An increase of the Federal minimum wage would have adverse effects on employment
Minimum wage: A wage set by State (or in this case) Federal government which states that no employer can pay below X amount of money per hour to a specific employee.
Increase: 10% increase or more
Adverse: Negative, decreased employment, etc.
Employment: Having paid work
==> If you need further clarification or want a specific definition changed, say so in the comments
==> This debate is about the current US system
==> Note this is NOT about abolishing the minimum wage
==> NO semantics, and treat this debate seriously
Noting the comments others left, I will take this debate on in what I believe to be the spirit you intended, and will not resort to cheap tricks like only considering a one-penny increase.
Proceed, honored opponent.
Minimum wage increases in theory
The neoclassical theory on the minimum wage is very sraightforward. The model assumes that the given labor market is competitive (i.e. firms take wages, interest rates, and prices as given), and that there is one type of labor. The labor entails that output is created by a mix of labor and capital, and that the workers in question are on the minimum wage. The firms which are competing for labor (so they must give a wage), prices (so customers will buy there), and interest rates they set an equilibrium wage setting to create an optimal balance to create profit. The minimum wage, if increased, often surpasses this equilibrium. This raises the hiring firms marginal costs and induces two economy harming effects. First, the price of the output (or workers) rises, and therefore the demand for new workers falls. This leads to a reduction in production and hiring, which then leads to decreased employment. At any given time more and more people enter the workforce, and this leads to underemployment and unemployment. Second, the higher wages cause firms to substitute capital for labor in the production process. Overall, the effect on employment tends to be negative .
As Murray Rothbard notes, "All demand curves are falling, and the demand for hiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit employment at any wage that is relevant to the market (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and hence causing unemployment."
The minimum wage makes it illegal to pay under a certian wage. If you are worth 10 dollars an hour it is unlikely a firm will pay you 20 dollars an hour. If you are worth three, the firm will not hire you for 7 dollars an hour. If you are employed and the minimum wage is raised above your worth, expect to not last long in the labor market unless you accept illegal pay. Regardless, the minimum wage only outlaws jobs which the employer is willing to pay, it does not create any new jobs.
There is a strong consensus amongst the empirical literature as to what the effects of the minimum wage would be on the low-skilled workers. Although the "consensus" notes that a 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to a 1-3% decrease in employment, some studies reach results of much higher (10%, 15%, 40%, etc). Essentially if one looks at the peer-reviewed literature, the question is no longer if the minimum wage decreases employment, the question merely becomes how much .
For example, research in Canada (an area very similar to the United States economically) showed that increases in the minimum wage led to a 17 to 44% increase in teenage unemplpoyment, 14 - 43% increase in 20 - 24 year old unemployment, and a 17 - 44% decrease in 16 - 24 year old employment. Further research on low skill workers as a whole yeilded the result of a 33-54% decrease in employment. In the UK, when they instituted a national minimum wage, the amount of minimum wage employment fell .8 - 38%, and the amount of hours worked fell by 15%. Results from Mexico and Columbia yeild this result: Mexico: *time series* -18% in employment (insignificant), *panel study*Mexican skilled workers -.1 to -.5%, unskilled drop 3% (significant).
Columbia: *time series* -34% (significant), *panel study* skilled -.3 to -24%, unskilled - 15 to -33% drop (significant) .
In the United States, the results are not different. A study done from data after the welfare expansion reveiled this result: "Minimum wages have strongly negative effects on the employment of teenagers and minorities (African American, Hispanic, or both). The author finds that a 10% increase in the minimum wage will decrease minority employment by 3.9%, with the majority of the burden falling on minority teenagers (6.6%). Although the size of the disemployment effects for African Americans is quite large -2.8% (and even larger for African American teenagers, -8.4%), it is the statistically significant effect for Hispanics (-4.9%) that is driving these results. This supports earlier research which found that minimum wages have the largest negative effects on low-skilled employees, such as teens and minority teens."
The newest research has shown that the effect may be larger than a 4% decrease. In the US, some studies have found their medium elasticity to be a 7% drop in employment when the minimum wage is increased 10% in New York State . Research done on Santa Fe's minimum wages have found that then the city rose the minimum wage to $7.50 an hour (at this moment is is around 8) they had a 3.2% decrease in overall employment. Those who received little schooling took most of the harm, while those who had a large amount of education took little beating. The effect on the overall unemployment rate was significant, but the effect on the uneducated, those minimum wages supposedly helped, were hurt the most .
In the literature there exists a strong consensus in opposition to increasing the minimum wage. The studies show that minimum wages increase unemployment and that the neoclassical model is correct. Unless my opponent provides strong counter statistical evidence, or a more convincing theory, the answer to this question seems obvious.
1. Neumark, David. William L. Wascher. Minimum Wages. The MIT Press, 2008.
The weakness in the neoclassical theories PRO posits lie in the lack of specificity of time frame. While it is true that an increase in minimum wage may temporarily decrease both hiring and productivity (the former case is far stronger than the latter, we'll get to that further on in) the use of the term "Overall" is misleading.
In fact, I intend to prove that in the long term, better paid employees have greater spending power to patronize the businesses both for which they work and those that employ others in their vicinity. The result of this higher level of spending is that in the long term, businesses are able to sell more, hire more and produce more.
Furthermore, PRO uses artificially high and artificially specific numbers in the examples given.
Lastly, I will illustrate that the impact on an economy from minimum wage laws is too minimal to be counted as detrimental. It is true that dropping a bucket of water into the ocean my "empirically" add to the overall amount of water there, but if my opponent intends to claim victory on that scale alone, I would submit that PRO is indulging in the very semantic quibbling that was disavowed by us both in the first round.
REBUTLE 1: THE NEOCLASSICAL THEORY
The American Center for Progress as well as The Economist and Bloomburg news have all convened case-studies which directly undercut the Neoclassical wisdom on the subject of minimum wage impact. As if often true in the "dismal science" of Economics, what sounds good in theory often does not bear up beneath scrutiny in the real world.
"A significant body of academic research has found that raising the minimum wage does not result in job losses even during hard economic times. There are at least five different academic studies focusing on increases to the minimum wage"including increases ranging from 7 percent to 12.3 percent made during periods of high unemployment"that find an increase in the minimum wage has no significant effect on employment levels. The results are likely because the boost in demand and reduction in turnover provided by a minimum wage counteracts the higher wage costs.
Similarly, a simple analysis of increases to the minimum wage on the state level, even during periods of state unemployment rates above 8 percent, shows that the minimum wage does not kill jobs. Indeed the states in our simple analysis had job growth slightly above the national average. [...]
All the studies came to the same conclusion"that raising the minimum wage had no effect on employment." - http://thinkprogress.org...
The Economist, November 2012: "Evidence is mounting that moderate minimum wages can do more good than harm...Britain"s small, regular changes [in the minimum wage] may be easier for firms to absorb than America"s infrequent but hefty minimum-wage increases."
Bloomberg News, April 2012: "[A] wave of new economic research is disproving those arguments about job losses and youth employment. Previous studies tended not to control for regional economic trends that were already affecting employment levels, such as a manufacturing-dependent state that was shedding jobs. The new research looks at micro-level employment patterns for a more accurate employment picture. The studies find minimum-wage increases even provide an economic boost, albeit a small one, as strapped workers immediately spend their raises. Let us hope that states lead the way on the minimum wage, and that they tie increases to the cost of living, making endless rounds of legislation unnecessary. Then let us hope that fresh research and improved lives built on hard work compel Congress to follow."
Perhaps the most glaring example of this is our own recent history. We saw a substantial minimum wage increase in 1990 which immediately proceeds some of the lowest rates of unemployment in our country's history.
Or even consider the creation of the minimum wage itself in 1938. Did our country plunge from economic depression into even deeper depression? No. Even the harshest critics of New Deal policies can only weakly argue that the depression might have been prolonged, but there is no argument to suggest that employment (which was ever-growing during the span from 1938 into the 1950's) was even remotely impacted by the introduction of a minimum wage.
REBUTLE 2: Productivity
As I stated in my opening argument, the case for hiring being impacted by minimum wage may have some truth to it in the short term, but the notion that productivity takes a huge hit is simply laughable. As we sit now with official nation-wide unemployment around 10% and an unofficial total that may be as high as 25% (the disparity in the two numbers owing to discrepancies in how the official number leaves out many groups and does not take into account those who have simply given up) our productivity is FOUR TIMES what it was when unemployment was only 4%, as measured by GDP.
If you cannot form any link between productivity and employment at all, the notion that said productivity is somehow hurt by job losses driven by minimum wage cannot stand. The argument is utterly without merit.
REBUTTAL 3: NUMBERS
PRO contends that "If you are worth 10 dollars an hour it is unlikely a firm will pay you 20 dollars an hour. If you are worth three, the firm will not hire for 7 dollars an hour. If you are employed and the minimum wage is raised above your worth, expect to not last long in the labor market etc...."
The problem with these numbers is two fold.
1. They are too high. A minimum wage of Twenty Dollars an Hour is commensurate more with a distinct "Living Wage" That some states and countries have instituted. Even since its introduction in 1938, the minimum wage has always been meager. This is why with the tiny and incremental increases we've seen over the last 80+ years minimum wages have never been able to keep up with inflation or cost increases. While I may think that a living wage has merit, it is not what we're discussing here.
2. He draws odd conclusions from them. Typically even if they may cut back in hiring in the short term due to the impacts of a minimum wage increase, I would challenge PRO to find me strong examples of a company literally firing employees. While it is true this is often threatened and hands are wrung, historically firings and layoffs do not spike in the aftermath of a minimum increase, regardless of what overall employment numbers may look like.
REBUTTAL 4: MINORITIES AND TEENS
PRO contends that teens, minorities, and minorities teens feel the bite of minimum wage the worst. Not only is there strong evidence to suggest this is simply not the case,
but it is an especially odd thing to shift what is in essence a racist burden of blame onto the minimum wage rather than the employers who are choosing to fire/let go minority employees to begin with. Regardless of what factors may make an employer let workers go, the choice to fire those with greater ethnic diversity first, is entirely on them.
While minimum wages may, (largely through reactionary choices by employers) have a short-term impact on hiring and firing decisions, the overall benefits gained by having a minimum wage that increases WITH the overall GDP are a net benefit to an economy.
My thanks for your patience.
Neoclassical predictions do not entail a specific time frame. If the wages are above the market equilibrium, those in worth less than the equilibrium will not be hired. If the equilibrium changes, as most things do in the market, the minimum wage in 20 years may have no effect. However, this is merely a red herring. The debate entails an adverse effect on employment. An employment effect do be adverse need not be highly long term. Since the minimum wage cannot create new jobs itself, its most positive effect would be around zero (which itself does not make sense, based on economic theory). If employment does down 1%, then 5 years later flat lines because it is a short term effect the overall effect on society is zero. Further, if the minimum wage is raised ten percent, it temporarily stunts future growth anyway.
My opponent essentially argues that more wages entail more spending and investment. Although this is true to a degree, the question is a matter of employment. However, since the minimum wage increases prices, this easily cancels out the wage benefits. And the employment downsides—which are long term as I will explain later—remain and the net effect is negative.
To say that the effect of the minimum wage is small is impossible to comprehend. Studies have nearly always showed that the minimum wage makes it harder to employ the least skilled. 27 million people can’t get a job because they are not worth enough to the employer, and a 40% increase in the minimum wage led to 550,000 people losing their jobs. A ten percent increase is roughly equal to 55000 losing their jobs, ignoring the long term schooling effects as well as the higher likelihood of those working above the minimum wage to slip into poverty in these situations .
My opponents source is blatantly wrong. The article relies on a new wave of studies who claim to have superior research designs then those who come before it. However, to claim that “all” the recent research comes to their conclusion is false. For example, the studies I cited before (Neumark and Wascher 2008, for example) summarized much of the modern research. They find that very little literature actually supports minimum wage increases. To say that “all” studies support the minimum wage is simply a lie. Further, this new research relies on worse designs. The new controls have actually been shown to be less robust then the research before it (which almost universally opposed minimum wages) and have problems of their own. The research my opponents article cites is not a victory. It merely relies on weak research with a host of new methodological problems. The study is less suited to argue its point then the ones I cited .
Nobel Laurate Gary Becker notes, “. A very recent study by Neumark, Salas, and Wascher (January 2013] goes over a few recent studies challenging this conclusion. They conclude, as Neumark and Wascher did in their 2008 book, Minimum Wages, regarding earlier evidence, that the recent evidence does not overturn the conclusion that higher minimum wages do significantly reduce employment of vulnerable groups, like teenagers. [emphasis added]”
These new studies themselves are weak and fail to control for the factors they wish to control for. The information cited here is totally misinformed about the academic rebuttal to the studies cited.
If this is irrelevant to unemployment, my opponent should not have brought it up. This debate is about employment, not overall economic growth (though employment does affect economic growth—to deny this is idiotic). But the reason GDP is growing is easy to explain. New technology, pro growth policies implemented by JFK, Reagan, Nixon, and everyone in that bunch except Bush II and Carter. Technological advancements throughout the era (dot com boom, space and other scientific knowledge). Basically, the fact we are seeing growth is not shocking. Since my opponent claims employment has no effect on growth, though, it is irrelevant in his own words.
Ever heard of hypothetical’s? They were devices to help you understand the basic theory…
1. A living wage is merely a high minimum wage. It is merely a different name which sounds nice to garner it votes, but it’s the same thing. For example, lets say I called a 1% tax cut a tax cut, but a 20% tax cut a money giveaway economy boosting drug. Mouth full ain’t it? But it’s the same thing. And again, it was a hypothetical. The same standard applies to $5 an hour and $7 an hour, if we insist that there is a difference.
2. If the rate employers hire decreases, unemployment rises, too. It also prevents people from entering the workforce. This is a subtle effect of a minimum wage. Small business lay people off all the time. Just recently (it’s a personal story—is that an example that counts?) we fired a front desk manager because she was not worth her wage. Not related to a minimum wage, but again the concept relates (she earned above minimum wage). But a company names Chicken of sea is laying off 2000 employees (12% of its total employment) because of the recent minimum wage hike . Good enough example?
I never said the minimum wage was racist, but that it had unintended consequences to those demographic groups. As a minority I hope this doesn’t sound racist itself: on balance (not always—I would say for my age of 15 I am *fairly* productive) minorities are worth “less”. Generally they are poorer and are schooled less. They then have fewer skills. If they can’t get hired because they are not worth $7 an hour, sorry. If a wage increases above their worth (say their worth is $7, and in ABQ we raise it to 8/9 like recently) they will eventually get laid off unless their skill level improves. It is not racist, it is simply that they are disadvantaged and cannot get a job because of the mandated wage! If they had a $5 dollar/hour job for 1 year, they would be worth $9 the next. Essentially having a high minimum wage makes it impossible for them to catch up to their affluent cousins, which is not racist, its just life.
1. Neumark, David. William L. Wascher. Minimum wages, 2008.
That position could not be more incorrect. If we aren't allowed to take long-term benefit into account, the entire debate has no merit because no effect is either infinite or instantaneous. I could just as easily say that a minimum wage increase has no effect on employment the day it is signed, and therefore has no impact. The word that is important here is "Overall", as it was used both in PRO's initial argument and very much factored into my response.
My opponent then goes on to make the extraordinary claim that even "if the minimum wage is raised ten percent, it temporarily stunts future growth anyway."
So let me get this straight: Long term benefits to employment caused by a higher standard of living (driven by higher minimum wage) don't count because we aren't allowed to take the long term as having any relevance... yet future growth is "stunted." (A position my opponent does not back up with any sort of explanation.)
To summarize, PRO would have you acknowledge future harms that he does not justify in any way, yet ignores future benefits because they're "a red herring".
Additionally, my opponent's source on this matter is a book, in which he supplies no reference or page number. In future rounds I will in good faith trust my opponent about what books he selects say, but he should at least indicate exactly what that is. (Yes, he links to it later, but again, without knowing what section or quote he finds relevant to his point, it's rather difficult to use here)
Rebuttal 1: My Source
To say that my source claimed "All" recent research was breaking the same way is a Straw man argument. The source I site is clearly only referring to all the studies it was choosing to use as examples, NOT all research being done. His entire argument is predicated upon this slight, which is either a serious confusion on his part, OR a deliberate and misleading statement to ignore what the studies themselves say.
But that really isn't surprising. When I read through Neumark (who seems to be the ONLY source my opponent cites in relation to the first half of his arguments...even his use of Gary Becker is only what Gary Becker says about Neumark's writing) I notice that Neumark himself seems to largely address examples grounded in state-level minimum wage. As PRO seeks to assess the effects of federal minimum wage, I find this discrepancy to be troubling at best.
Finally, Neumark is clearly rebutting two very specific studies, which are not the ones I cited in my sources. Even if he were refuting these, it's unrealistic to expect a study to somehow address a rebuttal that was made in response to the study itself.
(PRO:These new studies themselves are weak and fail to control for the factors they wish to control for. The information cited here is totally misinformed about the academic rebuttal to the studies cited.)
Studies are not "misinformed" simply because they occur in the past. That's just how linear time works.
Rebuttal 2: Productivity
My opponent chastises me for being the one to bring productivity up, yet it is he who mentioned productivity in his opening argument, saying that the impact higher minimum wages have on productivity is a negative one. I neatly refute this, illustrating perfectly how this could not be. It is irrelevant to HIS argument, not mine.
For clarity: "First, the price of the output (or workers) rises, and therefore the demand for new workers falls. This leads to a reduction in ---->production<----- and hiring, which then leads to decreased employment."
These are my opponent's words. He is obliged to devour them now.
Rebuttal 3: Numbers
I understood that your numbers were hypothetical, obviously, but my point was that they were not an accurate example. By accurate I don't mean specific to exact real-world numbers, but rather that the scale of them was way off. When we're talking about arguments of minimum wages, we aren't talking about the difference of a 10 and 20 dollar worker, we're talking about the difference between a 35-cent worker and a 7 dollar one. This is important because it's a much clearer wrong in the latter case, the former case serves to insinuate a certain greed on the part of workers who are "not worth that much".
But I digress.
Another great mendacity to the examples you give is that they exist both in a vacuum. Sometimes, minimum wage is say, 15% below the poverty line relative to inflation and the costs of consumer goods. But at the same time, in that economy, profits may be at historic highs, giving companies more wiggle-room on whether or not they choose to let people go in response to having to pay more. On the other hand, if times are tight, and minimum wage is actually enough to put workers at say, 20% ABOVE the poverty line, and profits are already low, it is a virtual certainty that they might be let go in the wake of an increase.
While it arguable that the Federal Minimum Wages going up might be a catalyst in the latter situation, it is clearly the greater economic environment which has the far greater impact. A catalyst and a cause are not the same thing, though it is easy to confuse the two.
Rebuttal 5: Minorities
Again, a straw man argument. I did not say nor imply you suggested that the minimum wage is racist. I said that employers who are already doing a poor job of employing unskilled labor from minority populations, and then, clearly, choosing to fire those individuals first when an excuse (not a cause mind you, an excuse) like a heightened minimum wage comes around ARE.
And while I know it is not what you are saying, I would add that I find the notion that employers can simply hold minority population's jobs hostage to decry changes in the law they don't like disgusting.
The largest point I have made, whether or not the overall impact of increased minimum wage is good for employment, has gone largely un-addressed. While my opponent characterizes this argument as being a red herring, he does nothing to indicate just what the long-term harms of minimum-wage hikes are, nor what their impact is in the long term. I would ask that rather than simply citing the same un-detailed study over and over again, PRO should cite a specific federal minimum wage increase, and then track what its impacts have been through the years or decades he deems relevant.
I would submit that any attempt to do so will not end well for PRO. Until they do, my argument stands.
Time: For sake of argument, I will concede that time is actually important.
It would be interesting to note that the minimum wage for some sub-groups actually makes it harder for them. Teenagers often enter the minimum wage workforce to gain experience. However, if they are not worth the current minimum wage, they will not get hired. That would lead to the employer losing money. Simply put, they never get experience and in their future enter the workforce with slightly higher skills (alive longer, mostly) but experience lower wages overall because they never gained the experience when they were young. Studies further show they become less likely to get hired at all. If the minimum wage lowers the chance of getting hired, training for a job (often included) if hired, as documented in the literature, the skill set and possible future wages substancially decreases the living standard for some and their ability to get hired . To say that increasing the price of labor will not reduce the amount employment is absurd.
Sources: My opponent claims my book is not a good source because he cannot read it. However, Neumark and Wascher have been publishing in the literature for years. Their book summarizes their research. The page I was refering to was page 65, section 3.4.3. Their studies found that the minimum wage reduced school enrollment. Teenagers falsely assumed they would recieve higher pay, and dropped out of school to get a job. When factoring this effect, they found "a statistically significant employment elasticity of -0.22", or negative 22% .
If my opponents source claims all research which they chose was supporting their opinion, by response is duh. If you cite ThinkProgress and expect them to cite Neumark and Wascher 2007 which found that 85% of the research supports my opinion, then lol. My opponent essentially admits that the research he cited is cherry-picked by ThinkProgress, not even including some literary dissent. My opponent cites a meta-analysis by Lester and Madland, whose whole conclusion relies on the studies Neumark et al. refuted as their "evidence" for recent research supporting minimum wage increases. It says that all of the recent research supports his view, not s strawman. Those five studies are complete bogus. Two rely on weak controls less suited to the tasks that studies that show minimum wages harm the economy have , one is the meta analysis cited screaming publication bias. Let me explain. Card and Krueger have had their research published in mainstream outlets, which proves no publication bias. Further, for there to be publication bias, there is generally a mechanism. This is an issue where labor unions probably have more influence. In Neumark and Wascher (2008) they document their work near the turn of the century which finds little publication bias to be found . The last one is Dube et al. 2007. They claim that old research fails to control clustering properly, and minimum wage has no effect when this is done. Clustering makes the result less robust, and therefore their studies conclusions are not correct . The studies are weak.
Gary Becker does mention these new studies and uses the Neumark rebuttal. He is using academic literature and noting that the studies are flawed. He never makes extraordinary claims that all of the new studies are in near-universal agreement. And the state argument you didnt read the full studies. ALL of the other 5 studies focus on state effects because it is easier to control for those factors. They use data from all the states to get a national sample. The fact Neumark uses state data, like everyone else, is a widely supproted technique.
One rebuttal was published 5 months earlier then cons sources , and the economist quote was published a month after the formal rebuttal was produced . They fully ignored those studies.
The workforce probably gains some productivity because less of the low skilled workers are employed. The decrease in production is due to the increased capital costs to the hiring firm, not the workers decrease. The minimum wage reduces production, not productivity to the worker (which is what I meant).
Large changes in raw data are often explained with simple controls. When put in, many industries see a significant drop in productivity and production when the minimum wage is increased, when factors are controlled for . The reason GDP grew is simple. Growing economy regardless of a minimum wage--other factors. Growing population, etc. Even if we assume his argument is relevant, he loses the point.
I used the word "production" in order to explain the theory in full. My opponent thinks that it was a significant point to the debate, which it wasn't, and claim that is is highly relevant to the debate.
A hypothetical used to explain a point, not be a data point, do not have to be correct. I used them to make my point simple. I really dont know why you want to see a hypothetical which used econometric equasions which are based off of monospy and neoclassical models. I mean I could do that. Or we can accept what I said as a hypothetical, an explanation device, and not an ACTUAL data point. We save character space that way.
Large companies are unaffected by minimum wages, as most of their workers require greater skills and are paid hogh wages. So their record profits are often due to other factors. For those who manage to get a job on it they are promoted within one year because they gained the skills needed to get a pay raise . So their wage actually increases if they have a low wage job. If we had no minimum wage, people worth $4 dollars an hour would get training, get experience, and eventually get higher paying jobs. The minimum wage only prevents people from gaining the invaluble life skills of work training because the minimum wage makes them a net-loss for the employer. This is why minimum wages have negative long term effects. Less skilled workers get laid off and hours reduced, lowering their pay [pg 138].
"The choice to fire those with greater ethnic diversity first, is entirely on them." -- R2
You said that it is the emokoyers racism or discrimination to lay off those who are minorities first is at fault. Well, you say it in a discrete manner. You say that their decision is odd, and that the minimum wage is not the source of the discrimination, but rather it is the worker. Again, as I explained, this is totally false. African Americans and Latinos happen to be poorer, less skilled, and less educated due to their enviroments. If they fire you for being less skilled and you happen to be Latino, that's not discrimatory. It just so happens to be that minorities are more likely to be less skilled, and therefore more vunerable to minimum wage increases. A lower wage would make it more likely for them to be hired and then skills to be aquired worthy of a higher wage. Minorities are the most affected because of their relative skills and education, not racism of the employer. The minimum wage is not racist per se, but its unintended consequences are.
The video talks more about this.
All the studies are measuring specific examples and find negative effects. I provided an example where the 2009 hike caused a company to lay off 2,000 employees. The 1991 wage hikes and the late 2000s hikes show negative effectsn. My case is full of examples.
The strength of the empirical data, the mere amount too, the theoretical predictions which have been proven by the peer reviewed data all support my case. I provided statistics then gave a reason. My opponent has provided minimal data and has not even provided one theoretical reason as to why it would have no effect (or a positive one). The BOP is even, and I have met it far better then my opponent. Vote PRO.
voxprojectus forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||0|