The Instigator
Marke
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
isaacthemaniac
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

A higher minimum wage is the answer to poverty

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 3 votes the winner is...
isaacthemaniac
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 87014
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Marke

Pro

This is an argument about whether higher minimum wage would be the answer to poverty.
I will be pro minimum wage, and my opponent would be con/against.
Here are some ground rules:
The first round will be acceptance, followed by a starting argument.
Grammar is not a valid argument.
Keep a nice and calm tone.
Do not go personal.
Answer as quickly as possible - preferably within a day of the last one.
Enjoy.

Higher minimum wages would be the answer to poverty. There are a lot of people in America living in poverty, and it is rare that those people ever get out of it again. One of the main reason for that, is that there are simply not enough money circulating in the system. If the economic circle should be able to function, almost every household need enough money they then can spend on products from big firms, who are then capable of hiring more people, so that more people can get money, and put it into the system. That is how the American economic system is supposed to work. Sadly there is too much poverty in the country, to make it function properly. The people working in minimum wage does not have enough money to put into system, and therefore there are not being created new jobs for other people. That is why, not enough people have enough money to boost each other, and help each other get wealthier.
One of the biggest issues today, is the rate of unemployment in the country. There are a lot of reasons why some people are unemployed, because of illness, injury or simply just lack of jobs, and those people do we of course need to respect and help as well as possible. Then there is the last category, the people who choose not to get a job, since it would simply be too much draining work for a too small pay. Those people are mainly the younger generation, who then just live with their parents or other guardians, so that they not only are a bother for the elderly generation, who may get a mental illness (stress etc.) and therefore themselves getting out of work, but also they are not contributing to the economy, by having a job themselves. To get those people into work, it is important to make sure that being employed is more appealing than being unemployed. That the pay is actually worth the work.
Some people believe that higher taxes would be the answer to the problem of poverty, since it would make sure that the government is able to provide better for the less fortune. That is however a complete misunderstanding, and those people need to remember that we are not, and never will be, a socialistic country. By increasing the taxes, all the responsibility will be put on our government, who will then have too much control over the people living in poverty. Not only will they get less of their already small salary, they will also lose a big part of their freedom to the government, and everyone should have equal freedom. They will not be able to control their own lives, the government will decide what they need for them. As long as they are getting funded by the government, they will never be able to get out of poverty.
isaacthemaniac

Con

Higher minimum wage is an uncompetitive economic solution to a social problem. It would raise the costs of doing business as higher payroll would result in less funds being available for other investment activities. As a result of this,businesses would be forced especially manufacturing to move to more competitive areas as seen with the explosion in Chinese manufacturing. A result of this would be lower tax receipts and hence less money for governments and it would be extension amplify poverty rates.
The resulting unemployment would render the desired effects of higher minimum wage futile and contribute to an economic slump or depression whose negative effects can not be understated.
Raising minimum wage can never solve poverty. It will simply create a cycle where the rich find ways to get the money back and the poorer will get poorer. An example of this is if employees making $500 weekly are adjusted to higher wages and eventually receive $800 weekly, they will now have more money to spend individually but also collectively hence inflation would eventually go up as demand for products will increase while supply stays the same, the end result,milk costing $3.49 would eventually cost $5.49 and the benefit of increased minimum wage would vanish (this is a basic example to demonstrate the diverse impact of increased minimum wage).in the end the rich (owners of resources ) would end up getting the increase back and hence the poverty cycle would continue. A better fix for poverty would be an effective and proper distribution of income, this does not neccesarily have to be through taxation but by direct infusion of wealth/subsidies to people in poverty. Of course any system can be abused but if basic necessities are met using such a mechanism, the harsh effects of poverty can be mitigated while providing sufficient incentive and opportunities for development.
The notion that increasing minimum wage could somehow impact poverty by reducing it,ignores the political and social mechanisms in society , what is the point of raising wages while rent increases by a factor of 2 as compared to the wage increase? Companies that provide a lot of economic activity will become less competitive when global competitors do not have high wage costs and could eventually be driven out of business or move to new locations and this would cost the state or country jobs,revenue and skill sets. How can a company hire more people when it's costs have gone up? The notion that higher wages would translate into more business ignores business costs and makes a bold assumption that people would spend more if they make more, an attempt to define all human spending behavior in such a manner has no scientific basis. It is more likely that some people may spend, some may save but the notion that people will go on shopping sprees is ridiculous, if I have a Toyota Camry and I make $20,000 a year,will an increase to $35000 mean that I will now upgrade my car? Of course not hence the benefits of higher minimum wages would most likely than not go towards maintaining standard of living.
Debate Round No. 1
Marke

Pro

Marke forfeited this round.
isaacthemaniac

Con

marke forfeited this round
Debate Round No. 2
Marke

Pro

Apologize for not answering before.
For many people living in minimum wage is it not about maintaining a standard of living, it is about getting a standard living. It is easy to say that a person having a fine life getting a pay raise, possibly will not go out spending it extravagantly. That does, however, not account for every minimum wager in the states. If a person, who barely has enough money to provide for him/herself, finally get enough money to buy proper food, get a decent apartment or other necessary things, do you not think that, that person would go out spending that extra money, to achieve the life every human deserves?
Take for example a person working minimum wage, in the state of Texas. Texas" current minimum wage is 7.25 $ per hour. It is been assumed that an average minimum wage worker, work around 35-40 hours per week. The average of that would be around 37,5 h/w.
A minimum wager in Texas would therefore, get approximately 271,88$ a week, and 1165.2$ a month. Out of those money he/she would have to pay taxes, which is around 15% for a single person with that income. 15% out of 1165.2 is 174.78, which means that the money received would be 990.42$.
He/she would need a place to live, let us say he/she got a cheap small apartment to 356$ a month. After that he/she would have 634.42$ left, and there are still a few expenses that have yet to be covered.
The average monthly residential electricity bill in Texas is 128$, but assuming that this person would get a cheaper deal somehow, let us just calculate with 100$. Now there is 534,42$ left.
Then he/she will need some kind of transportation, assuming that a minimum wage worker will not invest in a car, he/she will then be forced to take public transportation. Usually, a normal working adult would use some transportation 5 days a week, and since the person in this case is poor, taking the bus would be the best option. A monthly bus pass (lasting 31 days) in Texas costs 40$, so now there is 494.42$ left.
Then there are the small expenses like phone-bill, restorations, clothes and other basic needs to have a decent living. All in all, that would be around 200$, and calculated with that, there is now 294.42$ left.
That means that he/she now only has 9.81$ left for food everyday. That is not enough for decent food everyday, and that is not even calculated with smaller expenses like birthday-gift, visits or fun. Things that everyone should have the right to enjoy.
Do you not think that if a person like that, got a small pay raise, he/she would go out instantly, and use some money, to make his/hers living standard decent for a human being? There is also a lot of "luxury" things, people in the middle class take for granted, that a person in minimum wage would desire enough to go buy it. Therefore, there will be put new money out in the economy.
The thing about, if the companies got more money, they would just take the profit themselves, and therefore not create more jobs, is a complete misinterpretation. The secret behind getting filthy rich, is not saving money, but using money to make yourself wealthier. People who owns big companies, usually live by that rule, therefore when people suddenly begin to buy more, they would not just keep the profit. They would expand their company, therefore hire more people, so that they eventually would be able to earn more money.
isaacthemaniac

Con

For many people living in minimum wage is it not about maintaining a standard of living, it is about getting a standard living. It is easy to say that a person having a fine life getting a pay raise, possibly will not go out spending it extravagantly. That does, however, not account for every minimum wager in the states. If a person, who barely has enough money to provide for him/herself, finally get enough money to buy proper food, get a decent apartment or other necessary things, do you not think that, that person would go out spending that extra money, to achieve the life every human deserves?
This notion is in theory, and fails to account for human nature and differences, perhaps for many people an increase in income relates to a slight decrease in debt. The argument that increasing minimum wage would translate into paying for necessary things does not take into account the financial costs to businesses and the failure of economics to produce a spending model that is predictable and can be implemented ( an example would be how bailouts never seem to trickle down )
you said,
Do you not think that if a person like that, got a small pay raise, he/she would go out instantly, and use some money, to make his/hers living standard decent for a human being? There is also a lot of "luxury" things, people in the middle class take for granted, that a person in minimum wage would desire enough to go buy it. Therefore, there will be put new money out in the economy.
Well,
This depends on your definition of things everyone should have a right to enjoy, the addition of money so that one can attain luxuries does not negate the effects of poverty, the enjoyment of luxuries should not be a factor in determining poverty as compared to the 1800"s, the poorest person in America today may enjoin more luxuries than many wealthy people did of that era, so the notion that luxuries are an incentive to spending is false and neither do people spend more because they desire luxuries. How does new money come into the economy when as people earn more they end up being taxed more and paying for more expensive luxury i.e public transport vs a car and as such the new money in the economy simply enriches another while increasing the effects of poverty.
You said
The thing about, if the companies got more money, they would just take the profit themselves, and therefore not create more jobs, is a complete misinterpretation. The secret behind getting filthy rich, is not saving money, but using money to make yourself wealthier. People who owns big companies, usually live by that rule, therefore when people suddenly begin to buy more, they would not just keep the profit. They would expand their company, therefore hire more people, so that they eventually would be able to earn more money.
Well,
I don"t understand this statement, savings are used for investment and reinvestment, if your notion was true then companies like apple would have kept manufacturing strictly in America. However, the fact that these rich people moved production to china so as to cut labor costs contradicts your narrative. Buying more does not translate into hiring more people, it could even translate into reducing labor costs so that one can not only produce more but make a bigger profit and out compete competitors. Are you saying Warren Buffet became filthy rich because he used his money to become wealthier by hiring more people, you use your money to become wealthier by investing in sound investments and profitable trade.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by usawinseverytime 12 months ago
usawinseverytime
Those who support raising the minimum wage and those who don't all know that raising the minimum wage is the answer to poverty. I don't think anyone thinks that raising the minimum wage will solve poverty like the instigator asserts in the opening question. If you want to rid all peoples of poverty in the US and abroad than I suggest moving to a mental asylum or reading up on some basic economics.
Posted by WaraiOtoko 12 months ago
WaraiOtoko
As is wealth redistribution, or simply having a pay ceiling and floor of the same number. These aren't real solutions though.
Posted by lannan13 12 months ago
lannan13
How as in how high?

Send me the challenge.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
MarkeisaacthemaniacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
MarkeisaacthemaniacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
MarkeisaacthemaniacTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.