The Instigator
ournamestoolong
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Debate on a issue

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,326 times Debate No: 6109
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

ournamestoolong

Pro

O.K. here's how this works. You look at my page to find three issues we disagree on, and state your posistion. I will then choose an issue. You can eiher forfeit your second round or your last round to make it an even 3 round debate.
Puck

Con

1. Minimum wage - Con - i.e. I'm in support of there not being a minimum wage.
2. Social Programs - assuming they are state run or tax funded - Con.
3. God exists - For fun, seeing as your profile says Christian - clearly I will be Con. :D

R2 is for definitions, or you can pick topic and make your case. I don't mind.
Debate Round No. 1
ournamestoolong

Pro

It has occured to me that if I just choose an issue this round we will avoid all confusion of forfeiting so I will just choose an issue, You will start and I feel it would be fine to give you the extra round.

I choose Minimum wage - pro - i.e. I'm in support of there being a minimum wage.
Puck

Con

Lol. I don't need the charity of an extra round. As the issue is stated in your profile as asked and you have indicated 'pro' - the burden is yours. Feel free to make your case next round. As you are in favour of minimum wage, one would assume you have a modicum of reasoning to support this. If not I'm sure google will help. :D
Debate Round No. 2
ournamestoolong

Pro

Ok my arguments are as follows:

R1: Wealth
Without minimum wage the poverty rate would skyrocket, as people would not be able to make enough money to live. Stores could get cheap labor however the workers would be denied.

R2: Economy
As we have seen recently, when coeporate America loses money so do the private citizens and stockholders, this is also true in reverse as people could not afford products, thus hurting the overall economy.

R3: Well being
As I have stated before if the minimum wage is eliminated, it will hurt the economy, hurting citizens, and yielding no benefit. Though in the short term it would provide cheap labor, it hurts us in the end.

I await my opponents response.
Puck

Con

"R1: Wealth
Without minimum wage the poverty rate would skyrocket, as people would not be able to make enough money to live. Stores could get cheap labor however the workers would be denied."

Actually no. If minimum wage solved poverty crisis then we would just inform third world countries to pay their citizens higher wages. Imagine all the foreign aid money saved simply by advising leaders in the world's poorest countries! It doesn't work, even applied to the United States, there's little evidence suggesting that increases in the minimum wage help the poor.

"R2: Economy
As we have seen recently, when coeporate America loses money so do the private citizens and stockholders, this is also true in reverse as people could not afford products, thus hurting the overall economy."

That's natural cycle of a capitalist market. If businesses fail/need restructuring then that leaves others to rise who won't make the same mistakes as say the current car industry. Note it is the businesses structure and not minimum wage that caused them to fail. Those employees from the failed businesses are still skilled workers; still have value to other employees. Minimum wage employees are also not the ones to be spending on luxury products, so that point is moot.

Under capitalism ones wages depend on how much one can produce. That is why a doctor gets paid substantially more than the factory worker. It depends on how well and how much one produces. The reason why factory labourers receive more wages than say a fast food employee is because they are rendered more productive by productive use of capital.

Those who don't produce enough to merit the minimum wage will become unemployed - they have little tradeable worth for an employee. Those who do produce more than the minimum wage don't need minimum wage laws. If a labourer, say our doctor, is not paid enough for what she produces then someone else will hire her and pay her more. It is competition for labour that produces and pushes wages up.

It is competition between businesses for labour that pushes wages up - note its opposite - it is competition between labourers that pushes wages down - to reduce this competition between labourers unions create a unionised 'business' which prevents non-union members from competing with them, by banning non-union members from working in the unionised field.

"R3: Well being
As I have stated before if the minimum wage is eliminated, it will hurt the economy, hurting citizens, and yielding no benefit. Though in the short term it would provide cheap labor, it hurts us in the end."

The point is not cheap labour. Minimum wage is why companies invest in offshore production - the government forces them to pay at a higher rate than the value of the work itself. Wage laws violate the freedom of two people to enter into a voluntary association with each other. Minimum wage hurts employment, hurts investment, hurts growth and expansion. Minimum wage laws are adverse to the basic premise of capitalism - supply and demand. It forces businesses to pay a fixed amount for services even when the value of that service is less than the legal set wage. This in turn forces businesses to adjust their employment practices to meet the whims of government officials, as opposed to acting in the interests of producing a profit to sustain their business. High minimum wage levels will cause low wage workers to be retrenched. Minimum wage laws increase the cost for businesses to operate, which in turn increase the overall cost of living in an area. The law is self defeating.
Debate Round No. 3
ournamestoolong

Pro

"Actually no. If minimum wage solved poverty crisis then we would just inform third world countries to pay their citizens higher wages. Imagine all the foreign aid money saved simply by advising leaders in the world's poorest countries! It doesn't work, even applied to the United States, there's little evidence suggesting that increases in the minimum wage help the poor."

Your statment of their being little evidence is disproved if I give evidence:
1: http://www.epi.org...
if 10% of the workforce will have their pay raised, this will help lower poverty.

2: http://www.americanprogress.org...

"I think it is clear that raidsing the minimum wage will lower poverty
That's natural cycle of a capitalist market. If businesses fail/need restructuring then that leaves others to rise who won't make the same mistakes as say the current car industry. Note it is the businesses structure and not minimum wage that caused them to fail. Those employees from the failed businesses are still skilled workers; still have value to other employees. Minimum wage employees are also not the ones to be spending on luxury products, so that point is moot."

Yes but minimum wage workers are consumers, and if they fail to make enough money, the market of necessities is hurt. This can hurt the economy, and not just the luxury industry.

3: http://www.ncccusa.org...

"On the reverse, raising the minimum wage will help bussiness, as this article points out.
Under capitalism ones wages depend on how much one can produce. That is why a doctor gets paid substantially more than the factory worker. It depends on how well and how much one produces. The reason why factory labourers receive more wages than say a fast food employee is because they are rendered more productive by productive use of capital."

True, but there must be a limit. When someone does some amount of work they earn at least a minimum of SOME capital. This is why fast food workers are paid.

"Those who don't produce enough to merit the minimum wage will become unemployed - they have little tradeable worth for an employee. Those who do produce more than the minimum wage don't need minimum wage laws. If a labourer, say our doctor, is not paid enough for what she produces then someone else will hire her and pay her more. It is competition for labour that produces and pushes wages up."

If, like you argue, this competition pushes wages up, why is anyone on minimum wage. Some people on minimum wage work very hard, however their work is not valued for, while not eliete, it is streneous, and no one will hire them for another person is just as qualified.

"The point is not cheap labour. Minimum wage is why companies invest in offshore production - the government forces them to pay at a higher rate than the value of the work itself. Wage laws violate the freedom of two people to enter into a voluntary association with each other. Minimum wage hurts employment, hurts investment, hurts growth and expansion. Minimum wage laws are adverse to the basic premise of capitalism - supply and demand. It forces businesses to pay a fixed amount for services even when the value of that service is less than the legal set wage. This in turn forces businesses to adjust their employment practices to meet the whims of government officials, as opposed to acting in the interests of producing a profit to sustain their business. High minimum wage levels will cause low wage workers to be retrenched. Minimum wage laws increase the cost for businesses to operate, which in turn increase the overall cost of living in an area. The law is self defeating."

I will argue that companies invest in offshore production to get cheap labor, HOWEVER, the value of the work is not low. The fact is the government exists to serve the people, and if they let people work very hard for very little money, it is corrupt and evil. Minimum wage may encourage offshore production, but it prevents oppresion. And the cycle you mentioned, is easily reversed by raising the minimum wage due to inflation, for that is in part, what you described.

I await my opponents response.
Puck

Con

"1: http://www.epi.org......
if 10% of the workforce will have their pay raised, this will help lower poverty."

Eh no. That is an opinion piece with un linked referencing to its claims. Read again how artificially raising wages creates a negative system of price increase. The numbers are grossly inflated too. Only 2.5% of the population are on minimum wage.
http://www.bls.gov...

" http://www.americanprogress.org...;

That source simply states !raise the minimum wage! It doesn't detail in any way the effects.

"I think it is clear that raidsing the minimum wage will lower poverty"

Don't put that in quotes as if I said it. *tsks*

"Yes but minimum wage workers are consumers, and if they fail to make enough money, the market of necessities is hurt. This can hurt the economy, and not just the luxury industry."

False dilemma. Market of necessities doesn't fail. It doesn't drive the economy either. Minimum wage abolition does not equal absurdly low wages. No. Individual's worth is in their productive capacity - they bargain their wage from their employer based on their skill and productivity. Ones productivity has worth to the employer. Undercutting wages simply harms the business itself as there are others willing to be competitive for labour.

"http://www.ncccusa.org......
On the reverse, raising the minimum wage will help bussiness, as this article points out."

Again, don't include your statements with quoted mine.

Those quoted show a lack of economic knowledge. Extra $200 a week? Who has to afford that? The businesses in question of the employed. At a cost to to themselves at a rate higher than the value of the work itself. What does the business need to do to pay for this? Raise its prices, cut jobs, or go under. Your article, I will use the statements therein. $200 a week is $10 400 a year per employee. Still good for business? This cost is not spread as it would be from a tax, no, the money to page for these wages must come directly from the business itself.

"True, but there must be a limit. When someone does some amount of work they earn at least a minimum of SOME capital. This is why fast food workers are paid."

Fast food workers are paid like any worker, because their production has value to the employer.

"If, like you argue, this competition pushes wages up, why is anyone on minimum wage. Some people on minimum wage work very hard, however their work is not valued for, while not eliete, it is streneous, and no one will hire them for another person is just as qualified."

Those jobs on minimum wage tend to be entry level skill wise. One's productive worth has limited value in these jobs. The government through the force of minimum wage is what keeps people there - fewer jobs, less business growth, inflated prices. If a person wishes to compete for another job then it is under their own merit to get the required skills to make themselves competitive in a job market.

"I will argue that companies invest in offshore production to get cheap labor, HOWEVER, the value of the work is not low."

Which work is this then, at what cost? It is the value of the production of employee in relation to the job itself.

"The fact is the government exists to serve the people, and if they let people work very hard for very little money, it is corrupt and evil."

No.. The government stops people from the best chance they have of creating their own wealth. Regulation, taxes, and in this case minimum wage all stifle business growth, all reduce opportunities for job development, reduce opportunities for individuals to be self employed or to reach a higher competitive skill level of employment.

"Minimum wage may encourage offshore production, but it prevents oppresion."

Appeal to emotion - as already detailed the alternative is not undercut wages; it's a system where ones pay is measured by ones productive value set at the free market value. Without the minimum wage business growth becomes more viable, jobs become more readily available, competition for job seekers becomes competitive - raising wages.

"And the cycle you mentioned, is easily reversed by raising the minimum wage due to inflation, for that is in part, what you described."

Artificially raising wages above their value which in turn raises goods prices reduces inflation how?
Debate Round No. 4
ournamestoolong

Pro

"Eh no. That is an opinion piece with un linked referencing to its claims. Read again how artificially raising wages creates a negative system of price increase. The numbers are grossly inflated too. Only 2.5% of the population are on minimum wage."

Regardless of the numbers, It is unfair to let people work for little money. 2.5 is still a good portion of America.

"That source simply states !raise the minimum wage! It doesn't detail in any way the effects."

I see that it in full, reviews the positive effects of aising the minimum wage.

"Don't put that in quotes as if I said it. *tsks*'
Sorry, I should proofcheck harder.

"False dilemma. Market of necessities doesn't fail. It doesn't drive the economy either. Minimum wage abolition does not equal absurdly low wages. No. Individual's worth is in their productive capacity - they bargain their wage from their employer based on their skill and productivity. Ones productivity has worth to the employer. Undercutting wages simply harms the business itself as there are others willing to be competitive for labour."

As I have said before an individuals productivity doesn't matter if no one else wants their work. If their job s not difficult, though it may be physically hard, it is not valued, for anyone can do it. This is a problem because you get less money for working hard, and upper jobs have more money, making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

"Again, don't include your statements with quoted mine."

Again, I'm very sorry.

"Those quoted show a lack of economic knowledge. Extra $200 a week? Who has to afford that? The businesses in question of the employed. At a cost to to themselves at a rate higher than the value of the work itself. What does the business need to do to pay for this? Raise its prices, cut jobs, or go under. Your article, I will use the statements therein. $200 a week is $10 400 a year per employee. Still good for business? This cost is not spread as it would be from a tax, no, the money to page for these wages must come directly from the business itself."

First off those quoted in the article are highly regarded bussiness profesionals. Second If the wage is higher, customers can afford more, helping business, and thus, justifying the cost.

"Fast food workers are paid like any worker, because their production has value to the employer."

Yes, but it is not much value, as the skill is not specialized, so minimum wage keeps them from beig paid very little.

"Those jobs on minimum wage tend to be entry level skill wise. One's productive worth has limited value in these jobs. The government through the force of minimum wage is what keeps people there - fewer jobs, less business growth, inflated prices. If a person wishes to compete for another job then it is under their own merit to get the required skills to make themselves competitive in a job market."

If you do not have the ability to raise your skill, with obstacles such as no college, homeless, and possibly a family, then how is it fair that you do a physically hard job, and barely get paid, because it seemingly doesn't have value.

"Which work is this then, at what cost? It is the value of the production of employee in relation to the job itself."

Factory workers are needed, thus there job has value, however most of the time they are paid little money, with no bbonuses related to productivity.

"No.. The government stops people from the best chance they have of creating their own wealth. Regulation, taxes, and in this case minimum wage all stifle business growth, all reduce opportunities for job development, reduce opportunities for individuals to be self employed or to reach a higher competitive skill level of employment."

Ok, that is a different debate. That could be what the government DOES, but it was meant to help the people.

"Appeal to emotion - as already detailed the alternative is not undercut wages; it's a system where ones pay is measured by ones productive value set at the free market value. Without the minimum wage business growth becomes more viable, jobs become more readily available, competition for job seekers becomes competitive - raising wages."

Yes, but if the job is not specialized the value is seemingly low. Regardless of the work.

"Artificially raising wages above their value which in turn raises goods prices reduces inflation how?"

I simply meant wages from time to time need to be raised DUE TO inflation.
Puck

Con

"Regardless of the numbers, It is unfair to let people work for little money. 2.5 is still a good portion of America."

Again they are entry level skill jobs. As such their value is limited. Note nothing about no minimum wage asserts they will not be receiving those wages if the market value is set as such - it simply means the government cannot artificially set or raise that value.

"I see that it in full, reviews the positive effects of aising the minimum wage."

Eh no - it states "Doing so would help nearly 5 million poor workers" that's it. No details on how. Or the effects such an increase will have on their employers etc.

"As I have said before an individuals productivity doesn't matter if no one else wants their work."

That is a job market issue - not minimum wage - and minimum wage law is what is reduces the availability of jobs.:D

"If their job s not difficult, though it may be physically hard, it is not valued, for anyone can do it."

If it is physical labour then those of higher physical capacity will have more value in those jobs in a free market i.e. get paid more. Note the glaring issue - if the government sets the minimum wage let's say at $5.25 hr. An unskilled worker - who is typically more desperate for employment than a higher skilled worker - only has labour to sell that is worth $3.00 hr, then a minimum wage of $5.25 hr will stop him from selling his labour and he will not be able to be employed. Each increase in minimum wage increases the number of those whose productive worth falls below it to be unable to gain employment.

"This is a problem because you get less money for working hard"

So working less would get you paid more? Don't think so.

"and upper jobs have more money, making the rich richer and the poor poorer."

"upper" jobs have higher skill requirements, the production of the employers has more productive worth to the employer, naturally they are compensated higher as a result. Again, if someone wants to become competitive in a different job, it is up to the individual to acquire the necessary skills - not for the government to artificially try to raise ones worth.

"First off those quoted in the article are highly regarded bussiness profesionals."

Appeal to authority.

"Second If the wage is higher, customers can afford more, helping business, and thus, justifying the cost."

No. Cost of production has increased due to wage increases. Profit is less - to compensate the cost of the product increases or the business risks going under. It's hard to stimulate the economy with no job.

"Yes, but it is not much value, as the skill is not specialized, so minimum wage keeps them from beig paid very little."

Ugh. See the problem. You admit they have little worth and want them paid not to their value. Again, nothing about no minimum wage law states that those workers will not receive the same wage. It may also be lower. It would depend on the market value for that job. If they wanted more money they could get skilled and try elsewhere.

"If you do not have the ability to raise your skill, with obstacles such as no college, homeless, and possibly a family, then how is it fair that you do a physically hard job, and barely get paid, because it seemingly doesn't have value."

It has value to the employer. It has value because the job has competition with availability. Again if it's physically hard then some people will be more productive - of more worth - to the employer. The individual negotiates their worth -their value. Someone homeless will be compensated for the productive output they are capable of - that is all -education level does not stop one from obtaining skills to get higher paid employment to be in a position to later further ones education. Poor family planning is not a burden a business should pay for.

"Factory workers are needed, thus there job has value, however most of the time they are paid little money, with no bbonuses related to productivity."

Bonuses are a given? Fraid not. Note current union laws and the artificially set wage would stop them from negotiating better deals for themselves where bonuses would be a viable as a commodity between employer and employee.

"Ok, that is a different debate. That could be what the government DOES, but it was meant to help the people."

Then abolish minimum wage laws. :D

"Yes, but if the job is not specialized the value is seemingly low. Regardless of the work."

Yes. So they get paid accordingly. Remember it is the value to the job itself in relation to the employee- "regardless" is irrelevant. Non specialised skill jobs tend to be of less production value - hence the lower wages.

"I simply meant wages from time to time need to be raised DUE TO inflation."

Artificially raised wages in part is causal to the inflation - raising them higher simply compounds the problem later on.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro simply never answered the question as to why poor countries don't just raise the minimum wage to end poverty. Failing to answer that question was fatal.

Pro provided as references only unsubstantiated opinion. The opinion ignored the possibility that workers would be fired or replaced as an alternative to being given hirer wages.

Arguments from social justice relate to whether poor people should be given welfare payments. If they deserve welfare payments, the burden should fall to all taxpayers, not to specific employers.

Con argued the case well, and expressed an understanding of the issues. I would have pointed out two other specific alternatives to paying higher wages. One is to automate. McDonald's has built and tested a completely automated McDonalds having one employee. It is ready to roll the minute labor costs make it cheaper. There is an automated fast food restaurant chain in Japan that operates with one employee per branch. Janitors are replaced by cleaning machines driven by higher-skilled labor. There are many examples. The second alternative is to reduce the operating hours or change the business plan to eliminate operations made unprofitable by more expensive labor.

As it was, Con nonetheless won every point of the debate easily.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Pleas add reasonings for your votes
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
I forgot to add, Thank you for a great debate.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
edit: "the money to page for these wages" 'to pay'
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Thank you Puck for the advice. Google did help.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
I see you favor minimum wage laws. I think it is best to agree on a wording of the resolution before posting a challenge. Would you like to take the Pro position on "The Federal minimum wage in the United States should be substantially increased."? Or I can take Pro on "The Federal minimum wage should be abolished." ... or perhaps there is some other wording you prefer.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Thank you Brian ( and for the record I don't know that much about late term abortion)
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
I was going to take you up on something but the only thing on our profiles that we disagree with each other on is late term abortions - but I'm not sure I feel strongly enough about that issue to argue the case for it.

However, I'm sure there are lots of debaters on this site with whom you will not see eye to eye!

Good luck!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
ournamestoolongPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
ournamestoolongPuckTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
ournamestoolongPuckTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
ournamestoolongPuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
ournamestoolongPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06