Opposite Day

Off 1

A) is BACKGROUND

Opposite day has a legitimate history and dates back to the Dark Ages.
Windolf 071:
Opposite Day has a history longer than most people might
suppose. Like Christmas and Easter, the holiday has pagan roots going all the
way back to the Dark Ages. Governors of late-era Rome and
European villagers of medieval times found themselves
powerless against its mixed pleasures. Peasants rode pigs down the narrow streets
backward!and enjoyed themselves quite a bit. An anonymous account, written in London circa A.D. 985, survives: Alle of Ingolonde, Be merrie on thif daye moft straynje, Butt we fpeaketh fad & folemn wurdes to express oure wylde joye. It was declared a
national holiday in the U.S. during the Harding administration. One might think this official sanctioning was a happy circumstance
for Opposite Day enthusiasts, but purists of the era argued that it would sap the day of its mischievous power. "It is difficult to
see," H. L. Mencken wrote, "how even the lowliest member of the booboisie will say 'hello' for 'good-bye' now that he is expected
to do so. Will banks close by staying open? Opposite Day will die as surely as I will." The columnist's fears proved only halfway
prescient, however. Americans indeed began the holiday intent on avoiding any and all contradictory behaviorwhich, naturally,
led them to change course swiftly and to celebrate it with even more gusto than ever before. Simply put, intentions have a way of
turning to dust on Opposite Day.

Opposite day can be started at any point in the day but must be ended by the
starter without creating a paradox. Strauss 102:
Opposite Day is also known as Backwards Day, Upside-Down Day, Topsy-Turvy Day, or (if you're a mathematician) Inverse Function
Day. It's one of those wacky occasions that dont need much of an excuse. Whether you're desperate to distract your kids on a

follow these [the two

subsequent] rules to make your Opposite Day one to remember
Be creative! Rather than boringly [the first rule states that] Announcing "Opposite
Day!" [can be declared at any time of day]. First thing in the morning-which is
cold, rainy day or just want to inject some much-needed frisson into your relationship,

completely not in the Opposite Day spirit-withhold your declaration until you've done something so jaw-droppingly stupid that it
could be the only possible excuse. For example, crying "Opposite Day!" as you dump a steaming bowl of oatmeal on your head will
stamp itself indelibly in your kids' memories. Aim to confuse. "It's Opposite Day, honey. I love you...NOT!" This simple declaration
will leave your companion tied in knots as she tries to figure out whether the opposite part applies to the "I love you," the "not," or
either or both in or out of sequence. (She may also be wondering what kind of guy goes around declaring Opposite Day when there
are no kids around, but that's the risk you take with this sort of thing.) Don't be too literal. There's an episode of "SpongeBob
SquarePants" in which Patrick Star celebrates Opposite Day by not breathing, to which SpongeBob says, "Not THAT opposite!" By
the same token, if you declare Opposite Day on a weekday, it's NOT okay to go to work dressed in your pajamas (unless your
company has declared its own Opposite Day, in which case you have bigger problems than your sense of style). Have fun with
meals. When you're a kid, nothing imparts the spirit of Opposite Day like having dessert before the main course, hamburgers for
breakfast, and pancakes for dinner. (The opposite of lunch is a conundrum that has baffled gastronomists for centuries). Plan out
your menu in advance, and whatever you do, don't go too far in the opposite direction by letting your kids just eat candy all day.

The hardest part of Opposite Day is ending it-not

because everyone is tired of the joke, but because crying "Opposite Day is over!"
creates an instant paradox. If Opposite Day isn't over until [the
person that initiates Opposite Day states that] you say Opposite
Day is over, aren't you saying Opposite Day is still going on [if it was
attempted to be ended in a paradox] There are some families that have been stuck in
"opposite" mode for years, and it's not a pretty picture. [Therefore, the declarer must end
Know how to end the festivities.

1 Windolf, John: news reporter, media columnist, and editor at The New York Observer, works appearing in The Wall Street Journal, The New
Yorker, and The New York Times Book Review

2 Strauss, Bob: author of "The Big Book of What, How and Why" (Main Street, 2005) and "Who Knew? Hundreds & Hundreds of Questions &
Answers for Curious Minds" (Sterling Innovation, 2007), written in specialty science and medical magazines and popular glossies like
Entertainment Weekly (where he was a contributing writer for seven years)

Opposite Day
Opposite Day without starting a paradox for it to be officially
over]. A simple "Enough!" should do the trick just fine.

(__) Opposite day has a fundamental legitimacy that allows children to

become more educated throughout the course of an Opposite Day.
Shelton 01:
Opposite Day, also known as Opposites Day, is a word game where speech is
modified so that meaning is inverted. Once Opposite Day is
declared, statements mean the opposite of what they usually
mean. Usually, A person would say[s], "After this phrase is over, it will be officially opposite day," and then Opposite Day will
be officially started. Opposite Day can also be declared retroactively to indicate that the opposite meaning of what was already
said should be inferred. Opposite day games are usually played by schoolchildren. In the sense that opposite day "excuses"

Opposite Day
has been compared to a children's "philosophy course", and
[it] has been used as an educational aid and suggested as
preparation for "standardized testing".
untrue statements, it is similar to the notion that crossed fingers automatically nullify promises.

Opposite day is the perfect way to experiment. Gibson3 10:

Opposite Day is the perfect chance to act like you never have
before, and to explore the possibility of being a completely different individual. The origins of this celebration are
somewhat unclear, though the excuse to change your perspective, not to mention the way people look at you, is surely the driving

Experimentation, whether it is with the way you look, speak, carry yourself, or
creates the unusual opportunity to step into
someone else's shoes, and therefore open your mind to [new]
experiences and reactions received when you do not behave or look like yourself. [Opposite
Day is] an interesting social exercise at the very least , in addition to
being the only day of the year that 'yes' can literally be taken to mean 'no' and vice versa. The celebration of
Opposite Day offers an inexhaustible variety of possibilities. If
force for the annual observance.
address other people,

you live in business attire, you could dig out your sweatpants and flannels and wear them to work, organize a lunch meeting at the
beginning of the day, or do what is normally at the top of your agenda last. Opposite Day is a great tool for the classroom, where
kids could have lots of fun learning about opposites, whether in reference to numbers, colors, or words, paradoxes, contradictory
ideas and lifestyles, and differences in general.

B) IS IMPACT
Since I will declare Opposite day, how this debate will be judged
is significantly changed. Since the rules of Opposite day state
3 Shelton, Sandi Kahn: regular journalist in the New York Newspaper, books such as A Piece of Normal

4
Andrew Gibson is Research Professor
of Modern Literature and Theory. He was recently elected to the Conseil Scientifique of the Collge International de Philosophie at the
Universit de Paris. Gibson is a permanent advisory editor to the James Joyce Quarterly and a member of the editorial board of the new AngloFrench journal in Beckett scholarship. He is also a member of the editorial board of Textuel (Universit de Paris VII), Symbolism: An
International Annual of Critical Aesthetics and Critical Zone and Miscelnea (University of Zaragoza). He is a member of the Advisory Board of
the British Network for Modern Textual Studies. He has been the recipient of three British Academy Small Research Grants.

Opposite Day

that everything is reversed, it means that the ballot will be

reversed. Therefore, the loser will receive the winning ballot.
While taking this information into account, the Affirmative will
argue the Negative case while the Negative will argue the
Affirmative case. If the Affirmative decides to drop this Kritik,
then the Affirmative will lose the debate even during Opposite
day. All speech must be taken as the inverse of its true meaning
including both questions asked to the judge and speeches after
Opposite Day is declared. There are absolutely no exceptions to
this rule because allowing exceptions would decrease the
education value of all persons. In addition, since theory and
kritiks are a priori, in Opposite Day they would be considered the
inverse, which is NOT a priori. Therefore, the critical substance
argument of Opposite Day as well as substance is a priori during
Opposite Day. This means that as judge, you must look to the
substance debate before evaluating theory during Opposite Day.
Currently, the Affirmative is winning this debate therefore you
must Negate because in 5 seconds, today will officially become
Opposite day.

Opposite Day

Off 2
A: The negative must lose the debate
B:
C:
1) The six minute 2NR neg can always go for theory and substance screws the
2AR which has to cover both in three minutes. This also means all interps
violations must be clarified in cross ex since I might concede their interp so
grant the automatic I meet if they dont ask.
2) Competing mutually exclusive interps the neg can always run theory such
as must spec actor or cant spec actor, but I cant do the same. And these are
offensive reasons why the negative never gets the RVI, the aff is already
structurally skewed.
Fairness: Drop the debater because the ballot makes debate a competition, and voting in an
unfair round makes debate about the better cheater, not the better debater. Vote on fairness
(a) to maximally deter future abuse, (b) because otherwise theyll continue abuse for the
positive time tradeoff on theory, and (c) because I had to waste time running theory.
No RVIs for them because (a) you dont win just because youre fair, (b) otherwise nobody
will run theory against good theory debaters for fear of losing on theory, which is the
biggest impact because theory cant serve its function, and (c) the reciprocal option is for
them to run theory too, not for them to get an RVI.
Prefer competing interps, by which you find the best rule for all debates, because (a)
otherwise theory is subjective because people have different conceptions of whats
reasonable and (b) only this respects theorys goal of promoting norms.

Opposite Day

Off 3
A: The affirmative may not run theory
B: Pre-emptive
C:
1. Predictability: Theory shells are unpredictable, there are an infinite amount of
theory shells that you can run. Makes debate impossible to engage.
2. Clash: Decreases substantive engagement, education is the only out-of-round impact
that we have
And 1ar theory is uniquely harmful, because they know what weighing the 2nr did, hence
they can respond with they weighing, infinitely advantages the aff.

Opposite Day

Off 4
A: The entire negative advocacy may be conditional
B: Pre-emptive
C:
1. Neg Flex: Aff gets to pre-write their best advocacy, and enters the round with an
infinite amount of prep. There is no way that I can have the nest advocacy prepared,
I need to be able to go for the one that you undercover.
2. Argument Exposure: You engage various arguments.
3. Policymaking: Policymakers arent tied to one policy for their entire life.

Opposite Day

On Case
Presume Aff

A. Affs win 6% less than negs4, so if I tied I was the better debater.
B. Minimum wage statutes are widespread, so people think its intuitive to have
a wage floor to help workers, so in a vacuum presume that introducing a
floor to reduce poverty is a good idea.

4 http://fantasydebate.com/ld-national-statistics/, sample of 32181 rounds

Opposite Day

Turns
Living wage avoids the primary disadvantages of the minimum wagedoesnt
apply to teenage workers, small businesses, and theres no disemployment effect.
Nadeem5 08,

In passing ordinances, campaigners have worked to demobilize an opposition comprised of the restaurant and hospitality
industries, local chambers of commerce, and conservative think-tanks. A consideration of opposition frames helps explain
why the campaigns took their present course: local ordinances rather than a concerted push for a higher federal minimum
wage. The

living wage took a form that was relatively invulnerable to popular

criticisms leveraged against the minimum wage. Drawing lessons from debates over the federal wage
floor, the campaigns anticipated the criticisms that would likely result from a more ambitious strategy. And by
adopting a more targeted approach they were able to preempt potentially lethal
objections. By virtue of the campaigns economics of morality, which exploits an opening between the civil and social
frames of liberalism, the living wage has been institutionalized at the local level. Critics, for example, argue that
minimum-wage workers are generally young and unmarried and thus an increase
would go in many cases to teenagers who do not need the money to support a family.
This criticism, whatever its accuracy, does not translate well to living wage laws. Studies of
policies in three cities conclude that most of the affected workers were adults
working full-time (Brenner, 2005; Fairris & Reich, 2005). It is also alleged that that an increase
in the minimum wage will hurt small businesses by increasing labor costs. But as the
Atlanta Living Wage Coalition (2006) argues, their ordinance will mainly affect big
businesses, such as those companies that hold large contracts for security or
cleaning services. The ordinance will have exemptions for very small employers,
small level of contract or aid, and small non-profits. Another critique of wage floors is
that they have a disemployment effect. Increased labor costs, the argument runs, reduce employment
opportunities for low-skilled workers as employers will hire fewer workers and even lay off existing employees. Living
wage laws, however, are less likely than a minimum wage increase to lead to
unemployment in that a citys demand for services is relatively fixed and some
increased costs can be passed on from businesses to municipal governments.1 A
number of studies conclude that there have been either no or only s mall employment
losses as a result of adopting living wages (Brenner, 2005; Fairris & Reich, 2005; Reich, Hall, & Jacobs,
2005).

5 (Shehzad Nadeem, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SOCIOLOGY. LEHMAN COLLEGE. CITY

UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, THE LIVING WAGE MOVEMENT AND THE
ECONOMICS OF MORALITY: FRAMES, IDEOLOGY AND THE DISCURSIVE FIELD,
Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Volume 28, 137167, 2008,
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1761598&show=abstract) [PDI]

Opposite Day

Beef DA
Beef consumption is at an all-time low lowest point in 50
years. Zimmerman 126:
According to this graph from the Daily Livestock Report, we are way past Peak Beef. U.S. beef consumption has been dropping for the
last 40 years, and projections put it back down at 1950s levels this year, which would mean we're eating
less meat than at any time in the last 50 years. Americans are eating a lot less meat overall, but beef and to a lesser extent pork have seen the
biggest reductions which is cool, because cattle and pigs are the most resource-intensive livestock. Tom Laskawy speculates about the causes for the drop-off: What really struck me was how this

there has also been a

12 percent drop in the number of consumers who report that they have "no problem"
eating meat or dairy (a bare majority of respondents currently feel that way).
latest news mirrors the trend in consumer attitudes on meat-eating uncovered by the food industry's own market research. It turns out that since 2007,

Demand for beef grows when incomes improve. Mintert 02:

Because there is considerable confusion surrounding demand, it is useful to stipulate what beef demand is not. Beef demand is not per capita beef consumption. Per capita consumption is beef
production (net of changes in cold storage, imports, and exports) divided by population. Observing per capita consumption over time without consideration of price provides little information regarding
beef demand. Beef demand is not beefs relative share of total meat consumption. This share concept simply reflects production of beef relative to production of competing meats and does not include
information regarding prices. Finally, beef demand is not the share of consumer income spent on beef. Consumer income level affects beef demand, but changes in the share of consumer income spent
on beef do not provide a measure of whether beef demand is increasing or decreasing since changes in income alone can cause changes in the share of consumer income spent on beef, even if
beef demand remains unchanged. Since many beef demand determinants, as well as beef production, change at the same time, it is impossible to accurately assign relative demand shifts to
individual demand determinants through casual observation of trends and beef demand shifts. As a result, a meat demand system was estimated using quarterly time series data over the 1982 to 1998
period. The system included factors accounting for prices of competing meats and total consumer expenditures, changing consumer demographics, food safety problems, health information, and
seasonality. The impacts of individual demand determinants on beef demand were calculated each year from 1992 through 1998. Model results indicate beef demand is inelastic with respect to beef
price and that pork and poultry are weak substitutes for beef. Over 1982 to 1998, on average, beef quantity demanded declined 0.61 percent given a 1 percent increase in beef price. Responses to
competing meat price changes were much smaller as beef quantity demanded increased 0.04 percent and 0.02 percent, given a 1 percent increase in retail pork and poultry prices, respectively. These
elasticity estimates indicate relative prices matter, however, per capita beef consumption was not highly responsive to changes in pork and poultry prices. Moreover, beef expenditures represent a
progressively smaller proportion of total consumer expenditures. This implies beef demand will become even more inelastic (i.e., quantity demanded will be less responsive to price changes) in the
future. This result, taken together with findings from other consumer research indicates many consumers are willing to pay for a high quality product (i.e., price is less of an issue if quality is high). As
a result, consideration should be given to devoting resources to research focusing on quality (especially tenderness) measurement. Making it easier for consumers to select the quality product they

Beef demand was highly responsive to changes in total per capita

expenditures on all goods. Changes in total per capita expenditures occur when
personal disposable income increases, consumer willingness to spend income increases, or a combination of the two. Consumer willingness to spend a
desire will encourage consumers to buy beef.

larger proportion of total income has been an important source of economic growth for the U.S. economy in recent years. For example, consumer expenditures rose from less than 90 percent of
disposable income in the early 1980s to near 98 percent by 1999. Demand model results indicate beef demand increases 0.90 percent for a 1 percent increase in total per capita expenditures. This
means beef demand was a major beneficiary of increasing consumer expenditures, but if consumers choose to increase savings in the future (in lieu of consumption), or

if disposable

income declines, it will have a negative impact on beef demand.

Livestock is a main cause of warming increases

deforestation, CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide.

Walsh

2009 (Bryan Walsh is a staff writer for Time Magazine. 2009.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839995,00.html)hs
By the numbers, Pachauri is absolutely right. In a 2006 report, the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) concluded that worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the
planet's greenhouse gas emissions by comparison, all the world's cars, trains, planes and
boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. Much of livestock's
contribution to global warming come from deforestation, as the growing demand for
meat results in trees being cut down to make space for pasture or farmland to grow animal feed.
Livestock takes up a lot of space nearly one-third of the earth's entire landmass.
In Latin America, the FAO estimates that some 70% of former forest cover has been converted
for grazing. Lost forest cover heats the planet, because trees absorb CO2 while

they're alive and when they're burned or cut down, the greenhouse gas is
released back into the atmosphere. Then there's manure all that animal waste
6 Zimmerman

2012

(Jess Zimmerman is a staff wrter for Grist. Grist is an American nonprofit online magazine that has been publishing environmental news and commentary. January 13, 2012.
http://grist.org/list/2012-01-12-american-beef-consumption-is-at-a-50-year-low/)hs

Opposite Day
generates nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that has 296 times the warming effect of CO2. And
of course, there is cow flatulence: as cattle digest grass or grain, they produce
methane gas, of which they expel up to 200 L a day. Given that there are 100 million
cattle in the U.S. alone, and that methane has 23 times the warming impact of
CO2, the gas adds up.
Turn: Rising CO2 is key to rice yieldsthis solves famine, fresh water availability, and
biodiversity, AND lack of Global Warming causes extinction
IDSO 20107

"By

2050, the world's population will have increased by about 37%, from the current level of 6.7 billion
to an estimated 9.2 billion (UN, 2009), with a corresponding increase in global food demand." They also state that "about 0.6 billion
Mg of rice is produced annually from an area of 1.5 million km2, making rice one of the most important crops for supporting human life,"
especially, as noted by Pritchard and Amthor (2005), since it supplies the planet's human population with an estimated 20% of their energy
needs (on a caloric basis) and 14% of their protein requirements (on a weight basis). Within this context, the six scientists further note that
"rice production depends heavily on water availability," stating that "irrigated lowlands account for 55% of the total
area of harvested rice and typically produce two to three times the crop yield of rice grown under non-irrigated conditions (IRRI, 2002)."

the demand for ever greater quantities of water will continue to rise, due to our need to adequately
use of water will thus be essential for future rice
production." What was done In an attempt to determine how the agricultural enterprise may be impacted in this regard by the
And because

feed our growing numbers, they conclude that "efficient

ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content, the Japanese researchers conducted a two-year free-air CO2 enrichment or FACE study in fields at
Shizukuishi, Iwate (Japan) to learn how elevated CO2 may reduce crop water use via its impact on the leaf stomatal conductance (gs) of
three varieties of rice (Oryza sativa L.): early-maturing Kirara397, intermediate-maturing Akitakomachi, and latest-maturing Hitomebore.
What was learned In response to the 53% increase in daytime atmospheric CO2 concentration employed in their experiments, Shimono et al.
report that "the reduction in gs due to elevated CO2 was similar across measurements, averaging around 20% in the morning, 24% around
noon and 23% in the afternoon across all growth stages." And they add that "there was no significant CO2 x cultivar interaction." What it
means With

the concomitant increase in grain yield that also results from atmospheric CO2
enrichment (see Rice in the Plant Growth Data section of our website), it should be apparent to all that a continuation of
the historical and still-ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will play a major role in enabling us to
meet our food needs at the mid-point of the current century, without having to lay claim to all of the
planet's remaining fresh water resources and much of its undeveloped land and
thereby driving many of the species with which we share the terrestrial biosphere to extinction for lack of land
and water to meet their needs, as is also explained in greater detail in several of the items we have archived under the heading of Food in our
Subject Index.

7 (Unclear which ones, but they are all esteemed scientists with PhDs, Rice Production and the Looming Water Crisis, May 19,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N20/B2.php)

Opposite Day

Absorb Costs
Firms Find Others Ways, Economist8 12
Such results might seem puzzling. If

the price of something is forced upwards, demand for it

should fall. Why might this not be the case for low-paid workers? The answer is that
firms find other ways to absorb higher wage costs. The simplest is to raise prices.
Fast-food restaurants in New Jersey did so when the state's minimum wage was raised in 1992, according to a landmark
study by David Card and Alan Krueger of Princeton University. Firms

may also skimp on non-wage

benefits, trim the number of hours worked by low-paid staff, or cut other costs.
Even the best-run firms can find savings when pushed. They may even find benefits.
Turnover of low-paid staff often falls in places where minimum wages go up,
reducing hiring costs. Higher wages might also make workers more productive. The
theory of "efficiency wages" says that well-paying firms can induce staff to work
harder by improving morale or by making it costlier for them to risk being sacked .
The well-heeled firms that have signed up to the living wage report a better
standard of work. Bosses in less cosy workplaces know this, too. A study of prostitution in Chicago found that
pimps paid above-market wages to retain the best street workers.

8 Wage flaws; The living wage The Economist, 11-10-12 [PDI]

Opposite Day

California Proves
Living wage legislation does not increase unemploymentresults from California
prove and are generally applicable to all jurisdictions. Lester9 11,
Ultimately, the

findings of this article confirm the general conclusions of individual case

evaluations such as Fairris (2005) and Reich et al. (1999) that living wage laws do not have large
negative impacts on employment. Since the NETS database provides a consistent time series of employment
and establishment counts at the city level (the scale at which the laws are enacted) and allows a more accurate
identification of covered firms (i.e., government contractors), this research improves on existing panel studies (e.g., Adams
and Neumark (2005) and contradicts their finding of a significant disemployment effect. For

government
contractors in low-wage sectorswhere one would expect to find the largest impacts
this article finds slight positive effects associated with passing living wage laws .
However, because of the large standard error, one can only rule out negative impacts larger than 10%. In addition to adding
additional information to the empirical literature on the direct impact of living wage laws, my

findings also
suggest that living wage laws do not significantly harm a citys business climate.
With the exception of restaurant establishments, there is little evidence that firms
flee cities that pass living wage laws or that economic growth shifts to suburban
portions of the metropolitan area. Although the research was based on an analysis of
living wage laws in Californiaand as such the empirical findings are limited to the confines of the state
the findings are relevant to the broader living wage debate throughout the United
States for several reasons. First, California is a large and economically diverse state that
contains significant variation in industrial structure and the degree of economic
restructuring at the urban scale. For instance, this sample of living wage cases includes cities
that have undergone significant industrial decline such as Oakland and Richmond,
similar to cities in the so-called rust belt. It also contains examples of growing , hightechnology urban economies that generate considerable wealth and income inequality
(e.g., San Jose and San Francisco). Second, California, like many states in the United States,
exhibits divergent growth pattern among local governments characterized by
rapidly growing exurban areas surrounding older, slow growth central cities. The
research design presented in this article offers other researchers a method of controlling from such structural differences
between local governments when attempting to isolate the impact of urban policy changes. Although California does not
perfectly mirror the interurban trends across the United States, policy makers may find the results of this article to be more
generalizable than an individual case study.

Employers will lay off part-time workers, reducing hours

worked, which results in a net decrease in earned income

Neumark et al 2k
David, at the time a grad studies director @ MSU, Mark Schweitzer of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, and William Wascher, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System. "The Effects of Minimum Wages Throughout
the Wage Distribution," NBER Working Paper No. 7519 Feb 2000 [PDI]
9 (T. William Lester, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, The Impact of Living Wage Laws on Urban Economic Development Patterns and
the Local Business Climate: Evidence From California Cities, Economic Development Quarterly
25(3) 237254, 2011,
http://edq.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/19/0891242411409205.abstract) [PDI]

Opposite Day

However, as suggested by the lagged estimates in column (3'), and as displayed in the lower left hand
panel of Figure 1, the disemployment effects are partially offset in the second year, becoming smaller and
statistically insignificant, except for those with wages initially between 1.2 and 1.3 times the minimum.

The pattern of stronger employment effects initially but stronger

hours effects later is consistent with employers first laying off parttime workers, which reduces fixed costs of labor, and then later
adjusting hours of the remaining low-wage workers. Earned income. Finally,
we turn to earned income, combining the effects of minimum wages
on wages, hours conditional on employment, and employment, in an
unrestricted fashion. A priori, expectations are mixed based on the results reported above.
Low-wage workers experience wage gains as a result of minimum
wage increases, but hours and employment declines (although evidence for
the latter is weaker). Of course, we cannot simply use the elasticities for hours, employment, and wages to
predict income effects, since we did not know the actual joint distributions of changes in these variables.
Columsn (4) and (4') of Table 2 report the regression estimates. The contemporaneous effects are positive

the
lagged effects are uniformly negative and quite strong, especially up
to about twice the minimum. The lower right-hand panel of Figure 1 reports the one-year
(and significant for most cells) for those initially earning up to twice the minimum wage. In contrast,

and total effects. The contemporaneous effects, which replicate the regression coefficients, might be
interpreted as suggesting that minimum wages increase the earnings of low-wage workers; the elasticities
are in the .2 to .4 range for those initially earning up to twice the minimum and are statistically significant.

the total
effects indicate that those below the minimum, at the minimum, and
up to 1.1 times the minimum experience income declines. The
estimated effect for minimum wage workers is on the order of a six
percent decline, or a -.6 elasticity, and is statistically significant at the fivepercent level. The source of the reversal is clear from the other panels of the figure. Although
disemployment effects are tempered, hours reductions after one
year are much sharper, and the wage gains considerably weaker.
Overall, this analysis indicates that the average low-wage worker is not helped,
and is perhaps hurt, by a minimum wage increase. Although
minimum wages bump up wages of these workers, hour reductions,
in particular, interact with changes in wages in such a way that
earned income declines.
However, adding in the lagged effects reverses this conclusion. As shown by the black bars,

Opposite Day

Dickens
The employment effects argument was disproved decades ago, Dickens10 et al 94
The late 1980s and early 1990s increases in the US federal minimum wage have generated a renewed interest in the
economic effects of minimum wages. This has become even more the case since a

number of recent empirical

pieces based on these increases have reported very unconventional results, with
minimum wage increases either not affecting employment or even raising it . Given the
long-standing presumption in economics that minimum wages depress employment then it has proved somewhat difficult
to provide a reasonable theoretical explanation of such findings. In this paper we have presented a model of the labour
market which we have argued 27 can be usefully used for thinking about the likely effects of minimum wages on the labour
market. We have not attempted to test our model against competing alternatives but we believe that it is intuitively
plausible and it can do quite well in explaining the stylized facts about the effects of minimum wages. Using this
theoretical framework, we

have evaluated a number of possible empirical approaches to

looking at the effect of minimum wages. Implementing the approaches that we favour to examine the
effect of minimum wages in the UK, we find strong evidence that they have compressed the
distribution of earnings and probably raised employment, the latter being a result that would be
regarded as anomalous in a competitive model but one that can easily be explained in our framework. Of course, the results
reported here cast severe doubt on the UK Government's claim that the recent abolition of the Wages Councils in its 1993
Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill could be justified on the grounds that they have traditionally hindered
employment. According to our results it seems that the only likely impact of abolition will be increased inequality of
earnings, coupled with no employment gains.

10 Richard Dickens, LSE, Stephen Machin, University College London, Alan Manning, LSE,
The effects of minimum wages on employment: theory and evidence from the UK NBER
Working Paper # 4742 [PDI]

Opposite Day

Income > Employment

Increasing income outweighs employment effects, Kuehn11
14
Ultimately, even

skeptics of the matching literature reviewed here need to consider total

effects of the minimum wage, and not simply whether or not a disemployment effect
can be identified. The disemployment effects identified in the weaker empirical
strategies are still small, and the earnings gains for minimum-wage workers keeping
their jobs are substantial. The net effect of a minimum-wage increase is therefore
likely to be quite positive, even if concerns remain about a small population hurt by
the minimum wage and in need of other assistance. Studies with the strongest study
designs of course suggest that this population is extremely small if it exists at all .

11 Daniel, former research associate at the Urban Institute, doctoral student @ American
University in economics, MA from George Washington, The Importance of Study Design in the
Minimum-Wage Debate, Economic Policy Institute 9-4-14 [PDI]