The Instigator
Subutai
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

The Government Should Eliminate the Minimum Wage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,065 times Debate No: 49365
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (12)

 

Subutai

Pro

This is the final debate in the DDO Olympics government and politics bracket. If you have any questions about the debate format below, mention them before you accept this debate.

Full Resolution

The government should eliminate the minimum wage.

The BoP lies on both debaters (I have to prove that this change in policy is good, while my opponent has to argue for the good of said policy; I'll give the voters some leeway here).

Definitions

Eliminate: "To leave out or omit from consideration; reject."[1]

Minimum Wage: "The minimum amount of compensation an employee must receive for performing labor. Minimum wages are typically established by contract or legislation by the government. As such, it is illegal to pay an employee less than the minimum wage."[2]

Rules

1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.

Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)

Sources

[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]: http://www.investopedia.com...
TheHitchslap

Con

I accept to terms

Voters please note, this is for the Gold Medal Contest of the Politics division in the DDOlympics.
Debate Round No. 1
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank TheHitchslap for accepting this debate.

I. Unemployment

The minimum wage drives up wage costs to employers, thus making it more prone to laying off, especially the less skilled workers like teens and minorities and low wage jobs in general.

I.a. General

Through a hypothesis, we can see generally why the minimum wage increases unemployment:

1) There exists a marginal productivity (the amount of revenue that worker brings their employer per hour of work) for workers.

2) Because companies compete with each other for workers, a worker's wage will be close to that marginal productivity. (if a worker is making significantly less than their marginal productivity, another person can make a profit by hiring them for slightly more than they're making, and so on until the wage is approximately the marginal productivity).

3) A government declaration of a 'minimum wage' doesn't raise the productivity of workers.

4) If a minimum wage is set above the marginal productivity of a worker, that worker's employer must either continue paying that worker, losing money, or fire that worker.

5) Businesses aren't charities, they will not hire workers for a loss.

6) So the minimum wage can only cause unemployment.

This can be showed graphically here:




[14]

"The new demand curve D'D' will now in­tersect the supply of labor at point E instead of point C. Total amount of labor now employed is reduced to BE, and EH are now unemployed as a result of the union action."[14]

So essentially, the minimum wage, assuming it works perfectly, can only increase the salaries of workers by as much as an equivalent decrease in salaries to other workers, meaning it's a zero-sum policy. In all cases, however, perfect efficiency is not attained, and the minimum wage becomes a net loss policy.

Statistical and empirical evidence can support this theory.

Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 1,000,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. "[1]

If you compare the average from the states (plus DC) with a minimum wage higher than the federal one to those who only obey the federal one, you get an average unemployment rate of 9.34% for the 1st group and an average of 7.88% for the 2nd group. [3][4]

This can be seen in this graph:



[2]

"With all of this recessions significant labor market problems, and the expensive federal efforts to offset them, it's too bad that the minimum-wage law added so many people to the list of those who today cannot find jobs."[5] As the minimum wage increases, unemployment increases. Why? Because with a minimum wage, companies have to pay more to employees. This means that they have to lay off employees to stay on budget.

I.b. Low-Skill Workers

I'll focus on teenage and young adult unemployment here.

Again, another hypothesis:

When the minimum wage kicks in and employers have to start laying off, who, by nature, are going to be laid off first? The workers they need the least or who produce the lowest marginal productivity or production at all. Why? Because their cost-to-benefit ratio (C/B) it higher than with other groups. Who does this tend to affect? The low-skilled and the people just entering the labor force (i.e. teens and young adults) because they have the highest C/B of all workers because their skill is the lowest.

Evidence can also back up this claim.

"Using data extended to 1999, they find that the effect of the minimum wage on employment has been fairly constant over time, and that there are statistically significant negative effects of the minimum wage on teenage employment, with an elasticity of −0.12 in the short-run and −0.27 in the longer-run."[6]

"A 2006 University of Georgia study found that every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage was associated with a 4.6 to 9.0 percent decline in teenage employment. This finding was corroborated last summer when the 12 percent hike in the minimum wage corresponded with a five percent unemployment spike for teens."[7]

And another graph can show this:



[8]

"Unemployment in 2006 (teenage) was 4.4%, there was a steady minimum wage. In 2009, after a few minimum wage increases, teenage unemployment was 10.2%."[8] As the minimum wage increases, teenage employment decreases. Why? Because as the minimum wage eats into companies' profits, they can employ fewer people. And the first people they fire are the unskilled, young employees.

Also, "Minimum wage laws affect ethnic minorities the most."[9]

The minimum wage hurts blacks generally. [10]

A graph can show this too:




[13]

It affects minorities because of their low-skill status too.

II. Prices

Through the first hypothesis I provided above, we can deduce that employers, in addition to lowering their costs (through laying off workers), would also want to increase revenue, thus they also raise prices.

More evidence can back this up.

"The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year."[11]

The minimum wage increases inflationary pressure. [12]

"Artificially imposed wages, like those mandated by the government through implementation of minimum wage legislation, will cause prices to increase."[14]

A final chart can illustrate this:



[16]

"As the chart below shows, over the past 22 years the French minimum wage rate has been consistently hiked at a rate far in excess of the increase in CPI."[15]

As the minimum wage increases, not only do companies fire employees, they also raise prices to help the budget. And in the end, this will make it harder for people, especially poor people, to buy necessary things. That in turn reduces GDP growth because there is less buying, and this will plunge us into another recession.

Conclusion

As I mentioned early on, the minimum wage, at best, can operate as a zero-sum game, causing as many wage and price problems as it reduces. In the real world, however, this is not the case, and the minimum wage consistently works as a net loss policy, due to its causing increases in unemployment and inflation. Ironically, the people it is suppose to help, mainly young people and minorities, are actually even more disadvantaged by minimum wage law because of they create a workplace where only the most well-trained employees stay around because they are less of a net loss. Overall, the minimum wage is a destructive policy and should be eliminated.

Sources

[1]: http://mises.org...
[2]: http://web.archive.org...
[3]: http://www.foxbusiness.com...
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...
[7]: http://showmeinstitute.org...
[8]: http://epionline.org...
[9]: http://www.americanthinker.com...
[10]: http://mises.org...
[11]: Behrman, Jere R.; Sickles, Robin C.; and Taubman, Paul. 1983. The Impact of Minimum Wages on the Distributions of Earnings for Major Race-Sex Groups: A Dynamic Analysis. American Economic Review, vol. 73 (September): 766-778.
[12]: http://www.ppic.org...
[13]: Adams, F. Gerard. 1987. Increasing the Minimum Wage: The Macroeconomic Impacts. Briefing Paper, Economic Policy Institute (July).
[14]: http://online.wsj.com...
[15]: http://mitch-alan.hubpages.com...;
[16]: http://www.acting-man.com...
TheHitchslap

Con

BOP

First off, I note that BOP is shared. However, due to the nature of the way minimum wages (MW) work I think we can all agree on the framework of evaluation. I submit to the judges of this debate that if my opponent shows that MW harms employment chances, and as a result the greater economy then my opponent should be given the win. Likewise, if the MW shows to have no impact, OR good impacts then the judges must give me the win. The reason why is because if MW laws have no impact on the economy then there is no logical reason to not give those workers a raise in the first place. No impacts means that change to the status quo would be justified; it has no implications in the first place, and the consumption function of MW shows that more disposable income = more consumption which generates economic activity, and correlates with shared prosperity.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

I also note that I cannot refute any claims my opponent makes directly in this round, so I shall just make my case:

Consumption in the Economy Improves

As noted before, when incomes increase consumption also increases. In mainstream economic theories this is an accepted fact. The only thing in question is to what degree does the consumption increase to? Milton Friedman, a practitioner of Neoclassical thought seems to agree with this view that temporary increases do little impacts, but permanent does have great consequences. Keynes having created the consumption function also agrees. In short, this is one of the few times polar opposite economic thoughts actually agree with one another. Increasing the MW increases consumption to those who are impacted.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org... (and above cite)

Unemployment Figures are Deceiving Here

Recall that in economics, an unemployed fellow is considered unemployed when two conditions are met:
1) That person does not have a job and
2) That person is actively looking for a job

So, if a person does not have a job and is not looking for a job, then this person is not considered “unemployed” by economic definition. This is important: this means that if someone where to simply show a table of unemployment figures and MW figures and show unemployment goes up, they ignore the fact that MW increases makes those who are economically alienated to look for a job again. This means that even though unemployment is going up, it is not because MW is killing jobs as implied by the stats, but because increasing it makes more people actively look for a job.
The OECD has ample studies on this:
-- http://www.oecd.org...

The Gini Coefficient and Income Inequality

One key thing the MW is excellent at is no doubt fixing income inequality. It was originally used in the New Deal as a tool to correct this issue, and has been around since in the US. Interestingly, the US not only has one of the lowest rates in the developed world for MW, but also has one of the worst levels of income inequality. With this the consequences are huge: crime rates sky rocket, social cohesion is eroded, people turn to the “shadow” economy, drains the welfare system, etc...
Interestingly enough, MW actually helps prevent this. This is not only shown through the Gini coefficient, but Atkins Indexes, and even Standard Deviation Logarithms. In short, the MW has been one of the most effective resources for correcting a fault in the invisible hand of the economy.
-- http://are.berkeley.edu...
-- http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org...

Sources

This is probably one of the most one-sided debates of all of economics. I would like to point out some things to watch for within this debate. Essentially, think tanks ought to be looked at with great scepticism. So the Von Missis institute, Wall Street Journal, Cato Institute are all ideological and ought to be rejected. They're unreliable as they have an agenda in-behind them. Their studies are nothing more than confirmation bias about their own ideologies (either libertarian or republican). WSJ for instance, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so unless the audience thinks Fox News is unbiased, this debate needs to agree on legit sources as opposed to ones that have a clear bias. Let's use more reliable sources (OECD or peer reviewed data for instance)
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

With this being said, the biggest study ever done on this debate was the Card and Kruger studies and Meta-Analysis. Similarly, the other biggest studies are done from Berkeley under Robert Reich, and Alan Newark (who agreed, then disagreed, and then his studies were classified as junk) who refutes Kruger and Card. The best way to see how MW impacts an economy is compare one state with another with the input, and one without the input while all else is the same (ceterius paribus). They did this and found that MW increases are correlated with increases in jobs. Furthermore, meta-analysis is taking on all data (done years later) that's peer reviewed and draw a common consensus from all the data (is MW good for the economy or not?). What they found was that the data favoured dis-employment impacts, until publication bias was corrected, then the peer-reviewed data had no evidence that dis-employment occurred. Furthermore, when the publications using faulty T-stats were also eliminated, no evidence exists that MW hurts jobs. At all. As one academic by the name of Thomas C. Leonard noted about the con-MW side (which ignored the T-stat issue) “the silence is deafening!” So we can conclude that MW does create jobs, and that studies claiming to the contrary are either bought off, or do not meet the statistical requirements to be known as reliable. (For those interested: a t-score is the same thing as a z-score, the only difference is when it is impossible to be exact we use a t-score, whereas z-score is either representative, or utilizes a sample. So, because both scores are the same, when the study says 0.05 it means the study is accurate by 95%, so the results are give or take 5% which is the standard, similarly a score of 0 is 100% representative with no margin of error/full confidence. Those studies refuting MW either had NO t-score, OR had a score of 2, meaning -200, or “junk science” qualifications. Those studies with a score of at least 0.05 are pro MW)
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Economic Theories

Finally, I would like to note that the two mainstream economic theories are Neoclassical, and Keynesian thoughts. Although there are some sub-sections within those two thoughts (New-Keynesian for instance), these two thoughts are the dominant ones. We could have a separate argument about which theory is “more correct” including heterodoxal theories, but I propose to the audience we must stay within these two thoughts, as Austrian economics, Post Keynesianism, Marxisism, etc... are all known as heterodoxal and not rooted in factual analysis of the economy. Otherwise, my opponent not only has to justify his position, but I would also propose he has to justify his Austrian position when a clear majority of economists reject this economic analysis.
-- http://econfaculty.gmu.edu...

Recap:
-- MW only accounts for 6% of the population, of which Retail, Hospitality, and Restaurants are impacted the biggest
-- Increasing MW = less spending on welfare, and less crime due to a lack of ppl in the shadow economy
-- Peer-reviewed data indicates that a correlation with increase in jobs occurs in states increasing MW
-- labour force participation increases when MW increases, thus accounting for deceiving “unemployment” figures
-- Only Austrian economics (rejected in mainstream) preaches for abolishing MW
-- Consumption improves, along with income inequality and social cohesion
-- Finally, minorities are impacted... get a pay raise.

I shall leave you with an interesting thought experiment to see why MW does not kill jobs. Suppose we grant for a second that raising costs to businesses through labour costs was true in determining if a business would hire/not hire someone. It would mean businesses would look for "free" labour. I can think of one: internships! Why isn't, say the XL Keystone Pipline being built entirely out of internships for free instead of businesses paying them? Any business can do it, yet we never see a Wal-Mart offering internships to casheirs ... strange.

Here is an article for you to enjoy .. it is sarcastic humor, though I found it to be funny in light of this topic and proving my point!
http://www.thebeaverton.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank TheHitchslap for presenting his arguments. I am going to rearrange the order of his arguments somewhat, as I'd like to address a few things that he covers before I go into refuting the substance of his argument.

Burden of Proof

As I mentioned in the first round, I've given the voters a bit more liberty than I usually do in deciding who has the greater BoP and how that BoP needs to be fulfilled by both voters. My opponent respects that. However, I would like to cover the fact that my opponent thinks that if he proves that the minimum wage has no effect is proved, then he wins. If, at the end of the debate, the minimum wage is shown to have not effect on the economy whatsoever, a number of points can be concluded. One, the minimum wage is useless, and therefore doesn't even need to be a policy in the first place. Two, having complicated laws for something that has no effects is just inefficient, as the bigger the government, the greater the chance for corruption.

Finally, as I explained in the first round, the minimum wage is at best a zero-sum policy, specifically in theory. The real world tends to reveal more flaws in a policy than benefits, and thus, in the real world, a theoretical zero-sum policy generally becomes a net-loss policy. If I can prove this at the end of the debate, this whole BoP issue isn't even a problem.

Sources

While I do agree with my opponent that think tanks certainly do need to be regarded with skepticism, my opponent makes two breaches of logic here. One, he's arguing that all articles from think tanks are biased, and thus should not be acknowledged, and this is most certainly not true. While I will be the first to admit that some are, not all of them are. I try to cite more reliable ones. Think tanks can have very reliable articles. And two, he tries to decide what the voters should – vote quality. This decision should be left to the voters.

I also find it ironic that my opponent brings this objection up, considering that almost half of his sources come from Wikipedia, a unreliable source that shows clear leftist tendencies in its articles and prevents people from changing information on those opinionated topics.

Finally, as for my opponent's long "meta-analysis" of a couple of studies that cite employment issues with the minimum wage, he spends a lot of time trying to refute a study that I didn't even cite (at least directly). He, by no means, shows that all studies that report some negative implications of the minimum wage are invalid.

Economic Theories

This is sort of my “transition” argument to refutations of actual arguments for the resolution. Here, my opponent doesn't try to specifically refute my arguments, but tries to destroy them with one single blow to their ideology. Now, this debate argument is way too short for me to argue the merits of Austrian Economics, but I feel I do need to make a short reply.

Defending the notion of a logical, or unstatistical policy, "Complex adaptive systems like the modern marketplace do not behave mechanistically. They cannot be controlled precisely with the rods and levers of monetary and fiscal policy. To believe so is an enormous – and as we’re finding out – costly error. It’s also massively arrogant and conceited." In other words, economics is not a science. The article says earlier that, "Complex adaptive systems like the modern marketplace do not behave mechanistically." In other words, statistics certainly do not mean everything in an economic debate.[1]

Taking this from a different perspective, my argument was not solely Austrian. It did have a lot of statistics in it, which is more reflective of the Chicago School. What is the difference? "They stress quantitative empirical work to test their theories. They also published more of their findings in the professional journals and with well-known university presses. They see themselves as inside the profession." In other words, statistics and facts are more applicable according to the Austrian school.[2]

I tried to incorporate a more holistic approach into my arguments by covering both logic and evidence, thus including both Austrian and Chicago thought into my arguments. My arguments should most certainly not be rejected solely because they fall under one of the two schools I mentioned. Not only does he present only one side of economics (the factual side), but he also doesn't argue why Austrians are bad. Yes, they are not the mainstream view. All I leave him is this – why were Austrians able to predict the Recession?

Consumption in the Economy

My opponent commits the broken window fallacy here. Economics, because of its nature to work with institutions that yield significant amounts of power, is a discipline that has a number of fallacies. One of them is the broken window fallacy, or the tendency for economic policies to be judged only on their short-term and immediately foreseeable consequences. As Henry Hazlitt puts it, however, "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."[3]

This shows why my opponent's argument makes no sense. An economy, at a certain amount of time, contains a fixed amount of capital. If, say, I give $100 to a homeless person, that increases his consumption by as much as it decreases my consumption. In other words, just as much money is going into the economy as is being taken away from it. This is the minimum wage in a nutshell.

"What they neglect to calculate is the lower spending by those who are laid off or can’t get jobs because of the higher minimum wage, and the lower spending on things other than wages by businesses affected by it. It’s a classic example of Frederic Bastiat's broken window fallacy."[4]

Again, the minimum wage is, at best, a zero-sum game. It can never create what isn't there, and must take from other potential. In other words, the benefit of one comes at the equivalent cost of another.

The Gini Coefficient and Income Inequality

What my opponent hasn't proved is that reducing current levels of income inequality is desirable. It is very well argued that, "The rich earn higher incomes because they contribute more to society than others do. However, because of diminishing marginal utility, they don’t get much value from their last few dollars of consumption." There comes a certain point where the “rich getting richer” doesn't really mean much.[5]

Regardless, however, the minimum wage would not effect poverty conditions. A recent CBO report stated that raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would: "Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold." This may seem like a lot, but that wouldn't even raise the national poverty rate by one percent.[6]

The reason for this is that most minimum wage workers are not in poverty. "Unfortunately, as labor economist Mark Wilson put it, 'evidence from a large number of academic studies suggests that minimum wage increases don’t reduce poverty levels.' One reason is that most minimum wage workers are secondary workers in non-poor households, while very few are heads of households." In other words, only about 1 million of the supposed 16.5 million people helped by the minimum wage are actually lifted out of poverty. The vast majority are already in comfortable conditions.[7]

What this causes is a net loss: "If so, the proposal is to spend $100 billion to remove 900,000 people from poverty. That is about $110,000 per person lifted out of poverty. Considering that the poverty line for a family of four is $24,100 and that people who are working must (by definition) already be earning something, any policy that costs more than $6,000 per person lifted out of poverty is quite expensive."[8]

The minimum wage has very little effect on poverty conditions, and mostly raises the salaries of people who aren't in poverty. It may reduce overall income inequality, but not where it needs it. Further, over $100,000 is spent per person, which takes away a much greater amount from the economy than it brings in.

Unemployment Figures

I'm sure my opponent will have much more to say about this in his next argument, so I'm going to leave this until the last round. All I will say is this: "But unlike the model with workers’ search effort, unemployment always decreases with the wage. Although participation is weaker when wages are low, firms still create jobs because their profits are high. This swells the number of vacancies relative to the number of job seekers, making it more likely that they will find work."[9]

Conclusion

Again, the minimum wage is a zero-sum game. The input it creates is only as much as the input it takes away. The money that it uses to take some people out of poverty is only as much as it takes away from the economy. It should not be kept.

Sources


[1]: http://dailyreckoning.com...
[2]: http://www.fee.org...
[3]: Hazlitt, Henry. Economics in One Lesson.
[4]: http://www.forbes.com...
[5]: http://www.nytimes.com...
[6]: http://www.cbo.gov...
[7]: http://bastiat.mises.org...
[8]: http://www.forbes.com...
[9]: http://www.clevelandfed.org...
TheHitchslap

Con

BOP

This is a fallacy of shifting BOP. If the MW has no impact on jobs, it does not mean it has no impact on anything else. It is possible that the judges in this debate believe it has no impact on jobs , BUT it can reduce poverty. That would still have to account for something! As I noted in round 2 that was the very purpose FDR made it in the first place! If so, then no impact means I win, positive impact means I win, while negative impact means my opponent wins. My opponent cannot shift this BOP.

-- http://www.nizkor.org...

As I noted in round 2, I gave three criteria in order of priority: 1) Jobs, 2) Poverty Reduction and 3) Social Cohesion, all of which MW impacts in some way, and those impacts must be used to objectively “measure” the states' justification for MW.

Sources

I disagree here. I noted that think tanks ought to be looked at “with great scepticism” not that they're all bias. With an issue like MW with so many competing interests we want to see 1) expert opinion and 2) expert consensus to determine good/ bad evidence. I submitted Card and Kruger and their meta-analysis to show this. We cannot use think tanks: the Von Missis Institute is openly Austrian indoctrination and would never allow a study to be produced that is pro-MW for instance...it violates Austrian economic thought that they're trying to espouse. The evidence is also not peer-reviewed, and thus not reliable. Anyone can open a think tank, meaning it's unreliable in the first place, and the people producing the stuff of the tank might not be the expert opinion on the topic. I never tried to control voters.

(Ron Paul opened up a think tank here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Mr Paul is NOT an economist)

My opponent launched an appeal to hypocrisy here; wikipedia does have regulations regarding combating biases of any kind here: http://en.wikipedia.org...

in short, these accusations are uncalled for from my opponent (His accusation against me is a sort of ad hom) . I only utilized them to give the audience a brief overview of the expert opinion on the MW issue, instead of citing all the studies. The studies in the link given, ARE peer-reviewed, and show the statistic trends of the policy.

Finally, he simply claims that meta-analysis does not show the general economic experts' consensus, but it does show the general trend of economic observation: that MW actually correlated with increases in jobs, he completely drops this with a straw-man statement; not all economists study the MW issue ergo might not be their ideas, but it shows those who have worked on it conclude it is good.

Theories

I will quickly refute:

  1. Statistics in economics is essential because economics is in fact a social science. Meaning that we need clear, objective facts free from human delusion, that’s where stats come in

  2. my opponent claims that observation in the real world is important, I agree but those experiences are open to flaws due to memory lapses, selection bias, confirmation bias, sample bias, etc and thus we need stats. Claiming we do not is wreckless.

  3. Austrians being able to “predict” a recession actually furthers my point: it means their ideas are simply unfalsifiable and thus weak. It's not that they're right, but rather that they can never be proven wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org...

  4. Finally, Austrians REJECT statistics in economics (econometrics) any claim contrary is simply untrue: http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent himself even admits this by arguing for experiences over statistics.

In short: stick to mainstream otherwise my opponent must justify Austrian.

Fallacy of the Broken Window

  1. this is not an actual fallacy, but rather a parable. A fallacy implies that there is something wrong with my syllogism, when there isn't.

  2. Results of a broken window only occur depending on the position of the victim: consider that the victim does not have excess funds, then nothing happens OR my opponent is correct, but if it is happening to someone of considerable wealth, then my previous premise of consumption still stands. Same thing with MW: it helps those of considerable lower income, while those of higher incomes have no impact/lose a little money but the economy still consumes more. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thought Experiments:

My opponent never actually answered my question: why doesn't firms simply give internships to everyone if MW kills jobs? (My opponent dropped this in the previous rounds)

I also have another question for my opponent: if the MW were abolished today, how many jobs would be created, and how much money would the state save?

I ask because studies have shown that in fact raising it can be good for the economy, for instance in the Card and Kruger studies, when comparing two states that are the same with exception to the economic output, MW increases correlated with 0.5%-0.8% increases in employment. It doesn't sound like a lot, but if we have a state with 500 employed workers, 500 + 0.5% = 525 jobs total. http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...

Again, why such a small increase? Those working for MW jobs only account for 6% of the workforce in the economy (as noted earlier). They continued to later compare it to the federal level, to California, and again New Jersey to which all found the same; no unemployment impacts. The same thing happened by Berkeley University who used bigger data-sets than C&K no unemployment impacts. http://www.irle.berkeley.edu...

Labour Force Participation

The source he uses claiming that unemployment drops admits in it's critique the following: “The analysis presented here omits several important elements of actual labor markets”

This source admits it is in fact unreliable. I cited from the OECD showing that women's unemployment only goes up due to more participation and not because of MW per se. The same can be presumably for kids in the workforce as well. None of my opponents studies actually address this issue, and as such their studies fail to take into account this spurious variable.

Gini Coefficient and Income Inequality

I actually did show that income inequality is unwanted. It lowers social cohesion, increases crime and homicide rates, lowers civic participation, and erodes lower class worker's health. http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent cites a CBO study, in it it also states the following: “ As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger” This report also admits that it is unreliable, thus we need a report that is in fact more reliable. Enter the Pew Research Centre. What it concluded was that 21 million workers would get a raise, while other jobs that are lower income would also have to get paid more as well. If you and I work in retail, and I being a manager make 11 dollars an hour, while you use to make 7, if we raise it to 10, I'll have to be paid more, because my duties require more pay.

http://www.pewresearch.org...

Consider that a person making 7.25, the only way they make it above the poverty line is to work full time. But most do not, even my opponent admits this, as such even if they only work 30 hours a week, this means they bring in a yearly income of 11,130, whereas for one person it's 11,670. This is unacceptable and raising MW would correct this issue. Nearly two-thirds of last year’s minimum wage employees in the U.S. worked part-time. Of which half were younger than 25 and 62 percent were women. Minorities get a pay raise (confirmed between the two sources and bureau of stats), and MW workers make more than the poverty line.

http://aspe.hhs.gov...

http://www.wbur.org...

Finally, my opponent does not deny that the Gini Coefficent rating along with the Atkins index and standard deviation logarithems improve income mobility over other divices.

Thanks, over to my opponent.

Debate Round No. 3
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank TheHitchslap for this wonderful debate.

Quick Structure Note

My opponent was supposed to refute my original arguments from round 2 instead of defending his original arguments, which was supposed to be for this round. This round, I am going to expand on my opponent's objections to my unemployment arguments and cover as many of pro's defenses as I can in the space that I have.

Voters, please do not penalize con, but I would appreciate it if he would not respond to my unemployment arguments in the next round. He is free, of course, to counter any of the claims I make against his arguments, however.

Burden of Proof

I think my opponent misunderstood me here. I did not mean that if I prove that the minimum wage has, at best, a net-zero effect only on employment did I meet my BoP. My point was that if I proved that the minimum wage is a net-zero or lower altogether policy should it be eliminated. There is no reason for a policy that does absolutely no good (on balance) to be enacted. Even so, I'm attempting to prove that the minimum wage is a net-loss policy anyways.

Economic Theories

I am going to cover this first as this part is going to be important when I get into discussing sources, specifically the validity of the Austrian economic view. My opponent has exclusively attacked the Austrian view, without even touching on the Chicago view, so that makes my statistics, at least, valid. I wanted to present a two-pronged approach in my argument, thus covering both methods.

Conforming data to economic theories is very hard. "Contextualizing data often leads to error... The imperfect lens of economic theory is less than an ideal way to view the world. Thus, the output of those who see the world this way is similarly imperfect — and as we have seen, occasionally fatally so."[1]

A combination of economic theory and data produce economic models. Models are notorious for producing wildly incorrect values. This is because of the butterfly effect, a part of chaos theory. "In 1961, Lorenz was using a numerical computer model to rerun a weather prediction, when, as a shortcut on a number in the sequence, he entered the decimal .506 instead of entering the full .506127 the computer would hold. The result was a completely different weather scenario."[2]

Part of the two different results can be illustrated here. Note the very large divergence as time went on for such a small deviation:



This is the inherent problem in modelling, especially in something with so many complex variables like economics. Statistics and models are definitely not an exact science in economics.

Further, conforms to Popper's social science theories well. "The second way that Popper supported the Austrians was in his advocacy of situational analysis and the rationality principle for the explanation of events in the social sciences. This is practically identical to the Austrian approach, by way of praxiology, the logic of human action, with the basic principle that human beings act purposefully. Popper followed the Austrians in other ways, in methodological individualism, in the theory that most institutions arise as the unintended consequences of actions, in the uncertainty of knowledge."[3]

Sources

My opponent misses my point. I never said that all think tank articles are unbiased and should be cited in a debate. I said that some think tank articles are reliable and should be cited. My opponent has yet to prove that every article from a think tank should be discarded as evidence by the voters. For example, I would say that this article (or book, I should say) from the von Mises institute is pretty reliable: http://mises.org.... Some material is peer-reviewed, and not exclusively by Austrians, in the articles.

As for Wiki, I do not have the space to belabour the point as much as I'd like. But, for example, their global warming article shows clear bias: http://en.wikipedia.org.... And Wiki articles often aren't peer-reviewed or written by knowledgeable people either, so a lot of my opponent's sources fall into the same problems he points out.

Finally, he claims I straw manned his "meta-analysis" argument. Sure, he cited one meta-analysis and countered one study, but by no means does this make a strong argument. For one thing, the Card-Krueger study was faulty. They used incorrect data collection methods, using telephone calls instead of payroll data. In fact, in a revision of the study using better data collection results, unemployment was found to increase unemployment. "... there was a significant job loss stemming from New Jersey's decision to increase the minimum wage in 1992."[4]

At this point, this debate is turning into almost a source war. This is why logical arguments are sometimes good. Statistics can rarely come to a consensus.

Broken Window Fallacy

My opponent makes an interesting point here. However, while he does consider some negative effects, he doesn't consider all of them. He assumes that all the rich spend is towards themselves. While that in itself helps the economy, they don't just consume. They also invest and put in capital into the economy, which is used to expand the economy and make jobs. A minimum wage takes some of this potential away.

In the end, "And if we were to take into consideration what is not seen, because it is a negative factor, as well as what is seen, because it is a positive factor, we should understand that there is no benefit to industry in general or to national employment as a whole, whether windows are broken or not broken."[5]

Thought Experiments

Why don't firms simply give internships to everyone if MW kills jobs? Because the minimum wage doesn't allow for that either. "Condi Nast recently shut down its legendary internship program in the wake of a class-action lawsuit by two former interns who claim that the publishing giant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by paying less than minimum wage." These are one of the first positions to go in a minimum wage increase.[6]

If the MW were abolished today, how many jobs would be created, and how much money would the state save? The minimum wage would make all contracts worth less than it illegal. "Even a low-wage job in most cases beats no job and no wages... Repealing the minimum wage can create permanent increases in employment and wealth." Eliminating the minimum wage would allow for more voluntary economic interaction.[7]

Labour Force Participation

Yes, the study I cited did report some uncertainty, but it is still a very viable possibility. Regardless, there is more material.

"After controlling for the effects of the business cycle, per capita income, adult wage rates, and the number of teens affected by a minimum wage hike, Dr. Wessels finds that these minimum wage hikes reduced teenage labor force participation rates. These declines were statistically significant for teenagers overall, and also for whites, males, and females considered separately. Specifically, his research shows the 1978-1981 hikes reduced labor force participation by 6.85 percent (3.615 percentage points), the 1990-1991 hikes, by 4.09 percent (2.07 percentage points), and the 1996-1997 hikes, by 2.78 percent (1.31 percentage points)."[8]

Gini Coefficient and Income Inequality

But what my opponent has not proved is that, assuming the minimum wage corrects some income inequality, that it would be a net benefit at that level. Then, my opponent questions my CBO study, which says that effects could be smaller or larger, and assumes they would be smaller. We can't assume that without more evidence.

Further, my opponent doesn't respond well to my argument that few people who earn the minimum wage are in poverty: "As the table indicates, only 11 percent of adults living below the poverty line worked full-time year-round, and more than three-fifths did not work at all.""The average family income for all minimum wage workers is $45,200 and their wages account for 35 percent of their total family income." The minimum wage seems like a very ineffective way to raise the standard of living.[9][10]

Unemployment Studies

My opponent has never made much of a refutation to this point, but I will present a reliable study. "Controlling for economic performance and other unmeasured state employment trends, Sabia finds that each 10 percent increase in a state's minimum wage decreased employment for the group by 3.6 percent. And because these employment losses were not accompanied by an increase in school enrollment, they suggest that job loss caused by wage hikes is not offset by long-term productivity gains."[11]

Here is a chart descriptively showing the whole situation:



The negative employment caused by the minimum wage always outweighs the positive employment and poverty effects of the minimum wage (please don't count the text).

Conclusion

The minimum wage does nothing good that it doesn't cause bad. And, in the real world, the bad outweighs the good. The minimum wage is a bad policy altogether, at any level, due to the prohibitions on interactions and effectual levels, and should be eliminated.

Sources

[1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2]: http://www.princeton.edu...
[3]: http://www.the-rathouse.com...
[4]: http://epionline.org...
[5]: http://www.econlib.org...
[6]: http://nypost.com...
[7]: http://www.forbes.com...
[8]: http://www.epionline.org...
[9]: http://www.heritage.org...
[10]: http://www.heritage.org...
[11]: http://epionline.org...
TheHitchslap

Con

Thanks to my opponent for an enjoyable debate.

BOP
My opponent concedes his considerable BOP. Thank you!

Economic Theories

I touched on Austrian economics in particular because it is pseudo-science in this case. I do not reject the classical part of my opponents case, which I refuted elsewhere. That does not mean his statistics are valid: how is it possible that my opponent rejects stats and suddenly uses them at his convenience? This is a flaw in logic. Either his and my stats are legit, or they're both not.

My opponent goes off on a straw man talking about chaos theory. I understand that the model and stats are not an exact science, all I wanted was for the mainstream theories to be utilized, and I have yet to see a case in which my opponent refuted my original premise here. Thus, my opponent concedes to the fact that Austrian economics is a pseudo-science.

Sources

I don't have to prove all think-tanks are biased because that is not what I claimed. I simply claimed the tanks he uses were. The research is designed to see what it wants to see (Austrian economics) not what we actually observe in the economy, which is why I took issue with his sources. His studies he uses are not reliable and anyone can open one up. In fact I showed how easy it was with my Ron Paul example.

As for Wiki, ....global warming? Really? I already showed it has a service to correct its self, and that I was only using it because it had more than one source in it. PS, majority of climatologists agree that global warming is in fact real .. so no, wiki isn't showing a bias, it's showing the truth to be brutally blunt.
[http://www.usnews.com...]

I only asked for a Meta-analysis with a t-score of 95%, to which my opponent has yet to produce. Which is why I believe my Meta-analysis stands (see round 2), it shows that it is statistically significant, and that other publications failed to be representative of the economy.

And in this case, my opponent is simply moving the goal posts on me. He rejects my Meta-analysis and demands more, but I don't have to give more, I already have shown a general consensus on the issue. It was his turn, to which he never sent one back showing the opposite.

Finally, in this round audience I would like to note, on his criticism against C&K studies he cites the Employment Policies Institute, a well known conservative think tank openly bias about free-markets, and crushing the minimum wage. They're actually paid off by restaurants to peddle this information to make it look crippling to restaurants when in fact it is not. Although I hate MSNBC (biased true) they did do a nice peace on how bad that think tank is (see video for additional info)
https://www.youtube.com...

And while they did use telephone data, there is no difference getting numbers over the phone, over talking in person. In fact his papers critique claims "they didn't look at payroll records", however that doesn't indicate if MW caused a job loss. What if an employee was simply fired? Payroll records' numbers would not be able to differentiate those terminated for silliness versus those terminated due to minimum wage increases. Finally, how many restaurants did that paper call? Mine called 410 restaurants, and did it in 2 "waves" to confirm the data on random dates with the same places. They were the same [http://davidcard.berkeley.edu... pg 774-775]. In short, there was nothing wrong with the study. The critique is simply misleading.

Broken Window Fallacy

First of all my opponent never challenged the fact that only 6% of the workforce makes MW wages. Thus claiming hiking the wages will harm the rich is simply wrong, not a lot of people make MW in the first place, so this harm would be very small and it comes from businesses not the wealthy's salaries.

Second of all, they might invest, but they also simply save like crazy. That money being saved is "dead" money. It does nothing but accumulate interest. If you have everything you want, why are you going to needlessly spend your money? MW does not take this potential away because the number of people on MW is so small, and because it hits businesses not wealthy individuals.

Finally, let's suppose someone who isn't rich, in the worst case scenario (to illustrate the absurdity of the broken window) MW forces redistribution. Say my opponent makes 300k a year. The government steps in and takes away 2/3rds of it, and distributes it to all the poor. My opponent might not like losing his money, but he still has 100k/year to live on. A pretty good living. Whereas the poor would have a better quality of life, the rich continue theirs. This whole thing is absurd, and again in economics the window only works based on the position of the individual relative to the economic situation he is in. The poor now have the potential to spend, the rich simply save. Which is what my opponent is overlooking.

Thought experiment. Say a loaf of bread was 1$. Would a rich man buying a Ferrari for 1 million make more economic activity than 1 million people buying a loaf of bread? My opponent wants you to believe with the window fallacy this is true, but it simply isn't when we make the analogy more pragmatic. Clearly the one million people make more economic activity. Potential unused by the wealthy is given to the poor to utilize, which is what the broken window cannot account for.

Thought Experiments

The MW does in fact allow for internships. " The National Association of Colleges and Employers found that 55 percent of the class of 2012 had an internship or co-op during their time in college. Almost half of those — 47 percent — were unpaid." -- http://www.washingtonpost.com... while some are illegal, NOT ALL are illegal. They still continue today.

My opponent never answered my question. A signal of a won debate. He simply cannot tell us how many jobs would be created because he does not know. However, I provided proof that increasing MW causes about .5-.8% increase in jobs. In short, if we abolish the MW, and not know how many jobs will be made we undermine minorities and women, while implementing a reckless policy. At least increasing MW we know will create jobs, so why get rid of it?

Labour Force Participation

My opponent concedes his study is flawed. Labour Force Participation does increase with increases in MW according to the OECD.

Unemployment Effects

Because of the structure of the debate, and my opponent was nice enough to ask, I will not refute.

I shall however direct to the previous rounds (t-score statements) for those interested. Look for statistical significance, as I had mentioned for reliable studies. If it does not have one, be sceptical. And my thought experiments too.

Conclusion

MW does not kill jobs. Only 6% of the workforce actually makes MW. My opponent never challenges this, nor does he challenge that losing it would undermine minorities and women.

I showed that MW increase employment, income mobility, and reduces other issues within society. Now perhaps you think it might be lower, that might be fair, or perhaps you think it might be higher, sure. But my opponent has massive BOP to abolishing the MW entirely, and I do not think he met it satisfactorily do you? We still have no idea how many jobs would be created under his plan. But we do with mine.

Audience, I ask that you consider giving me:

sources (as noted earlier)
arguments (we have no idea how many jobs he creates)
and finally, conduct (previous rounds)

Thank you for the lovely debate. So long! I wish my opponent the best of luck in his future!!
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
I almost can't believe someone would forward this claim,

"It is very well argued that, 'The rich earn higher incomes because they contribute more to society than others do.' "

Apparently this person has never heard of Bernie Madoff. He was a real contributor to society after all. What humbug!
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
I almost can't believe someone would forward this claim,

"It is very well argued that, 'The rich earn higher incomes because they contribute more to society than others do.' "

Apparently this person has never heard of Bernie Madoff. He was a real contributor to society after all. What humbug!
Posted by Raistlin 2 years ago
Raistlin
Con, I love that you tried to incorporate your stats knowledge in the debate. However, I think you got p value and t score confused. A t score can range from minus to plus infinity, whilst a p value can range from zero to one, or one hundred percent. You can't measure a t score in percentage points, but you can measure a p value in percentage points. By integrating the t distribution, you get the p value, which is what you're really looking for. I knew what you meant though.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com...
Posted by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
I am certain that Wycek and WilliamofOckham are Subutai.
Posted by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
You too. To be blunt, I can't wait for the one-point-per voter based mostly on arguments system to come out, which would have made half of the votes in this debate invalid, and the other half less "devastating". Congratulations on winning the tournament.
Posted by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
Thank you to everyone who looked at this debate. Good-luck to my opponent on his future endeavors
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
This debate was a coin flip and came down a 2-point difference while I nearly awarded 3-points to Pro at the last second as I rushed to enter my vote. Good job Pro, I honestly believe you won the debate but merely (slightly) lost the voting.
Posted by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
I actually like Wycek's source data. I counted 16 reliable, relevant sources from pro to con's 8, but that's still double. I was swayed too much by the prior votes to actually look into the debate.
Posted by Wycek 3 years ago
Wycek
I gave conduct to con because he asked for conduct for no apparent reason. This may seem a little harsh, and I'm new to voting, so if this is too harsh, please tell me. I just feel that randomly asking for points with no justification is bad conduct, especially when pro asked the voters to not penalize his structure mistake. Also, if I got to my decision on sources incorrectly as well, please tell me this as well.
Posted by Wycek 3 years ago
Wycek
Sources:

I will judge sources on three counts - quantity, quality, and relevance.

Quantity - Throughout the entire debate (possibly counting repeats), pro had 38 sources, while con had 26 sources. Pro wins the quality point easily by a margin of 12.

Quality - Counting Wikipedia, and counting all of the sources argued against, pro had 29 reliable sources, while con had 20 reliable sources. However, not counting Wikipedia, pro had 25 reliable sources, while con had only 10 reliable sources. Finally, counting sources I have deemed unreliable (blogs, sites with a lot predetermined bias), pro had 19 reliable sources, while con only had 10.

Relevance - I counted these as being relevant to the debate specifically (i.e. the logical fallacy and chaos theory sites are not counted), and here, pro had 18 relevant sources, while con only had 7.

Conclusion: Pro had 11 more reliable, relevant sources than con did. Another way to think about this is pro had over 2 and a half times as many reliable, relevant sources as con did. Overall, pro gets these points as well.

Disclaimer: I may have added a things wrong, and my definition of reliable may be subjective, but pro shows an almost unmistakeable trend here of having more, reliable, relevant sources. Pro also showed a greater diversity of opinion than con did.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
SubutaiTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's sources were greatly in quality and quantity as they greatly supported his argument, he was incredibly close to eliminating all favorability against the minimum wage, but was unable to meet BoP so I cannot award arguments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
SubutaiTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll have to do something I have rarely done on this site and abstain from an arguments vote. Every time I run through it in my head, I have trouble discerning when I've elevated something for bias towards my opinion versus when I've made that choice based off of what was presented. I found that there were a lot of close aspects of the debate, and I have a hard time distinguishing a winner based off of what I've seen. It would mainly depend on how much the Chicago School factors into Pro's studies, and on how many of those use t-scores. I don't get the specifics of either of these, so I'm left to discern them for myself, and I'd rather not make assumptions given my bias on the issue. So instead, I'm just doing sources. Con gives me the most analysis on this point, and much as Pro's argumentation comes from a very logical and reasonable point of view, I don't think he does enough to defend his sources and their viability by comparison.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
SubutaiTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Please see RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
SubutaiTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very well argued debate on both sides, however, I feel that PRO was unable to show that abolition of the minimum wage would benefit anyone other than a very small percentage of the population. In contrast, CON showed that the minimum wage benefits 6% of the population that receive it, the economy as a whole by increasing consumption, and the nation as a whole by reducing those in need of welfare. Sources to CON because, although fewer in number, CON's sources more directly tied to his arguments. No points awarded for conduct or S&G.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
SubutaiTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Pro due to the fact that Con failed to refute his arguments - I found that Pro, in general, provided better proofs and that, in contrast, Con dropped a lot of arguments. RSes go to Pro, as he used both more sources and more reliable sources. Conduct and S&G are even.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
SubutaiTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that the arguments were incredibly close, but I did think Con was better able to provide an in-depth analysis and defense of his sources throughout this debate. Sources to Con.
Vote Placed by Wycek 3 years ago
Wycek
SubutaiTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: The amount of character is too short for me to write all of my reasons in, so please see the comments. Very good debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
SubutaiTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO opens with unsubstantiated and factually inaccurate claims which causally link the minimum wage to increased unemployment, inflation and price increases as reasons to eliminate the minimum wage. CON counters by arguing that the minimum wage increases consumption, which improves the economy overall. CON rebuts PRO's unemployment point by finding an alternative cause for PRO's harm. CON's critique of PRO's economic theory was devastating -which PRO could not rebuild from in the subsequent round. PRO accuses CON of a broken window fallacy, and digs his intellectual heels into the Austrian school to little avail. PRO fails to actually reconstruct his case in the third round, which CON capitalizes on by reasserting his metrics of improvement and interpreting the minimum wage's impact through them. PRO failed to prove why the minimum wage should be eliminated, whereas CON showed that it not only should not be eliminated, but actually does some good things. Sources to CON, as well.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
SubutaiTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good debate here. I can see two arguments: unemployment and prices. BoP became something to argue about. I feel for later debate that burdens if proof need to be more specific so as not the cause this problem in the future. I feel no one won that argument. Pro seemed to hold more studies on his side which helped him in sources arguments as well as the debate as a whole. However, I will not give sources because while Pro had a great wealth of quality and quantity that does not mean Con did not, I just saw less from Con. Pro also used a strong amount of statistical data. Overall, I think that Pro's arguments on unemployment and prices were very strong and he defended his case well. The economic theories, sources, and other arguments did not seem as important. Economic theories should not be simply dismissed because they are not popular.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
SubutaiTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this was a slight win for Con and I do mean slight win. This was a great debate though. This was a shared BOP so I semi based this on the preponderance of evidence that was presented. Con was able to lay out a lot of points as to why minimum wage is beneficial. Some of theses were either dropped, conceded and were responded to by Pro. I think a lot of these points and contentions each debater brought up negated each other. Especially the Gini coefficient argument, which I felt was an utter stand still. In the end is was hard to for me to weigh this one way or the other. I felt as if Con had a compelling case for the increase in jobs, but not enough to award arguments due to some of pros refutations but one thing I am almost entirely certain on is that Con had the advantage on the statistical analysis in this debate. Con was able to defend a few his sources in depth while calling out some of pros sources as being faulty. This was very close and a great debate