The Instigator
RedFlag450
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

All people should receive the same income

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 771 times Debate No: 84144
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

RedFlag450

Pro

Every citizen, regardless of occupation, should receive the same wage an hour. The doctor should receive the same as the plumber. The reason being is that economic inequality is harmful and all work is a contribution to society as should be treated equally.
Emilrose

Con

Debate accepted.

Now, as Pro has left his opening argument rather short I will likewise do the same with mine (assuming that this round is *not* for acceptance, as Pro hasn't specified the terms.)

-->>Argument

One major reason why everyone should not receive equal pay is because of the *very* prevalent difference(s) in what people's jobs actually are~~and the amount of experience and educational credit that they require. For example, to become a doctor in most countries, you have to complete at least seven years of studying and an additional three years is often required.

However, taking the example of someone who may want to become a beauty therapist~~it will take no longer than two years for them to become fully qualified, and if they exclusively want to work as a manicurist, that can take as little as six months, and no university education is required. A doctor, however, will have a hugely significant sum for their degree(s) and training, and can have debts up to 60,000 in places such as the U.K. once they've completed their education and become qualified. [1.] http://www.theguardian.com...

Moreover, they are providing a *vital* service to people. Those in other job sectors (such as the example of a beautician) are technically not. They may be providing a desirable service, but it is not one of demand and necessity.

To use Pros example, obviously a doctor should not receive the same as plumber as again, the plumber has not had to attend university for several to ten years and spend such vast sums of money. In addition, they certainly do not have to retain the same kind of information as a doctor. In fact, the two jobs are entirely different.

This brings one to main point which is that people should be paid according to skill/education and based on what the job IS.

I would agree with Pro in that there is inequality relating to pay and that those in certain jobs should receive more, however, it's senseless to presume that everyone regardless of what the work is should receive exactly the same. For Pro to make a case, he/she will have to answer these following questions:

-How would this fixed sum be defined?

-Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or a lawyer?

-Wouldn't this actually be damaging to the economy in the long-term? Possibly Pro could argue that more people would be inclined to work (but this is assuming the sum is reasonable/decent.), would it not be detrimental if so much was being spent on equal pay for each working individual?

-Would this not create a more financially destitute society? I.E~~most governments would not be prepared to give everyone large equal pay, and if so: they would make it a small sum, so wouldn't those who become doctors, politicians, etc. not be able to pay for their university fees? Exactly how would they pay off their debts?

Technically, both #3 and #4 (the questions) would ultimately damage the economy and society. But I will leave it to Pro to provide an answer for each one.
Debate Round No. 1
RedFlag450

Pro

Alright, I shall respond to the questions as a refutation.

"How would this fixed sum be defined?' It should be defined by the government in accordance with the pricing of economic output. For example, if all employed citizens got an income of $25 an hour, which would mean $4000 a month on average over the course of a year which would be $48,000 a year would be effectively eliminated because everyone who has a job will be able to pay their bills and satisfy their needs and, to a degree, their desires including savings in which people can become successful by merely saving such income. Thus, employed people would no longer live in poverty.

" Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or lawyer?" That is subjective, however both individuals are contributing to satisfying the desires and needs of the population and thus should get paid the same amount an hour. And you might think this would be a disincentive, however this is not the case. For one, you would still have to work to earn a wage and a lot of people, and if not they took an oath to do it until they die, enjoy their work. As a result, not many doctors would leave because they still get paid and still work more hours thus they would make more than the McDonalds employee. A doctor who works 12 hours a day will earn 300 more dollars than the McDonalds employee. Not to mention, this actually would expand job growth to some level because if you're going to quit your job because you aren't getting paid a certein amount, you must hate it in the first place and thus you probably are terrible at it. This actually opens up more people to work in other vital industries such as agriculture and food distribution, and other jobs for people who want that particular one. A lot of people would happily work for a hospital for FREE, and many people would also work as a lawyer for next to no pay. People do things and like to do things, and open access to higher education free of tuition would make this a lot better and expand economic growth overall. So not only would this resolve many of the pyschologically destructive nature of economic inequality, this would also bring us closer to a moneyless society. Not to mention, ceterin economic preconditions such as establishing democratic workers self-management in industries would create a bigger incentive to work.

Your third question, I baisclaly anwsered this. However, my official position is there should be a minimum and maximum ratio of pay (a universal minimum and maximum wage if you will) in regards to the difficulty and time put into a job but if should slowly move into equal pay for all.

In regards to your last question, I believe fees for human rights such as education should be paid by taxes. Also, we speant trillions on nonsense like increasing military speanding. We have the money for this, we just don't use it wisely.
Emilrose

Con


-->>Rebuttals:


A little more is required from Pro for them to actually *affirm* their resolution and provide a convincing case, merely answering to the questions that I've provided is not quite satisfactory and Pro should (technically) extend their main arguments further.


Anyway, I will respond to each of Pros answers in full:


#1


'It should be defined by the government in accordance with the pricing of economic output. For example, if all employed citizens got an income of $25 an hour, which would mean $4000 a month on average over the course of a year which would be $48,000 a year would be effectively eliminated because everyone who has a job will be able to pay their bills and satisfy their needs and, to a degree, their desires including savings in which people can become successful by merely saving such income. Thus, employed people would no longer live in poverty.'


Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that governments (especially those in poorer countries, as Pro didn't say anything about this being exclusive to the U.S) would be able to afford $25 per hour, specifically when taking into account all of the resources that governments must prioritize~~such as health care, education, etc.


While these areas are not presently ideal, they would suffer even more as a result of businesses/governments paying such high wages for each working individual. In fact, millions would inevitably be spent and the ultimate result would likely be recession and extreme debt.


Also, there is very limited justification for a the previous example (a beauty therapist) receiving the same amount as a doctor. In addition, on the contrary to Pros assertion that $48,000 a year would enable people to be debt-free and able to pay their bills~~it would likely actually lead to further spending (and more debt) from those who are not able to manage their wages wisely.


#2


'That is subjective, however both individuals are contributing to satisfying the desires and needs of the population and thus should get paid the same amount an hour. And you might think this would be a disincentive, however this is not the case. For one, you would still have to work to earn a wage and a lot of people, and if not they took an oath to do it until they die, enjoy their work. As a result, not many doctors would leave because they still get paid and still work more hours thus they would make more than the McDonalds employee. A doctor who works 12 hours a day will earn 300 more dollars than the McDonalds employee. Not to mention, this actually would expand job growth to some level because if you're going to quit your job because you aren't getting paid a certein amount, you must hate it in the first place and thus you probably are terrible at it. This actually opens up more people to work in other vital industries such as agriculture and food distribution, and other jobs for people who want that particular one. A lot of people would happily work for a hospital for FREE, and many people would also work as a lawyer for next to no pay. People do things and like to do things, and open access to higher education free of tuition would make this a lot better and expand economic growth overall. So not only would this resolve many of the pyschologically destructive nature of economic inequality, this would also bring us closer to a moneyless society. Not to mention, ceterin economic preconditions such as establishing democratic workers self-management in industries would create a bigger incentive to work.'


Pro asserts that my question is somehow 'subjective' when there were two different (clearly objective) options given~~moreover, they have failed to explain *why* it was subjective. As indicted in round one by myself, Pro is taking an extreme approach to a problem that requires addressing moderately. As well as that, they have made claims about there existing further incentives to work without supporting them. Clearly Pro is failing to see the 'realities' that would be involved.


Regarding hospital workers, to suggest that you can have (untrained) staff assisting people's medical requirements is nothing less than absurd and *if* actually ever practiced, ultimately very dangerous. To qualify as a nurse, one must receive training and have the correct mental competence. They cannot just be anybody doing the job because they simply feel like that~~standards and technicalities exist in order for someone to actually be (proven) as capable.


#3


'Your third question, I baisclaly anwsered this. However, my official position is there should be a minimum and maximum ratio of pay (a universal minimum and maximum wage if you will) in regards to the difficulty and time put into a job but if should slowly move into equal pay for all.'


Pro has essentially contradicted their own argument(s) as they did specify that any minimum/maximum wage would apply. Rather, they explicitly stated that all people would receive $25 per hour, regardless of education/experience/job.


#4


'In regards to your last question, I believe fees for human rights such as education should be paid by taxes. Also, we speant trillions on nonsense like increasing military speanding. We have the money for this, we just don't use it wisely.'


Pro makes a valid contention regarding military spending (one that I personally agree with), however, this still doesn't answer why everyone should receive the same wage~~especially a high one. And while improvements should be made, taxes already go towards things like education.


I will reiterate once more that I understand Pros main point~~which is that people should be treated equally, and that the poor should be looked after, etc. In fact this is a belief that I mostly share, however, there are more balanced and financially sensible methods of approaching such a reform.


Debate Round No. 2
RedFlag450

Pro

RedFlag450 forfeited this round.
Emilrose

Con

Emilrose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RedFlag450

Pro

RedFlag450 forfeited this round.
Emilrose

Con

FF and failure to provide additional arguments/rebuttals~~Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
I would vote, but the establishment won't allow it, that would be Pro's party. 11 points to Con.
Posted by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
People should receive income based on the education level required for the work. Actors and footballers shouldn't get millions. Farmers shouldn't be starving (ironic, but they are starving). However a scientist should be making far more than a cleaner, or a professional sports player.
Posted by The-Masked-Debater 1 year ago
The-Masked-Debater
This seems like a pretty obvious "win" for Con, considering the implied absurdity of the Pro position, so I am actually pretty intrigued to see the logic and reasoning behind Pro's arguments.
I will be keeping this one on watch.
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
I disagree with that, if the wage is the same then children will still have to study hard to get a graduate job. Those who study believing they will earn more are not necessarily studying because they want a job in that field. And surely it is a good thing if everyone can afford to go to university.
Posted by Abhishek215 1 year ago
Abhishek215
A doctor who goes to 7 years of college and pays an exorbitant amount of money on his/her education should get higher wages than a plumber who went to two years of trade school (maybe). People won't have any incentive to work hard in school if all the wages are the same.
No votes have been placed for this debate.