Appendix F — Policy Debate Briefs

Structured summaries of four major policy debates covered in the textbook. Each brief presents the strongest case for and against, identifies the key evidence, and notes where the disagreement is factual vs. normative.

Brief 1 — Should the U.S. raise the federal minimum wage to $15?

The case FOR: Card-Krueger and successors show small employment effects for moderate increases. Most affected workers gain more in wages than the few who lose jobs. The EITC and minimum wage complement each other. Current $7.25 is worth less in real terms than at any point since the 1950s.

The case AGAINST: the labor-demand elasticity may rise at higher wage floors. Rural and low-cost areas may be more affected than high-cost cities. Some small businesses may not survive. Non-working poor people are not helped.

Key evidence: CBO 2021 estimates: $15 min wage raises wages for 17M workers, reduces employment by 1.4M, lifts 0.9M out of poverty.

Factual vs. normative: the employment effect is factual (debated but measurable). Whether the tradeoff is worth it is normative (depends on how you weight gains for many vs. losses for some).

Brief 2 — Should the U.S. adopt a carbon tax?

The case FOR: ~90% of economists support carbon pricing. It's the most efficient climate tool (Chapter 11, 15). Revenue can be rebated to offset regressive effects ("carbon dividend"). The IRA's subsidy approach is second-best.

The case AGAINST: politically toxic ("tax"). Regressive without rebates. Competitiveness concerns (U.S. industries face higher costs than unpriced-carbon competitors). Insufficient alone (needs regulation too).

Key evidence: social cost of carbon estimated at $190/ton (Biden 2023). EU ETS carbon price ~€60–80/ton. No major economy has a carbon tax at the SCC level.

Factual vs. normative: the efficiency of carbon pricing is settled (factual). The right level, design, and political viability are contested (normative + practical).

Brief 3 — Should rent control be expanded?

The case FOR: provides stability for current tenants. Addresses the bargaining power asymmetry. Can be designed with vacancy decontrol and inflation-indexed increases to reduce supply effects.

The case AGAINST: ~95% of economists agree it reduces supply and quality long-term. Creates insider-outsider dynamics (lucky current tenants vs. excluded new ones). Better alternatives exist (zoning reform, vouchers).

Key evidence: Diamond-McQuade-Qian (2019) San Francisco study: rent control reduced rental supply by ~15% over 15 years. IGM Forum (2012): 95% agree rent control hurts broadly affordable housing.

Factual vs. normative: the supply effects are factual (well-documented). Whether stability for current tenants is worth the supply cost is normative.

Brief 4 — Is free trade good for the United States?

The case FOR: comparative advantage increases total wealth. Consumer prices are lower. ~85% of economists agree trade is beneficial on net. The gains are large and distributed broadly (cheaper goods for everyone).

The case AGAINST: the China shock caused real, persistent labor-market damage in specific communities. The losers were not adequately compensated. Trade agreements can be designed unfairly. National security concerns for some industries.

Key evidence: Autor-Dorn-Hanson (2013, 2016): the China shock caused ~1M manufacturing job losses. Consumer benefit estimated at $250K+ per job lost (but the benefits are diffuse and the losses are concentrated).

Factual vs. normative: the aggregate gains from trade are factual. Whether the distribution is acceptable — and whether losers should be compensated — is normative.

Use these briefs as starting points for class debates. Each brief deliberately presents the strongest version of both sides.