The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

A $15 minimum wage would destroy America's economy forever.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,252 times Debate No: 89114
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




First round accept debate. Second state facts. Third rebuttals.

I take the Pro side, challenger takes Con. Best of luck to opponent!


I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting!

Here are a few key points I will be putting out:

Mexico is already killing us when it comes to economy lately, due to labor cost.
Norway, Sweden and Denmark, who consistently top the lists of happiest places to live, don"t have a standard minimum.
When you raise the cost of something, you get less of it
Job level will get crushed and machines will take over
Small businesses can't handle it.

To the ear, it sounds perfect. Everyone gets more money, and therefore poverty is gone! Everyone is happy! But it only takes a little bit of thinking to notice that somebody has to pay off these raised salaries, and if they can't do such a dramatic increase, the employers will be forced to fire people, and replace them. These people will therefore become jobless, which impacts our economy and the lives of the people.

An even worse scenario would be if the company decides to move all jobs located in America to a place where they can actually afford to employ people to do work. America will crash, and not be able to ever return from such a big blow to the American labor force.

The United States have lost five million manufacturing jobs since 2000 ( Mexico is one of the key components of this job takeaway, as the cost of labor in the US is constantly rising, the cost for labor in Mexico is quickly dropping, so many American CEO's have decided to leave the Americans unemployed and hiring Mexicans for less money, which generates more profit.

Also, small businesses won't even be able to relocate or make machines, they will just quickly crash and "bern". Small businesses throughout the nation, hardworking people, will be force to forget their dreams and close their doors.


I am limited by the rules, to not address pro's case until next round; however to avoid committing a Final Round Blitzkrieg [1], I advise pro to prepare a defense against plagiarism allegations.

On to my case...

Definitions from Merriam-Webster

  • Economy is "the process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region."
  • Destroy is "to cause (something) to end or no longer exist."
  • Forever is "for an endless time."

C1: Inflation and Minimum Wage
Inflation is a reality to which we live with. If minimum wage did not go up, we'd have a $1.60 minimum wage left over from 1968 [3]. The minimum wage effectively pays people less than that when the passage of time is factored in, but it is guaranteed to surpass $15 at some point in the future, because there's how our economy works.

C2: Maximum Damage
Serial CEO Ed Rensi of McDonalds, Famous Dave's and others, is opposed to raising the minimum wage. According to Investopedia, he is summarized as stating "a higher minimum wage would not only kill existing jobs but also result in closing a substantial number of small businesses, from 15-20%" [2]. Please note these numbers, which are 80-85% below even short term destruction of the economy, and for only one business size category.

C3: Forever is a Long Time
Even if hypothetically a $15 minimum wage crashed the economy, the economy would not be destroyed, and it's just suffer for a while. The U.S. has weathered recessions before, and will do so again. Unless the minimum wage killed us all, or ushered in a utopian era free from the need for money, there is no conceivable way it "would destroy America's economy forever."

[1] Conduct pet peeve:

[2] Ed Rensi and $15 minimum wage:
[3] Various wage graphs:

Debate Round No. 2


I forfeit this round.


D1: ...
My case requires no defense, as all my lines of reasoning have been dropped by pro.

R1: Plagiarism
Sections of pro's arguments are stolen from the people who worked hard for them (isn't that what socialists are supposed to do?). This was easily spotted due to broken formatting, about like someone trying to sell property they could have never afforded.

"Norway, Sweden and Denmark, who consistently top the lists of happiest places to live, don't have a standard minimum" [4]

"When you raise the cost of something, you get less of it" [5].

Given that pro is complaining of Bernie Sanders, I would assume he would not commit the behavior claimed in the normal Straw Man [6] committed against the presidential hopeful. I do give credit for irony, given that Bernie's main challenger steals his arguments, then claims (even when they are directly against her) that she had always said that [7].

R2: Mexican Labor
Were pro's case true, that "Mexico is already killing us when it comes to economy lately," Mexicans would stay at home, rather than coming here for a better life. As is, they account for 28% of our immigrant population [8].

R3: "Machine Takeover"
This fear of futurity is common, but senseless. Cars put many horses out of work, and the economy adapted. It reminds me of the popular meme:

McDonalds' still in business.

Note that McDonalds is still functioning within the changed economy, in fact the machines in question already exist [9], and society has not crumbled.

R4: Small Businesses
In response to "small businesses can't handle it"; small businesses are not the entire economy. Just look at the previous point, large businesses adapt. Looking at my previous round, it's been proven by experts hyping a worst case scenario that only a fraction (10-15%) of small businesses can't handle it.

R5: Doomsday Scenario
"An even worse scenario would be if the company decides to move all jobs located in America to a place where they can actually afford to employ people to do work."
This is a powerful statement, but one not based on reality. Everywhere that has people living, has jobs. Germany suffered hyperinflation, and WWII still happened instead of everyone simply leaving the country; and Germany is doing great today. Greece whose economy is in shambles, is not only not empty, but a popular destination for Turkish refugees [10].

[5] House Speaker John A. Boehner
[6] Straw Man definition
[7] Pro emulating Hillary Clinton
[8] Mexican immigrants
[9] McDonalds self-service kiosks
[10] Refugees in poor countries

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Thank you for the thoughts on this debate.
Posted by MangoInABottle 2 years ago
Surely if everything you say occurs then investing in technology would increase to an extent that the American nation would be the most technologically developed place in the world and though millions of people would have died due to being unemployed (starving, homelessness, disease, coldness) the technology advancements will mean eventually, even if only a few hundred people remain, they will have the highest GDP per capita the world HAS EVER SEEEEEEEEEEEEN!!!

What if the US becomes dog sh*t like you say, but then because it's so dogshit no one does anything to it in WW3 and it is the only nation with fertile soil left in the world and becomes the best economy in the world.

What if someone makes an intergalactic transported which goes to other universes which have a dollar value of $15 = $5 meaning a $15 dollar minimum wage works completely fine.

What if the exchange rate of the dollar goes really down and so $15 = $5.

Forever is a bit of a dog sh*t word but knock yourself out I guess.

btw I would recommend to anyone reading this to watch 'Rick and Morty'
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con followed all the rules established by Pro in Round 1 (Accept the debate in Round 1, state facts in Round 2, and rebut the opponent's arguments in Round 3). Con said "I accept the debate" in Round 1, stated his arguments and made a point to not rebut Pro's arguments until Round 3 during Round 2 ("I am limited by the rules, to not address pro's case until next round"), and rebutted Pro's arguments in Round 3. Con followed all the rules. Pro, however, did not. Pro did make their argument in Round 2, as was required, so Pro didn't violate any rules during Round 2. In Round 3, however, instead of rebutting Con's argument (which, according to the rules established in Round 1 by Pro, Pro should have done), Pro merely said, "I forfeit this round." This is a violation of the rules. In short, due to the fact that Con followed all the rules but Pro did not, Con wins for conduct.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO apparently plagiarized, and never contested that he did, so CON gets conduct. PRO passed in his third round for some reason, meaning he dropped all of CON's points. This was essentially a full forfeiture, especially when CON refuted his assertions such as Mexico killing the US in jobs by pointing out how many Mexicans try to flee their own country. There are numerous rebuttals to this; PRO used none of them. CON wins. PRO also set an impossibly high standard with the use of "forever" (which CON never pointed out, so I'm not weighing it. Just noting it). PRO never used sources (save one improper citation) while CON did, thereby establishing some authoritative recognition for his claims about inflation. PRO has inconsistent punctuation and significant omissions of words (in R1, he forgets "the" or "my" before opponent.) His case was also broken apart while CON had clearly established contentions formatted in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Hello, Whiteflame.