that try extra hard to achieve more then just stability" if they're rapidly being replaced by robots and not looking for better careers that employers want nowadays.
#72
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
No problem! I'm glad you took something from it. By the way, I hope I don't sound to bitter in my RFD, I wrote it after having a bad day.
#71
#2
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N9TY-vAV_Bi8ErxAvGRnvc7w7CTmrgYZJShNVsxsjR4/edit?usp=sharing
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Reason For Decision:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029125616/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KH8aLtYjkA6NqmtadVzCJGbHOOpC_wMk8rohKLa5kBg/edit
Mobile and smartphone users should use this link instead:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029052319/https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1KH8aLtYjkA6NqmtadVzCJGbHOOpC_wMk8rohKLa5kBg/mobilebasic