The Instigator
NotArrogantJustRight
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
SHSdebatecapt2010
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A mandated minimum wage does more damage than good.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
NotArrogantJustRight
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,026 times Debate No: 11168
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

NotArrogantJustRight

Pro

This debate will consist of four rounds. Round One catalogs the pertinent definitions and rules, wherein my opponent may address any concerns. Rounds Two and Three shall comprise the claims, counter-claims, and evidence in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Round Four will be reserved for closing arguments and shall not be used to directly counter any previous claims.

DEFINITIONS:
Mandated: Requirement directed by an act of legislature.
Minimum Wage: The least allowable monetary compensation in exchange for one hour of labor.
Damage: Loss, detriment, or injury, whether to a person, his property, or his rights.
Good: Benefit; advantage; profit; gain.

RULES:
- Do not use external links as evidence.
- Wikipedia is not a valid reference.
SHSdebatecapt2010

Con

Good day to those who will be observing this debate. I would first like to ask how a mandated minimum wage does more harm than a minimum wage without being mandated? Secondly Without a mandated minimum wage wouldn't an unfair form of favoritism become present in the workplace? Ladies and gentleman if there is no mandated minimum wage the opressive work leaders will take advantage of those who are their employees then diminishing those workers yearly income. which in turn put more honest hardworking americans below the federal poverty line.
Debate Round No. 1
NotArrogantJustRight

Pro

I wish to prove my case using four simple points. Before I begin, I will briefly address the comments from Con in Round 1. He asks how a "mandated minimum wage does more harm than a minimum wage without being mandated?" A non-mandated minimum wage, as defined, would be voluntary and thus have no impact as I will argue further.

-----------------------------------------
1) Minimum wages hurt employers.
-----------------------------------------

One can anticipate with some certainty that the alleged greed of capitalists will be entered as proof for the need of a minimum wage. We are continually told that businesses need to be forced to raise the wages of the common worker, for they will never do so voluntarily. However, this runs contrary to logic.

The key to understanding this is the awareness that no business will pay an employee more than the value of his contribution. As an employer is coerced into paying higher wages for his employees, he is forced to make one of two decisions to retain a satisfactory profit level. First, he could pass the escalated cost of labor on to the customer in the form of product price increases. Alternatively, he could reduce the cost of labor by reducing hours or laying off workers. If the circumstances do not allow either of these options the business owner would be forced to shut down and all parties involved would be the worse off.

Ultimately, the employer loses either productivity or customers; or he loses both in extreme cases when he loses the entire business.

-----------------------------------------
2) Minimum wages hurt employees.
-----------------------------------------

Advocates of the minimum wage rate contend that they are fighting for the betterment of the masses and generally the poor in particular. As I have shown above, this is a case of good intentions gone badly. In reality the minimum wage policy primarily hurts those it was designed to assist: teenagers and unskilled workers.

When hiring a worker, an employer must take into account more than merely the hourly wage. In addition to the wage seen by the employee, there is a cornucopia of other mandated benefits such as the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment and worker compensation programs. These employer-provided benefits run as high as 30% of the hourly wage [1]. Therefore, a $7.25 minimum wage [2] turns into a liability in excess of $9 per hour. When faced with these costs, employers will only retain those employees which provide a value of $9 or more to the company. This generally does not include transient workers such as teenagers and unskilled menial laborers. The market tends toward wage rates which allow as many people who want work to be employed and for those who wish to hire workers as many employees as they need. Institutional unemployment is the result of the government coercing employers to pay wages higher than this natural level [3].

Economist Henry Hazlitt expertly brings this idea forward. "You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering" [4].

-----------------------------------------
3) Minimum wages hurt customers.
-----------------------------------------

Customers experience two effects from wages above the natural market wage rate. First, as briefly described above, price levels increase due to a natural tendency to pass higher costs on to the customer. Second, they experience a reduction in the standard of living.

As the required minimum wage increases, so increases the funds available to those who were not among the unlucky pink slip recipients. One will already see higher prices in those labor intensive markets which were forced to pass on cost increases to the customer. However, in the other markets which were negligibly affected by the increased cost of labor the prices will still have a tendency to increase since the entire market has experienced a general increase in money supply.

In other words, since customers potentially could have more money in their pockets they would be willing to pay higher prices for the goods they need and desire. At best they would experience negligible change, at worst a reduction in the standard of living.

-----------------------------------------
4) Minimum wages hurt society.
-----------------------------------------

As a net result of the three aspects described above – employers, employees, and customers – society in general would experience a shortage of labor, increase in unemployment, increase in black market jobs, and decrease in standard of living. By arbitrarily mandating a minimum wage for labor, the government is denying the right to work from those people who are willing and capable of working for less than that amount. When a person is unable to work legally the option is to not work, thus drawing unemployment and being a further drain on society, or work in the black market.

-----------------------------------------
References:
-----------------------------------------

[1] At the Intersection of the Minimum Wage and Illegal Immigration, Howard Baetjer, The Freeman Volume 57, Issue 2
[2] Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (http://www.dol.gov...)
[3] Human Action, Ludwig von Mises, Chapter 30, Part 3
[4]Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt, Chapter 18
SHSdebatecapt2010

Con

SHSdebatecapt2010 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
NotArrogantJustRight

Pro

I rest awaiting my opponent's response.
SHSdebatecapt2010

Con

SHSdebatecapt2010 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
NotArrogantJustRight

Pro

Obviously my opponent has forfeit.
SHSdebatecapt2010

Con

SHSdebatecapt2010 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Tul, The U.S. federal minimum wage is now $7.25. States and cities have various laws, ranging from none up to nearly $10. http://en.wikipedia.org... All allow laying off employees or refusing to hire as an alternative to paying it.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Not, Your point is well taken. Maybe say "embed the text of referenced material in your arguments."

Personally, I don't mind looking up linked facts. What bugs me are attempts to incorporate arguments by reference, "Communism will work, read Das Kapital."
Posted by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
What is minimum wage where everyone is from? Or will that be addressed during the debate?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Agree with PRO.
Posted by NotArrogantJustRight 7 years ago
NotArrogantJustRight
RayLatham, you pose a good question; I had hoped that my intentions were clear but I will clarify. Obviously citing your reference is a vital portion of debate. What I hope to avoid is someone including a link to an external source AS a reference. In other words, all data must be included in the text of your argument.

For example:
Pro says that I was wrong, but actually he is wrong. If you don't believe me, check out this paper (link) and this report (link).

Clear as mud?
Posted by DylanFromSC 7 years ago
DylanFromSC
Hmmm. Idk. I might accept. I'm going to have to do a lot of thinking..
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
I agree with the resolution so I wouldn't accept the challenge in any case, but I'm curious about your rules of evidence. Is the idea that no evidence can be offered at all, so the debate stays entirely on the plane of conjecture, or that evidence can be cited so long as no link is provided to the source? Presumably the opponent could find the source by doing a search for the exact wording. It is certainly an odd style of debate to exclude evidence.
Posted by NotArrogantJustRight 7 years ago
NotArrogantJustRight
Yes, it is very difficult to argue an opposing view. Although I must admit that I enjoy doing so every now and again.
Posted by banker 7 years ago
banker
I was going to accept the chalange but I realized I agree with you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
NotArrogantJustRightSHSdebatecapt2010Tied
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:10