The Instigator
Athias
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2019 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,989 times Debate No: 120492
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (109)
Votes (0)

 

Athias

Pro

1. First Round: Acceptance.
2. Second Round: Opening Arguments.
3. Third Round: Rebuttals.
4. Fourth Round: Rejoinders.
5. Fifth Round: Closing Arguments.
WrickItRalph

Con

I accept. I will be attempting to refute your proofs for your claim.
Debate Round No. 1
Athias

Pro

Unemployment: the state of being without a paid job, But being both available to work and of working age. I will stipulate that for this debate, Voluntary unemployment--choosing not to work--will be left out of any description of unemployment.

Opening Argument:

The minimum wage is a statutory edict which sets a designated price floor in the market for labor. That is, It sets a minimum amount payable to employees by employers. It should be noted that the minimum wage does not ensure employment. It requires only that employees hired be paid, At minimum, At that price floor. Of course, Discretion is still left with hiring. But what about those employees whose skill and labor when gauged don't match the minimum wage? More to the point, If we are sure that there's labor and skills that when gauged are worth far more than the minimum (i. E. Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Etc. ) then is it worth considering that there are labor and skills when gauged are worth far below the minimum?

How Are Wages Determined?

The theory of marginal productivity delineates that the wage is determined by the the supply and demand for labor upon one's marginal productivity, Particularly Marginal Revenue Product--revenue earned from selling a product. Firms determine the amount of labor they employ using the concept of the Law of Diminishing Marginal Productivity, Which describes a point of maximum output for a given input. So for example, And I'll use an example which was taught to me: let's say that I'm a professor in a college class, And I need help erasing an entire board. Now if I ask two students for help with this task, We can get that board erased in much less than time than had I done it myself. Now let's say I ask a total of four students to help me. That in theory would help perform the task quicker. And I would have four erasers, So it would work out well. Now what if I were to ask 10 of my students? 20 of them? This time, Not only do we have a space issue--assuming a standard sized black/green/white board for a standard sized class--but we also lack tools necessary since I have only four erasers. Now I can acquire more erasers, But that will cost me money, Or time I've could've spent erasing the board.

So the point is essentially this: at a certain point, You can enlist too much labor, So it's up to productivity managers to determine the amount of labor necessary to perform a task efficiently, As well as the output generated by each worker. This determines the wage. (There are other factors of course, But for simplicity's sake, I submit this rendition. ) So if one is paid for example, $10 per hour, That means that his or her labor/output/product generates commerce at $10 per hour. So as a thought experiment, Think as to why an NBA superstar gets paid over $200 million a year and a teacher doesn't? Because the NBA player generates commerce (ticket sales, Commercials, Merchandise, Supplementary products--food, Drinks, Etc. ) at a rate of $200 million per year (maybe more? )

How the Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment?

Because the minimum wage is a price-floor it creates a distortion between the supply for labor and the demand for labor. Naturally a minimum wage will appeal more to the supply side of labor rather than the demand for it. That is, At the minimum wage there's more supply in labor than there is demand for it. So if a person has a marginal productivity at $7 per hour rate (i. E. The commerce generated by a person's output amounts to $7 per hour) but policy requires that person be paid $15 dollars, Then the employer is incurring a surplus cost of $8. Would that increase or decrease the demand for labor? Law of demand would suggest that it would decrease since price and quantity demanded have an inverse relationship. To address this prospect in increased costs, The employer will demand less labor or reduce his current labor (underemployment--reduction in hours--or disemployment--fire employees. ) And as I mentioned above, The minimum wage does not ensure employment. So what does the minimum wage in effect do? The minimum wage makes illegal the employment of those whose marginal productivity falls below the price floor--labor which would be typically be found in low-skilled or unskilled work (e. G. Cashiers, Cleaners, Maids, Etc. ) Now, Some may take issue at a person making less than $15 per hour. Let me ask: what issue does one take at a person making nothing?

I'll illustrate my point using another example: let's say I'm a club owner, And the state imposes a policy where those under the age of 25 can no longer frequent clubs. Does this mean that there are going to be more of these people above the age of 25 who will frequent my club? (Maybe my club isn't that popular among that age group? ) Or does it in effect make it illegal to allow those under the age of 25 in my club? If the concern in my community is that "not enough people are going to clubs" then why are we segmenting portions of club-going and making it illegal? It's the same with unemployment. If the government wishes not to create unemployment, Then why is it prohibiting forms of employment?

Here's a model which explains the conceptual effect of the minimum wage on supply and demand in the labor market:

(I will place the link in the comments section since debate. Org won't let me post the link. )

But what about the research which states that increasing the minimum wage doesn't worsen unemployment?

It's true that some research argues that marginal increases in the minimum wage has presented no substantial worsening effect on unemployment. Some studies go as far as to allege that the minimum wage has reduced unemployment. But this research does not address the fact the minimum wage creates unemployment, Only whether it's made worse. So using my analogy above, It would be akin to raising the age limit from 25 to 25 and 6 months, And seeing no substantial effect on those who don't frequent my club since the last policy. Remember that the minimum wage still makes it illegal to employ workers at its designated price floor. It's essentially placing a tax on the consumption of labor. And we see this in government policy many a time (e. G. Tax on cigarettes. ) The government has expressed policy which aligns with a downward sloping demand curve (inverse relationship between price and quantity demand) and provides tax as a disincentive. Would the logic as it's expressed in effect not be the same when taxing the consumption of labor (i. E. Imposing a minimum wage? )

I now give the floor to my opponent.
WrickItRalph

Con

Sorry for the wait guys, I"m overflowing with due arguments and I just carved them all out. Let's do this.

I have provided a link below containing scatterplots for minimum wage and unemployment. The site makes a few quick observations that can be plainly seen in the scatterplots. It shows that there is no notable correlation between minimum wage and unemployment rates. There is a slight correlation, But it as noted that this is not sufficient. There is also a point on the scatterplot that shows that some of the lowest employment rates happened at the same time as some of the highest minimum wages. No on to my practical arguments.


First of all. Let me remind everyone that labor unions fought very hard for a minimum wage. If we were to remove it and find out it was a bad idea, We might be stuck with a bad economy for a decade or more. This is not a light decision. So I posit that there needs to be sufficient benefit demonstrated to even consider such an action. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So the minimum wage is different everywhere, But I think that $8/hr can serve a working estimate for the purposes of my points. So my opponent says that this eight dollar limit is hurting employment. Let me show why this is false with some math. So depending on where you live, You have to pay a certain amount of rent, Utilities, Food cost, Gas, And other misc. Items. I will use the midwest as a model since I live here and all the numbers will be fairly matched to each other. I don't want to use, Say, New yorks numbers because they're cost of living is much higher. So where I live, The average rent is between 400-500 dollars. If one is single, They could grind really hard and find an efficiency with all utilities included for about 300-350 dollars. Lets look at single people first and then we'll move on to families. A single person who works for $8/hr 40 hours a week will make $320 aweek gross. Once we take about about 20% for taxes. This wold be about $254 a week. So over the course of a 4 week month, A person averages about $1000 per month. So I'll use the modest rent estimate of 300 and this brings our single person down to $700 for the month. I have a source in the bottom denoting the average cost of food in america. There are some variables here, But the average cost per year per person is about 2, 600 dollars for the year. We devide this by 12 or the months and we get about $215 a month on food. Subtract this from our $700 and we get $485 dollars. Now we have to take out gas money to drive to work. That's roughly $100 dollars a month assuming you drive to places other than work. So now we're at 385. Now onto utility bills. Electric bills and gas bills can vary, But assuming you're not being wasteful. it'll be about $200 per month for both. We'll assume that the landlord doesn't charge them for the water bill cause that's how they do it in the area I'm using. So now we have $185. the bills are paid and we have a tiny bit of money to live off for the month. If any emergency pops up. We're screwed. But it's enough for us to start saving and building an emergency fund. So by looking at this, We can see that the minimum wage is the lowest possible employment contract that a person could honestly take. To even offer a lower contract would be unethical, Because people who lose their jobs get pressured by bills and their peers to find a job quick. People accept bad employment contracts all the time illegally. The problem with it is that people's time has a value, And if the pay doesn't match this value, Then the person is now stuck in a bad situation. This means that any business that cannot afford to pay the minimum wage is having a negative effect on the economy and we should not help them caue damage. Furthermore. There are programs that allow businesses to get tax breaks for employing disabled people or other disenfranchised groups. This means that the companies that have trouble with the minimum wage can employ these people instead and not only are they covering the cost, But they're helping disenfranchised groups.

Onto families. So this one is more difficult because we're getting into supporting kids and public assitance. But I'l just put it like this. The cost of living per person goes up because there are heads in the house that can't work. Bills become higher and the rent becomes high because you need a bigger house now. If both parents work. It ends up with similar results to my earlier model but with the parents having slightly more money at the end of the month. However, Having kids means that the emergency fund is more important because emergency expenses will arrise more often. This is ONLY possible because of public assistance. Public assistance provides substantially more benefits to houses with children. Single people can usually only get a very small amount of food stamps. As low as $50/month sometimes. So if we took away minimum wage, We would just be passing the buck to the government and by extention, The tax payers.

Also, Even though there is a minimum wage, There are always job available. Unemployment has restrictions due to degree requirements and drug testing. These jobs pay far above minimum wage so they're not germane to the topic. When it comes to minimum wage jobs, A lot of them are held by students or as a temporary job, So there are always positions available.

I urge your to provide me with a source that shows a DIRECT correlation to unemployment and minimum wages. I need both data and practical implication of the data in your own words to accept this.

I want you to provide sufficient evidence that a $0/hr wage is anything other than a non sequitur. Jobs are always available and people couldn't even take a $1/hr job if they wanted to because the cost of living would make them homeless and unable to work. If they live with their parents. Then I posit that the time they spend working would be a waste and they could easily be more useful spending their time helping their parents in other ways like babysitting other children for instance, Which saves the parents hundreds of dollars in labor per month.

your floor



https://www. Valuepenguin. Com/how-much-we-spend-food



https://onlinebusiness. Syr. Edu/blog/unemployment-minimum-wage/

Debate Round No. 2
Athias

Pro

Rebuttal

"I have provided a link below containing scatterplots for minimum wage and unemployment. The site makes a few quick observations that can be plainly seen in the scatterplots. It shows that there is no notable correlation between minimum wage and unemployment rates. There is a slight correlation, But it as noted that this is not sufficient. There is also a point on the scatterplot that shows that some of the lowest employment rates happened at the same time as some of the highest minimum wages. No on to my practical arguments. "

I will address the integrity of this data later.

"First of all. Let me remind everyone that labor unions fought very hard for a minimum wage. If we were to remove it and find out it was a bad idea, "

This is irrelevant.

"We might be stuck with a bad economy for a decade or more. "

You are speculating this; you can't substantiate this.

"So the minimum wage is different everywhere, But I think that $8/hr can serve a working estimate for the purposes of my points. So my opponent says that this eight dollar limit is hurting employment. "

That is not my argument. I specifically stated "The Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment. " The $8 does not matter. It could be $7, $6, Or $5. As long as the price floor is imposed and set above equilibrium, It will create unemployment.

"So the minimum wage is different everywhere, But I think that $8/hr can serve a working estimate for the purposes of my points. So my opponent says that this eight dollar limit is hurting employment. Let me show why this is false with some math. So depending on where you live, You have to pay a certain amount of rent, Utilities, Food cost, Gas, And other misc. Items. I will use the midwest as a model since I live here and all the numbers will be fairly matched to each other. I don't want to use, Say, New yorks numbers because they're cost of living is much higher. So where I live, The average rent is between 400-500 dollars. If one is single, They could grind really hard and find an efficiency with all utilities included for about 300-350 dollars. Lets look at single people first and then we'll move on to families. A single person who works for $8/hr 40 hours a week will make $320 aweek gross. Once we take about about 20% for taxes. This wold be about $254 a week. So over the course of a 4 week month, A person averages about $1000 per month. So I'll use the modest rent estimate of 300 and this brings our single person down to $700 for the month. I have a source in the bottom denoting the average cost of food in america. There are some variables here, But the average cost per year per person is about 2, 600 dollars for the year. We devide this by 12 or the months and we get about $215 a month on food. Subtract this from our $700 and we get $485 dollars. Now we have to take out gas money to drive to work. That's roughly $100 dollars a month assuming you drive to places other than work. So now we're at 385. Now onto utility bills. Electric bills and gas bills can vary, But assuming you're not being wasteful. It'll be about $200 per month for both. We'll assume that the landlord doesn't charge them for the water bill cause that's how they do it in the area I'm using. So now we have $185. The bills are paid and we have a tiny bit of money to live off for the month. If any emergency pops up. We're screwed. But it's enough for us to start saving and building an emergency fund. So by looking at this, We can see that the minimum wage is the lowest possible employment contract that a person could honestly take. To even offer a lower contract would be unethical, Because people who lose their jobs get pressured by bills and their peers to find a job quick. People accept bad employment contracts all the time illegally. The problem with it is that people's time has a value, And if the pay doesn't match this value, Then the person is now stuck in a bad situation. This means that any business that cannot afford to pay the minimum wage is having a negative effect on the economy and we should not help them caue damage. Furthermore. There are programs that allow businesses to get tax breaks for employing disabled people or other disenfranchised groups. This means that the companies that have trouble with the minimum wage can employ these people instead and not only are they covering the cost, But they're helping disenfranchised groups. "

Irrelevant. None of this speaks to a contention that the "Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment. " At best you offered your subjective estimation of that which could happen and could be addressed with government subsidy. What in your statement provides information to the effects of the minimum wage itself which you argue proves contrary to my proposition?

"Onto families. So this one is more difficult because we're getting into supporting kids and public assitance. But I'l just put it like this. The cost of living per person goes up because there are heads in the house that can't work. Bills become higher and the rent becomes high because you need a bigger house now. If both parents work. It ends up with similar results to my earlier model but with the parents having slightly more money at the end of the month. However, Having kids means that the emergency fund is more important because emergency expenses will arrise more often. This is ONLY possible because of public assistance. Public assistance provides substantially more benefits to houses with children. Single people can usually only get a very small amount of food stamps. As low as $50/month sometimes. So if we took away minimum wage, We would just be passing the buck to the government and by extention, The tax payers. "

Once again, This is irrelevant. None of this speaks to the effect of countering or refuting my proposition. The subject of this debate is the Minimum Wage's Creating Unemployment; it's not the significance of the Minimum Wage. Provide an argument to this effect.

"I urge your to provide me with a source that shows a DIRECT correlation to unemployment and minimum wages. I need both data and practical implication of the data in your own words to accept this. "

The regulation that is minimum wage law is fact that unemployment is created. When the law imposes an $8 dollar minimum for example it is prohibiting the legal employment of those whose marginal productivity fall below the set floor. And the increases in the minimum wage are argued to be adjustments for increases in the costs of living, Not an increase in worker productivity. (If a worker's output generates more commerce than the minimum wage, Employers will pay more, Or provide more compensation in the form of benefits or promotion. )

You have conveyed no understanding of the argument. The unemployment rate isn't the subject. Unemployment is. And I made sure to define unemployment in my opening argument. And I stipulated its description. And now we go to your source:

https://onlinebusiness. Syr. Edu/blog/unemployment-minimum-wage/

This staff at syracuse hasn't shown any controls for the minimum wage. The analysis simply puts trends of the federal minimum wage and the unemployment rate side by side to see if there "appears" to be a correlation even when adjusted for inflation. Furthermore, The unemployment rate by the standards of the Bureau of Labor Statistics gauges unemployment for those out of work over at least a four week span. If they don't keep looking, They're not counted as part of the labor force.

I'm going to state this as clearly as I can: the argument over which we argue is the proposition "The Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment. " It's not "The Minimum Wage Has Benefit to Families"; it's not "The Minimum Wage Addresses the cost of living"; It's not "Do changes in the Minimum Wage Increase or Decrease the Unemployment Rate. " Provide an argument that informs and substantiates your contention with the proposition.
WrickItRalph

Con

You said "The theory of marginal productivity "

I took the liberty of looking this up. There will be a link in the bottom. In my link, They justify this theory by saying
"this is justified by an assumption that the firm is profit-maximizing" So the theory assumes that companies want to maximize their profits. This means that the price floor mentioned earlier does not destroy a business if crossed. It just lowers their profits. We cannot just assume that employers will lay people off just because their profits are down a bit. Employers need a certain minimum amount of people to keep the business running and it's always in an employers best interest to keep productivity above demand so they can expand and account for emergencies. For instance, If I'm an employer and it takes 10 people to run my business for a week and the bare minimum necessary productivity. Then my staff is irreducibly complex. That means that if anybody calls in sick or has a family emergency or gets a flat tire, Etc. My productivity will wall below my demand and I will lose both money and customer loyalty since I'm not consistently producing at the intended speed. This means that even if my profit margins fall below the floor, I'll still want to keep about 13 to 15 people to account for adverse situations. This also allows me wiggle room should demand increase.

You said "Some studies go as far as to allege that the minimum wage has reduced unemployment. But this research does not address the fact the minimum wage creates unemployment, Only whether it's made worse. "

Those are the same thing, If unemployment goes up, Then that means it's getting worse. And you're right when you said that some studies go as far as to allege that the minimum wage has reduced unemployment.

You said "This is irrelevant"

Do you have any evidence that it's irrelevant. Because you can't just say that without any evidence. I have to show my why. The whole point is to show how high the stakes are if we remove the minimum wage. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So if you want us to make this huge change that could be unethical and your only evidence for convincing us is "this is irrelevant" I'm going to say you need more extraordinary evidence than that.

You said "You are speculating this; you can't substantiate this. "

Any prediction that anyone would make is a speculation, Including your prediction that removing minimum wage will create jobs. We're in the same boat.

You said "That is not my argument"

You're right, It's my argument, Lol. Actually this is relevant because I'm proving that the employment contracts created by the removal of minimum wage will be too weak to take. So it won't create anymore jobs. The current minimum is already at "the floor" as you call it. So it's quite relevant.

You said "Irrelevant. None of this speaks to a contention that the "Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment. " At best you offered your subjective estimation of that which could happen and could be addressed with government subsidy. What in your statement provides information to the effects of the minimum wage itself which you argue proves contrary to my proposition? "

This is relevant because it shows that employers have better alternatives to laying people off. They can get tax breaks by hiring disenfranchised groups. Which gives them a higher profit margin. As for the public assistance comment. This was another point to demonstrate how high the stakes are with minimum wage. Once again, Extraordinary claims, Extraordinary evidence. If you want to raise our taxes to pay for you minimum wage removal, Then you need sufficient evidence.

You said "The regulation that is minimum wage law is fact that unemployment is created. "

So you're saying minimum wage is self evident? I'm sorry, But I need a better rebuttal than that. You can't just say that minimum wage cause unemployment and that the proof is itself. The data doesn't show anything to support your claim. So how is this self evident?

You said "You have conveyed no understanding of the argument. The unemployment rate isn't the subject"

Hey now, There's not reason to be insulting, Let's keep this civil please. The unemployment rate is germane to the topic since it is the way that we get data on the matter. I'm allowed to make points that are relevant to the subject. Especially when they give us data to help understand better.

You said "The analysis simply puts trends of the federal minimum wage and the unemployment rate side by side"

Well that's the point. Juxtaposition. They look at the trends in both to find correlations. The result found no correlations. That's honest data. It's not like they said "we found correlations for the other side" They said there was nothing there.

Your floor.

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Marginal_revenue_productivity_theory_of_wages
Debate Round No. 3
Athias

Pro

Rejoinder

"this is justified by an assumption that the firm is profit-maximizing" So the theory assumes that companies want to maximize their profits. This means that the price floor mentioned earlier does not destroy a business if crossed. "

This is clearly a non sequitur. No one has stated that the minimum "destroys a business. " Once again, The proposition over which we argue "The Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment. "

"We cannot just assume that employers will lay people off just because their profits are down a bit. "

No one assumed that employers will lay people off just because "their profits are down a bit. " That's the reason I cited the model (in my photo album) which demonstrates the concept of profit-maximization, Which considers the costs of inputs, The price, And output over the short and long term. That is, Should the imposition of the minimum wage not necessarily reflect the output generated by the employees, Then the commerce generated by the employees will be lower than the cost to employ them, Resulting in losses. Hemorrhaging money as a long term strategy results in huge losses, Usually resulting in the loss of one's business.

"Those are the same thing, If unemployment goes up, Then that means it's getting worse. And you're right when you said that some studies go as far as to allege that the minimum wage has reduced unemployment. "

Non sequitur. I did not state "Unemployment goes up" which implicitly relates quantity; My proposition states that "unemployment is created. " That is the minimum wage creates a distortion between the supply of labor and the demand for it (i. E. Surplus labor) However, Perhaps I can illustrate this point with the concept of the "Maximum Wage, " a regulation which was actually imposed (but not well enforced) by British Parliament under Queen Elizabeth I in the Statute of Artificers of 1563. Now suppose we impose a maximum wage (a price "ceiling" rather than a price "floor". ) The government passes an edict which sets a price ceiling at $8 an hour--to use your example. What does this in effect do? It makes illegal to hire those whose marginal productivity falls above the price ceiling--i. E. Those who make $8. 01 and above. Does a person incur a quarter million dollar debt, For example, In medical school just to make $8 and hour? What does this do the medical profession generally?

The effect is identical with the minimum wage, Except instead of a labor shortage, There's an excess in labor.

"Do you have any evidence that it's irrelevant. Because you can't just say that without any evidence. I have to show my why. The whole point is to show how high the stakes are if we remove the minimum wage. "

Because the subject of our debate is once again, "The Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment. " We are not arguing its removal; We are not making policy prescriptions. We are debating the aforestated proposition.

"So if you want us to make this huge change. . . "

I want only to inform, Support, And substantiate my proposition. You must inform, Support, And substantiate your contention. Making a "huge change" has nothing to do with it.

"Any prediction that anyone would make is a speculation, Including your prediction that removing minimum wage will create jobs. We're in the same boat. "

Not in the slightest. Removing the price floor would make those who are legally unemployable, Legally employable. Eliminating the minimum wage will allow prices to be adjusted freely allowing the output of those whose marginal productivity fall below the minimum to be employed at their market value. That is not conjecture.

"You're right, It's my argument, Lol. Actually this is relevant because I'm proving that the employment contracts created by the removal of minimum wage will be too weak to take. So it won't create anymore jobs. The current minimum is already at "the floor" as you call it. So it's quite relevant. "

Assuming of course a person would seek one job, Right? That is not proof. You may characterize a contract below the minimum as "weak" but how would you characterize a labor contract which can't be established at all due to government policy?

"This is relevant because it shows that employers have better alternatives to laying people off. They can get tax breaks by hiring disenfranchised groups. Which gives them a higher profit margin. "

No, It doesn't show better alternatives. Think of it this way: a tax-cut reduces Government Revenue; A reduction in government revenue in relation to its obligations increases debt. The government finances its debts by printing paper or issuing Treasury Bills (or some other form of security. ) By doing this the government increases its debt by attempting to address its debt by selling more debt. This increase in debt will be addressed with the increase in taxes. It's not really a "tax break;" it's a "temporal offset. " Short-term profits may see an increase, Long term profits will not.

"So you're saying minimum wage is self evident? I'm sorry, But I need a better rebuttal than that. You can't just say that minimum wage cause unemployment and that the proof is itself. "

No, The fact the minimum wage's creating unemployment by outlawing the employment of those whose marginal productivity fall below the minimum is self evident. The minimum wage's creating unemployment is an axiom in Economics because of the Law of Supply and Demand, which suggests that demand curves are downward sloping to reflect the inverse relationship between the quantity demand of a resource and its price and supply curves are upward sloping to reflect the direct relationship between the quantity supply of a resource and its price. So when a minimum wage is imposed it creates a surplus. There are people available to work (supply) but not enough job opportunities (demand. )

"The data doesn't show anything to support your claim. So how is this self evident? "

and. . .

"They look at the trends in both to find correlations. The result found no correlations. That's honest data. It's not like they said "we found correlations for the other side" They said there was nothing there. "

The data you cited is insufficient. Once again, It doesn't control for minimum wage. It simply analyzes the changes in the minimum wage and changes in unemployment rates, And puts them together side by side. It does not at all isolate any relation minimum wage has to unemployment. You establish a control for the analysis by attempting to establish relationships and ruling them out as factors. The data you cited does not do this at all.

It would be like my stating that firearms have as such and such effect on the overall death rate, When I fail to consider the other factors which may contribute to the overall death rate (e. G. Diabetes, Heart attack, Car accidents, Etc. ) Or the "wage gap" which has political narratives that fail to control for sexism as a cause. Furthermore, Your data does not consider the various state minimums which don't align with Federal Minimum Wage (thus I continue to point out that your data refers to the Federal minimum. ) Lastly, The proposition once again isn't about the unemployment rate which can vary from job field, State, Or country. The proposition is once again, "The Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment. " Not only does minimum wage prohibit the legal employment of those whose marginal productivity fall below the minimum, But also it creates a surplus in the labor market.

Hey now, There's not reason to be insulting, Let's keep this civil please. The unemployment rate is germane to the topic since it is the way that we get data on the matter. I'm allowed to make points that are relevant to the subject. Especially when they give us data to help understand better. "

I did not insult you. I estimated your capacity in this debate. If you take it personally, That is no fault of mine. As for the unemployment rate being the only way in which to acquire data on the matter, That is also wrong. You are allowed to make points relevant to the subject. So then make one. If you wish to cite data, Then make sure it substantiates your point rather than provide aggregate data which neither informs your argument sufficiently nor pertains to the subject matter.

[NOTE: I'm not citing empirical data for a specific reason despite the abundance of it on the topic. Unemployment rates are merely ratios of those out of work and the labor force, Which the Bureau of Labor Statistics narrowly defines as the number of the employed subtracted by the number of the Unemployed who have been looking for work for at least four weeks. It doesn't count those who don't meet that criterion. Furthermore, There's no consistent unemployment rate. It varies among localities. Finally, The Unemployment rate does not address the state of being unemployed; it only relates it to a given sample and producing a percentage. Remember I propose that "The Minimum Wage Creates Unemployment" not that it creates a particular unemployment rate. I propose this on the premise of extending legal policy of the minimum wage to its logical conclusion which is to prohibit the legal purchase of labor below the set minimum, Creating a surplus in the labor market. ]

The BLS method:
https://www. Bls. Gov/cps/cps_htgm. Htm#def
WrickItRalph

Con

You said "I'm not citing empirical data for a specific reason despite the abundance of it on the topic. "

Well that's convenient. So you want to dismiss my data outright and then tell me that you don't have to give me data? That's a double standard. To quote Christopher Hitchens "That which is presented without evidence, Can be dismissed without evidence. " I strongly suggest that you cough up your sources or everything you're saying is hypothetical.

First you say "No one has stated that the minimum "destroys a business. ""

and then you go on to say "Then the commerce generated by the employees will be lower than the cost to employ them, Resulting in losses. Hemorrhaging money as a long term strategy results in huge losses, Usually resulting in the loss of one's business. "

So first you say that it doesn't make them lose their business, Then you say that it does. You say that the businesses "hemorrhage" but I showed in my previous link that the floor only denotes a loss in profits. Profit loss doesn't necessarily cause hemorrhaging

"Non sequitur. I did not state "Unemployment goes up" which implicitly relates quantity; My proposition states that "unemployment is created"

Unemployment can only go up if unemployment is created on top of it. If a change in minimum wage denies 100 people, Assuming that your speculative model is true, Then I have both "created unemployment" and "increased the unemployment" at the same time. Pleas explain to me in detail why these two things are different? Furthermore. If your model is true, Then it should easily be spotted on scatterplots. Show me sources that show the unemployment that is "created"

" Making a "huge change" has nothing to do with it. "

Categorically false. Extraordinary claims, Extraordinary evidence. I have shown that your proposition has many inherent risks and you must have evidence that can warrant taking such risks.

"That is not conjecture. "

Until you can show a correlation between Minimum Wage and Unemployment, It is conjecture. I await your sources.

"Assuming of course a person would seek one job, Right? That is not proof. You may characterize a contract below the minimum as "weak" but how would you characterize a labor contract which can't be established at all due to government policy? "

I provided hard math that showed that the current minimum wage sits near your wage floor. I also showed that going below minimum age would make them unable to support themselves. This means they would lose their homes and wouldn't be able to show up to work because their wage can't keep up with their bills. This means that the contracts below the cost of living necessarily cannot create jobs.

"This increase in debt will be addressed with the increase in taxes"

You say that employing disenfranchised groups will weigh on the taxpayers. Incorrect. Disenfranchised groups already lean on the government in most cases and gainful employment will allow the government to reduce their benefits. It cancels itself out and the employer gets a net gain.

"No, The fact the minimum wage's creating unemployment by outlawing the employment of those whose marginal productivity fall below the minimum is self evident"

I've already shown that the employment contracts opened up are not able to be taken due to the cost of living. This is not self evident and saying something is self evident is fallacious unless you're saying something like "the sky is blue" Calling a huge economic theory self evident is categorically false.

"It simply analyzes the changes in the minimum wage and changes in unemployment rates, And puts them together side by side"

You said this last time too. Once again, That's what it's meant to do. Look for correlation. No correlation as found. There is nothing dubious about data. Do you have a problem with them looking at two things and not finding patterns? Furthermore. I provided sources and you have verbally refused to provide sources.

"I did not insult you. I estimated your capacity in this debate"

and poorly so :) that's not an insult, I'm just estimating your capacity.

"There's no consistent unemployment rate. "

well if that's the case, How can you prove your claim?

"It doesn't count those who don't meet that criterion. "

Special pleading, That's just cherry picking stats.

Here is an additional source at the bottom showing that the evidence continues to show no correlation between minimum age and unemployment. They state
"Economists cite several reasons why increases in the minimum wage, Which raise employers" cost, Generally do not cost jobs. Increased pay adds money to workers" pocketbooks and allows them to buy more goods and services, Creating higher demand, Which in turn requires hiring more workers"

So it seems that some economists thinks this is a win/win situation.

Your Floor

https://www. Businessforafairminimumwage. Org/news/00135/research-shows-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss
Debate Round No. 4
Athias

Pro

"Well that's convenient. So you want to dismiss my data outright and then tell me that you don't have to give me data? That's a double standard. "

First, It's not a double standard. The proposition does not require that you provide empirical data, Nor did I implore you to provide empirical data. (If I did, Point out where? ) Second, I did not outright dismiss your data. Your data is insufficient because it does not control for the minimum wage--it therefore cannot make any accurate assessment on the relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment or the lack thereof.

"I strongly suggest that you cough up your sources or everything you're saying is hypothetical. "

First I did cite a source. (Once again, The models are in my photo album. ) Nothing I've stated is "hypothetical. " It's deductive reasoning.

"First you say "No one has stated that the minimum "destroys a business. "

. . . [my quote]

So first you say that it doesn't make them lose their business, "


First, No one did state that the minimum wage "destroys/[lose] a business. " And I did not state it, Until I stated it. Long term effects of the price floor (minimum wage) will make it costly to employ labor at their output--particularly low-skilled and unskilled labor.

"You say that the businesses "hemorrhage" but I showed in my previous link that the floor only denotes a loss in profits. Profit loss doesn't necessarily cause hemorrhaging"

Long term profits at equilibrium in a competitive market is at zero. Any loss in profit results in a net loss. You're confusing "accounting profits, " or "normal profits" which is the surplus in deducting explicit costs from revenue with economic profit upon which the theory of marginal productivity is based denotes Total costs--implicit and explicit--and Total Revenue. Your inference not only lacks economic information, But narrowly focuses on short term perspectives.

"Unemployment can only go up if unemployment is created on top of it. "

No, This is a rather specious conclusion. And let's demonstrate that with logic: if for example, The death rate is X%. The number of homicides with the firearms increases, But the number of car accidents reduce by the same amount, Then the "death rate" will remain the same. Does this mean that firearms weren't used to create death? The logic is the same with Unemployment. The unemployment rate merely presents a ratio between those who are currently employed and those who the BLS narrowly defines as the labor force. I'm not arguing a change in the unemployment rate, Which can be influenced by other factors (e. G. Price elasticity of the final product, Like food or medicine. )

"If your model is true, Then it should easily be spotted on scatterplots. "

No, Not necessarily. A scattered plot can conclude that there's a lack in the growth in the employment rate rather than the actual level of employment. But once again, We are not talking about rates. You have once again conveyed no knowledge of the actual argument. And citing data alone, Let alone attempting to define this argument as one over empirical data--especially considering the nature of Economics--does not create an onus. If you choose to ignore the proposition, then that is on you.

"Show me sources that show the unemployment that is 'created'"

Don't need to provide a "(empirical) source. " (Once again, We aren't arguing over the unemployment rate. ) The minimum wage prices out those whose marginal productivity fall below the wage floor by LAW. It's compulsory unemployment. Not to mention I cited the models which demonstrate the concept of price floor in the labor market. Perhaps you'll take a look at them.

"You say that employing disenfranchised groups will weigh on the taxpayers. Incorrect. "

Straw man argument. I didn't argue this at all. I argued that tax breaks as a remedy to the minimum wage was only a temporal offset, And doesn't address the long term costs of employing labor at a wage beyond the commerce low-skilled/unskilled labor output generates.

"Disenfranchised groups already lean on the government in most cases and gainful employment will allow the government to reduce their benefits. "

Another non sequitur; nothing I stated explicitly or implicitly referenced benefits of the disenfranchised. Keep your focus on my actual argument.

"It cancels itself out and the employer gets a net gain. "

Is this self-evident?

"I've already shown that the employment contracts opened up are not able to be taken due to the cost of living. "

No you did not. You used the minimum wage imposed in your locality and cited the costs of goods informing meant to establish a standard cost of living. This assumes that a person takes only one job:

4. 9 percent of workers held more than one job at the same time [BLS]

More People Probably Work Multiple Jobs Than The Government Realizes [Forbes]

"This is not self evident"

Yes it is. Once again, And for the last time, When the government outlaws the employment of those whose marginal productivity fall below the minimum wage, It is making their employ legally prohibited.

"and saying something is self evident is fallacious"

No it isn't. Fallacious denotes faulty reasoning. So long as the reasoning is sound, It is not "fallacious. "

"Calling a huge economic theory self evident is categorically false. "

No it is not. The Law of Supply and Demand is an axiom in which all market analyses premise their arguments. Arguments which inform the government policy in which you argue favor. Unemployment being a consequence of the minimum wage law is deductive logic. The price floor creates surplus labor; that means, There is more labor in the market than there is employment or job opportunity (demand. ) Even if the argument is made inductively, The data including regression analyses consistently support demand curves generally sloping downward:

Multiple Regression Analysis: One Tailed Test Downward Sloping Demand Theory (Pages Three-Fourteen)
The Labor Demand Curve Is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market
The Own-Wage Elasticity of Labor Demand: A Meta-Regression Analysis

"You said this last time too. Once again, That's what it's meant to do. Look for correlation. No correlation as found. There is nothing dubious about data. Do you have a problem with them looking at two things and not finding patterns? "

You don't take random trends, Place them together, And attempt to establish a correlation or the lack thereof. You employ the same methods when establishing a correlation and the results should determine the extent of the correlation. The blog merely puts them side by side and states that it "appears" to be no correlation. It doesn't isolate the minimum wage at all, And it does not rule out other factors which may be influencing the unemployment rate. I said that last time, Too.

"Furthermore. I provided sources and you have verbally refused to provide sources. "

You don't get credit for citing a source. You get credit if said source sufficiently informs your argument. It does not. " And I haven't "refused" to provide sources; I have not done so for a reason. Because once again, And finally, we are not arguing over the unemployment rate. We are arguing over the unemployment created by the minimum wage.

"and poorly so :) that's not an insult, I'm just estimating your capacity. "

Hold on to this thought. . .

"well if that's the case, How can you prove your claim? "

Because you have through this entire debate obfuscated the proposition over which we argue. My proposition isn't that the minimum wage creates a particular unemployment rate, Which the BLS defines as the ratio between those who have been actively seeking employ for at least four weeks, And those actively employed. My proposition is that the Minimum Wage creates unemployment. I even defined Unemployment in Round 2. So, Yes I do believe I've been quite accurate in estimating your capacity in this debate.

"Special pleading, That's just cherry picking stats. "

It's not "special pleading. " I offered a stipulation since the beginning of my argument. If you took issue, You should have then made your contention known.

""Economists cite several reasons why increases in the minimum wage, Which raise employers" cost, Generally do not cost jobs. Increased pay adds money to workers" pocketbooks and allows them to buy more goods and services, Creating higher demand, Which in turn requires hiring more workers"

You're randomly citing google sources without comprehensively reading the material and verifying its sources. The sources upon which your new source premises its argument are heavily scrutinized in Revisiting the Minimum Wage-EmploymentDebate: Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater? By David Neumark and M. Ian Salas

"ILRR symposium launched a new body of contemporary research on the minimum wage, Much of which was summarized in the Neumark and Wascher book Minimum Wages. In that book, Our evaluation and summary of the evidence concluded that "[M]inimum wages reduce em-ployment opportunities for less- skilled workers, Especially those who are most directly affected by the minimum wage" The present article, In part, Extends the 2008 evaluation and summary to today by evaluating two recent studies that have questioned the empirical methods and conclusions in much of the recent literature. "

"So it seems that some economists thinks this is a win/win situation. "

Some Economists. . . If it is in fact a win-win situation why not raise the minimum wage to $100 and hour? $1000 an hour?
WrickItRalph

Con

"First, It's not a double standard. The proposition does not require that you provide empirical data, Nor did I implore you to provide empirical data"

Data ties into the point system of this website, So it's not your prerogative to decide what data is needed or what points get argued. You've done this through the whole debate, You toss out my statements without making counter points and then tell me I can't use unemployment data in an unemployment debate, Which is absurd. You called several of my points "irrelevant" as a single word sentence without explaining why. You have yet to demonstrate a direct connection to the unemployment rate. You even admitted in your opinion argument that the data was inconclusive with some sides saying it help employment. If it's in conclusive, Then you're not justified to claim it as true. The only honest answer is "I don't know" and we don't just make huge decisions on "I don't know"

" It's deductive reasoning. "

If it was proper deductive reasoning, Then you would have direct evidence. You're using abductive reasoning, Which is drawing the most likely conclusion based on the circumstances, This is a low form of reasoning surpassed in fallaciousness only by faith and randomly choosing with your eyes closed.

"First, No one did state that the minimum wage "destroys/[lose] a business. "
False and I will cite you as empirical proof of this. Observe:

"No one has stated that the minimum "destroys a business"

This was at the beginning of the paragraph that contained the previous quote, You're double talking.

"Long term profits at equilibrium in a competitive market is at zero. Any loss in profit results in a net loss. You're confusing "accounting profits, " or "normal profits""

False, The link I posted concerning your theory clearly stated that the theory was suggestive, Not prescriptive. Business owners don't use this as a universal standard, Only ones that are profit maximizing.

"Then the commerce generated by the employees will be lower than the cost to employ them, Resulting in losses. Hemorrhaging money as a long term strategy results in huge losses, Usually resulting in the loss of one's business.
"
there it is in black and white, You said that it usually results in the loss of one's business AFTER stating that this wasn't the case prior to that.

"if for example, The death rate is X%. The number of homicides with the firearms increases, But the number of car accidents reduce by the same amount, Then the "death rate" will remain the same. Does this mean that firearms weren't used to create death? "

Oh dear, This is not analogous because, In your scenario, The death rate remained the same. In my data, This is not the case. The data inconclusive, I've said this several times. Inconclusive means that it can't be proven either way. This logically follows that we weigh the risks of both since a political debate, Indecisions cannot safely happen in government, Your proposition is much riskier than mine. Yours creates homelessness and destabilizes minimum wage labor as a whole. My proposition leaves everything the same. There's not way around it.

"You have once again conveyed no knowledge of the actual argument. "

More personal attacks. . . Tisk tisk. No knowledge at all huh? Don't you think you're being a bit hyperbolic?

"Don't need to provide a "(empirical) source"

You do when you make baseless assertions, Darn tootin.

"Another non sequitur; nothing I stated explicitly or implicitly referenced benefits of the disenfranchised. Keep your focus on my actual argument. "

You didn't state it, I did. You seem to think that your opinion is the only one that matters, Because you just keeps swatting my arguments away without even caring to check their truth value. It's a sequitur because it shows the pros and cons of each system. This is considered a valid form of evidence in political debates. Even DDO says this in their burden of proof definition.

"4. 9 percent of workers held more than one job at the same time"

Since that was your final round of the debate, It probably would have been a good idea for you to explain how this relates to the argument. Because now I'm confused why you're brining this up and I don't know what to do with it because there's no supporting details.

"Yes it is. Once again, And for the last time, When the government outlaws the employment of those whose marginal productivity fall below the minimum wage, I"

No, They outlaw unethical employment and sometimes that overlaps with the employment you're mentioning. Profit maximizing is not the main goal. Ethics come first.

"I offered a stipulation since the beginning of my argument"

The time at which you made the stipulation doesn't change whether or not it's special pleading. You can't just say "this is my debate topic, But you can't use "these" things to prove me wrong" That's called special pleading.

The rest of your comments are just rehashes of the same topics that I addressed above, So I'm wrapping this up. Good debate and long debate, Lol.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, Can be rejected without evidence" -- Christopher Hitchens
Debate Round No. 5
109 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Good debate
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
Once I removed all the numbers including references to pages, It allowed for my references. The function of this site sorely needs fixing.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
My argument has been posted.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
just put a mark saying "this is cited" or something
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
You can just cherry pick what you need for you statement and I can take it on faith that it's properly cited.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
bummer
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@WrickItRalph: I've tried. The result is the same.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Can you post them in the comment section?
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@omar2345: It's not that simple. My citations include pdf's, And even stating the name of them resets everything.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Athias

Do what I do.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.