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

Do anything

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,532 times Debate No: 67514
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Opponent chooses any topic whatsoever, anything they want, in round one. They can state rules and whatever, make it fair. I will be pro on whatever topic con chooses, and con will be con on the topic. It cannot be a live debate, or talent contests, otherwise there are no restrictions. I can add one word to the topic if I feel like it within round two. By accepting this debate you accept all the rules.


I accept, here is the resolution, Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $10.10.


Round 2 is for contentions, no rebuttles.

Round 3 is for rebuttles.

Round 4 is rebuttles and conclusions

No trolling.

Wikipeadia shall not be an acceptable source for this debate.

Should- Used to express obligation or duty (

Raise- To increase in size, quantity, or worth (
Debate Round No. 1


Alright! The resolution looks fine so I won't add any words to it.
s://; alt="" width="548" height="398" />

As we all know the minimum wage is currently 7.25$.
But yet--people cannot afford anything with the measly 7 dollars 25 cents per hour. Just look at this chart:


Another graph from, shows us that the value of cash has inflated so that workers now must have at least $10.10 per hour, NOT 7.25 as originally thought of.
Real value of the federal minimum wage, 1968–2014 and 2014–2017 under an increase to $10.10 by 2017, compared with its value had it grown at the rate of various benchmarks
YearReal minimum wageReal minimum wage (projected)Real average wages of production, non-supervisory workersReal average wages of production, non-supervisory workers (projected)U.S. total economy productivityU.S. total economy productivity (projected)
1968 9.58 9.58 9.58
1969 9.17 9.78 9.62
1970 8.75 9.85 9.76
1971 8.38 10.07 10.12
1972 8.14 10.51 10.39
1973 7.65 10.49 10.64
1974 8.70 10.21 10.47
1975 8.44 10.07 10.70
1976 8.74 10.19 11.00
1977 8.22 10.30 11.13
1978 8.86 10.42 11.24
1979 8.85 10.25 11.26
1980 8.52 9.97 11.17
1981 8.40 9.89 11.41
1982 7.93 9.86 11.24
1983 7.60 9.86 11.58
1984 7.30 9.80 11.88
1985 7.06 9.76 12.08
1986 6.93 9.79 12.33
1987 6.71 9.70 12.39
1988 6.47 9.66 12.54
1989 6.20 9.61 12.64
1990 6.70 9.53 12.82
1991 7.24 9.48 12.92
1992 7.06 9.47 13.39
1993 6.89 9.49 13.43
1994 6.74 9.53 13.56
1995 6.58 9.56 13.57
1996 7.17 9.63 13.90
1997 7.61 9.79 14.09
1998 7.50 10.04 14.37
1999 7.35 10.20 14.72
2000 7.11 10.26 15.07
2001 6.92 10.35 15.30
2002 6.81 10.48 15.73
2003 6.66 10.53 16.24
2004 6.48 10.46 16.68
2005 6.27 10.40 16.97
2006 6.07 10.47 17.07
2007 6.71 10.58 17.19
2008 7.23 10.57 17.22
2009 8.04 10.93 17.58
2010 7.91 11.01 18.09
2011 7.66 10.89 18.12
2012 7.51 10.83 18.26
2013 7.40 10.89 18.43
2014 7.25 7.25 10.89 10.89 18.42 18.42
2015 8.03 10.91 18.75
2016 8.78 10.93 19.09
2017 9.48 10.95 19.43

As seen from the above studies people need the money and otherwise they could starve and die without the necessary budgets. Furthermore, helping people get out of the "poor poor zone" would also help the government. Why? The government has programs that help the needy (which is basically the whole entire tier of people stuck in the minimum wage zone). But by raising the minimum wage, the government frees itself from all these lame programs. In fact, from the same website mentioned above (, "Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would reduce government expenditures on current income-support programs by $7.6 billion per year—and possibly more, given the conservative nature of this estimate. This would allow these funds to be repurposed into either new programs or expansions of existing programs to further leverage the poverty-fighting impact of this spending". Not only so, "Workers in the bottom 20 percent of wage earners receive over $45 billion in government assistance each year from the six primary means-tested income-support programs." This number would decline significantly if we raised the minumum wage up to $10.10. It would also help the majority of the families as seen from a chart from that same exact website:
Share of wage earners in each hourly wage decile whose families receive means-tested public assistance
Wage decileIncidence
All 23.2%
Bottom 10th (≤$7.63) 54.2%
2nd ($7.64–10.07) 45.1%
3rd ($10.08–12.49) 36.2%
4th ($12.50–14.94) 28.7%
5th ($14.95–17.70) 23.7%
6th ($17.71–21.01) 16.6%
7th ($21.02–25.25) 10.4%
8th ($25.26–31.14) 7.2%
9th ($31.15–42.09) 6.0%
Top 10th ($42.10+) 4.8%

And that is not to say only the bottom poor people would be affected; the people who originally earned only $10.10 per hour would gain more in wages as well! Think about it! Richer people equals less helping, AND more taxes! And doesn't the government want more money in its budget? Well here you go: the perfect oppurtunity.

Yet another wondrous table from that same website above (wow it's helpful and informational!) shows us HOW MUCH PEOPLE will be helped and the eventual positive benefits from raising the min. wage up to $10.10:

Estimated number of workers likely to get a raise 27,118,000
Share of all U.S. wage earners 20.5%
Total wage increase for all affected workers $31.8 billion
Average increase in hourly wage for affected workers $1.61
Predicted change in number of workers relying on public assistance -1.7 million
Predicted annual change in total benefit dollars received among affected worker families -$7.6 billion*
Implied government savings from each additional dollar in wages paid to affected workers $0.24

To conclude, using a quote from the website, "Raising the minimum wage would lift incomes for millions of working Americans and their families, while providing budgetary savings in means-tested public assistance programs—savings that should be repurposed into either new programs or expansions of existing programs to further leverage the poverty-fighting impact of this spending. Raising the minimum wage is one simple and long-overdue step toward rebalancing the social contract so that the private and public sectors are more equal participants in improving living standards for American workers."

Remember, I already cited my source. If you forget, it's here:, so don't accuse me of plagiarism.

So anyhow, to stress the benefits of raising the wage:
-Families saved from poverty
-Familes get money
-Government saves money
-Government gets more money
-Win-win situation here

I don't see why the minimum wage shouldn't be raised up to $10.10. Onto you Lannan13.


Contention 1: Wage Increase=/= More Jobs

Wages will not increase jobs For instance the wage will increase and the employers will have to either raise prices in order to shelter the burden of the increased wages (which we'll get to this in another Contention) and the second is that we have roughly 500,000 jobs lost due to the cutting of jobs in order for business can still compete with others at low prices. You see that CBO actually supports my point (

This will also hurt teenagers in the Workforce making employers having to cut down on their hours and/or favoring adults and a older population. Let's take Wisconsin for example when the minimum wage was last raised the unemployment soared from 15.8%-19.8%. ( Imagine that on a US wide or even a world wide scale.

1 million jobs lost subtracted from the 900,000 that will be lifted from the poverty line and that equals 100,000 people unemployed and living in poverty. Not to mention the other side effects from raising the minimum wage such as loss of jobs for teenagers. The last time Congress raised the minimum wage in July of 2009, 600,000 teen jobs disappeared within 6 months. ( With the last minimum wage teen unemployment percentages went from 14.8% to 27.1% (

The Inflation will also rise, but let's look at the minimum wage increase. It's going to go from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour which is over a 25% increase. (in the US) This will cause prices to rise by 25% again. (

Contention 2: Inflation
Why don't we raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour or why not make everyone a millionaire and have them make $million per hour? The answer to this question is a very simple one and it's simply causes prices to increase and inflation to rise. (

You see this is a lesson in supply and demand is that when the minimum wage is increased it will cost more for companies to hire and train employees causing more people not to be hired (see video), this results in less jobs, the costs of businesses also rise to keep up with the increased wages and that this ends up causing inflation. (

You see this will be a continuous cycle. If you continue to rise the minimum wage then inflation will fallow causing the minimum wage to rise again and again until we end up with a problem like Zimbabwe. When the minimum wage was risen once more the US saw products prices increase via inflation by a factor of 10. ( and (

Estimated Effects on Employment of an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, Second Half of 2016

Contention 3: Inflation's affect on Global Trade

Here when we observe the above chart we can see as the minimum wage increase the value of the dollar decreases. This only creates a terrible cycle that the average citizen is unable to get out of. The reason that this is important is because we would be raising the minimum wage to meet living requirements, but the thing that makes it contradictory is that prices will skyrocket causing for another call to raise the minimum wage to meet this resolution. It will be a vicious cycle that will the dollar to be worthless and have a devastating effect on the Global Economy. The higher the inflation rate also affects international trade as the higher the inflation is the higher the interest rates. ( According to Paul Krugman, the devaluation of the dollar (caused by the resolution here) will lead to a decrease in people people buying product which hurts the economy of the nation. (
Debate Round No. 2


1. Wage Increase = fewer jobs...?
It is true that 500,000 jobs were lost, but there was the greater benefit within "

A plan by President Obama and fellow Democrats to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would cost roughly 500,000 jobs but increase wages for roughly 16.5 million Americans, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday." Sure, half a million people lost their jobs, but 33 times more people got more wage and got out of the poor zone, therefore supporting my contention that the increase of the minimum wage would help more than NOT help.

2. Inflation
Inflation is a big problem in society. However, it won't be a problem for this society because of two reasons. One, $10.10 is ahead of the schedule. It plans ahead and can take the inflation well-- as my single website from round two can support, $10.10 is actually the wage need for 2017. Nevertheless, even if we are a bit ahead of schedule, it will only help us--even if stores increase prices, $10.10 will be able to keep in pace. Not to mention as prices increase, the countering is that the wages will yet increase again. As the wages and prices remain to be in ratio, everything in my plan will stay beneficial. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 for now does not mean making it stay there forever. Things change, but right not, $10.10 is the best starting point. Once again, I stress this, $7.25 is much too low., tells us that"That amount, when adjusted for inflation, is actually lower than what a minimum-wage worker earned in 1968 and is too meager to offer anyone the chance to climb out of poverty, let alone afford basic goods and services." So we see politicians are too behind in the minimum wage policies. They need to make it $10.10 to keep up with modern day prices.

3. Global trade
My opponent asserts that if the value of the dollar decreases, people will buy fewer products. Yet he counters himself with a theory himself in contention 2 that proves that people will spend more when they earn more money. Why, buying more products can only help the economy! Spending more money means more money for the government budget!

Irrefuted arguments:
-Those employees in the bottom tier CANNOT afford even basic living, which they have the rights to (because of their rights of LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness)
-The employees already earning $10.10 WILL BENEFIT AS WELL--Their wages will rise as well
-Those employees, once out of the poor zone, will NOT need government assistance as much, THEREFORE leading to the government saving money
-Richer employees means more taxes means better economy
-Spending more money means the economy IMPROVES.

Back to you Lannan13.



I would like to note that the rules stated that I was only able to post contentions in Round 2 and no rebuttles, so I wouldn't have been able to refute his argument. I will group his arguments into my 3 contentions concidering that they would best suit fit there.
Contention 1: Wage Increase=/= More Jobs.

I would like to point out the Likely section of the CBO studies showing that we would loose 1 million jobs as CBO does report that there is a 2/3's chance of such a thing to occur. To add to that Pro's argument only states that 27 million are likely to get a raise, but that is a given with a minimum wage increase.
I would like to emphisize the impact that this has on the upper class and buisness owner's. The fact is that these jobs cannot afford such a minimum wage boost. You see that as I have brought up last round that minimum wage jobs are typically teenager jobs working through high school or college. I showed that in Wisconsin, in 2009, when the minimum wage was last raised that the teenagers lost out on these opportunities, because the minimum wage increase harms fast food industries due to the fact that they only make X a week and have to pay their employees Y, but with the minimum wage increase it is now Y+Z meaning that the company is going to have less money to buy goods for their service, so they will have to resort to cutting back on their employees, especially teens, in order to save money. The chart bellow shows the wage increases for just about everyone...except for the upper class. That is because they are having to pay more and more money to their workers and have to do one of two things. Raise the prices of their goods and then fire some of their workers to compensate for profit losses. This was accounted for with the last minimuim wage increase as I showed in my evidence from Wisconsin showing that there is a major increase in unemployment as the minimum wage increases.
Estimated Effects on Real Family Income of an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, Second Half of 2016
I extend across my evidence stating how this harms teenage jobs and that the last time there was minimum wage increase there was a 13% increase in teenage unemployment. This is important, because many employers are looking for expierence and if you do not have the expierence then your oppertnity of getting a job goes down and this harms the state of the American economy in the future.
People will still be in debt to the government, because as I already stated, many people will lose their job and others will be turned away due to their the harming of buisness plus this places a strain on buisness causing a firing of people and rising the prices solution to make up for their profit loses.
Contention 2: Inflation

I extend across my exidense stating that increasing the minimum wage will cause the minimum wage to increase by 25%. ( Though people will have money the people without jobs caused by the infaltion will be at a severe disadvantage as they will fall prey to these prices and will have to wait for a bill similiar to Obamacare to have the government strenuously lower prices, but it will still harm the economy, because of things being priced higher people will be unable to buy many things harming the producers and they won't be able to produce as much leading to closing of buisness or firing of people causing the cycle to continue. The government option is to then raise the minimum wage again devaluing the dollar even more causing an impact on the Global Scale. As we can see from my last graph in Round 2 that as the minimum wages increase then the dollar becomes worth less and less causing inflation.
Contention 3: Global Economy.

People would have to spend more money, becuase of the inflation and with the devaluing of the dollar we can see that if I spent a dollar on the US maket in the 1960s it would be a whole lot more then if I spent a dollar on the US market today. Economist Gagnon has shown that devaluing of the US dollar caused by the inflation can lead to a massive increase in import prices and since we get many of our things from abroad it will be even harder to get that new XBox video game you were wanting. He also shown that it harms nation's holding our debt, because the value is worthless and makes other nation's not want to purchase from us. The US in turn raises the interest rates, but we cannot afford to raise them any higher. ( Why's this you may ask? If we observe the graph bellow the US interest rate on debt alone dwarfs most of the US federal budget. The US federal debt is getting so enourmously large that the US is getting to a breaking point in economic trade to were we have to pay off a massive amount of debt or commit financial suicide and raise the interest rates. If we observe the chart bellow we can see the different rates that a our interest rates will cost the US in the future. We have no choice, but cannot decend this slippery slope and further devaluing of the US dollar will harm the American economy by forcing us to lose jobs and rely more on imports causing the the nation to slide into the interest disadvantage furthering harming our nation's economy causing a world wide economic collapse greater than that of the Great Depression and rising the minimum wage will cause us to go flying off the fiscal cliff. (
So to conclude, by raising the minimum wage, not only do we cause a cycle of inflation, but we will also cause massive unemployment increase, economic downturn, and we will harm more people then we will help.
Debate Round No. 3


Firstly to address wage increases, the upper-class is irrelevant because THEY are not the ones who need wage raises. The poor are the ones in need--the ones that have the minimum wage increased to $10.10 would be benefited so much that they move out of the poverty zone. The Congress has already signed a Fair Minimum Wage Act (, and it shows the benefits of the raising of the minimum wage. Again, I stress this, the more money people get, the more they can spend. I already said this in the previous rounds, and I'll say this again--this would only HELP my opponent's huge federal debt, NOT raise it. raising the minimum wage to $10.10 keeps the employees ahead of the game, and can out-weigh the inflation. As the previously cited website notes itself, "Raising the minimum wage boosts consumer demand, as low-income workers spend their higher wages at local businesses." And "Raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would generate more than $22 billion in new economic activity, translating to 85,000 new full-time jobs as higher sales lead businesses to hire more employees, according to estimates by the Economic Policy Institute." So we see here EVEN IF a ton of people do lose their jobs (for reasons my opponent has not even asserted), more people are helped, and THE GOVERNMENT is helped economically-wise as well. This singular contention can defeat both my opponent's first contention AND his second contention AND his third contention. All of them are null against the positive benefits of having the minimum wage at $10.10.

In conclusion, my plan helps people get better life-styles, and boosts the government economy. Raising the minimum wage would HELP most people as my opponent proves himself with his own graph, which I picture again below:
Estimated Effects on Real Family Income of an Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, Second Half of 2016

The poor people NEED TO KEEP UP WITH THE INFLATING ECONOMY. The minimum wage is ancient compared to modern prices. We should take action and put the Fair Minimum Wage Act to play so as to boost America's economy! Go, minimum-wage $10.10!
Good debate. You almost won me over with the repetition of inflation, inflation, and pretty much nothing but inflation (because job losses were moot against job gains/raise of wage/improvement of life-style/draggin out of poor zone), but repetition does not make a point stronger. As much as you repeat, I know for sure that with the increasing amount of money, people will work harder to gain wages; people will spend more to consumer products and benefit the economy enough to defeat the so-called inflation.
Vote me.


Contention 1: Wage Increase=/= More Jobs

The effects upon the rich are vital as they lead the Private sector and the private sector provides a large amount of jobs for the US. Raising the minimum wage would harm these owners and cause less jobs avalible as shown by the CBO report. If we gaize upon graph bellow we can see that the Private sector will be the most affected by this changed and with there being a ton more private sector jobs than public sector jobs then this can only spell dissaster.

Now to address the Fair Minimum Wage Act, my opponent has stated that Congress has passed it, but that is incorrect as that bill hasn't even left the Committe that it was sent to. Plus we can see that further proof shows that the minimum wage hasn't increased at all, but only that of Public sector wokers due to an Executive Order passed ealier this year. (

Though increasing the minimum wage may increase their demand since they have more money then logic would say that they would spend more correct? That is true and it's because of the inflation of goods and the harming of the buisness as shown by my CBO graph that we would loose a ton of American Jobs and this would also lead to inflation as busness owners have no choice, but to fire wokers and raise prices to make up for profit losses as I have shown in my previous rounds and has gone uncontested.

My opponent also said this will lead to 85,000 more new jobs. That may be fine and all, but when we do the math and take it from a nonbiased and non patisan group you can see that negative 1 million jobs added to a gain of 85,000 jobs still leaves us in the hole by 815,000 jobs. Which if my math is correct is still a huge job loss and economic harm.

Contention 2: Inflation

I still extend across my argument on increasing the minimum wage will cause a 25% product inflation which hadn't been refuted all debate. My opponent also drops my argument of this causing a viccious cycle of inflation and minimum wage increases that leads to the devaluation of the dollar which also had gone uncontested this entire debate.

Contention 3: Effects on the Global Market.

We would still be spending more and more money on foreign imports deapening our debt. Not to mention the US interest disadvantage that I had brought up my last round which had also gone uncontested which shows the US will go into an economic reccession at the least due to this harm caused on the foreign debt. Not to mention that my opponent has dropped my economist evidence showing that rising the minimum wage causes these effects.

We can concluded that raising the minimum wage will harm more then help the American economy as it will cause a major job loss, massive inflation, and cause economic downturn due to it forcing the US to raise our bond intrest rates to levels that we cannot fully handle.

So with that I thank you and please vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
and the fewer jobs arguments against the raised wages...I was really leaning both ways on that!
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
I was looking over your arguments...the inflation rate really depressed looked as if america really had no hope of getting rid of its debt and that the $10.10 would only make it worse. Thank goodness you didn't make a counter plan for the middle-line $9.00, which your sources heavily advocate for but you seemed too focused to pressure me further. With a more high-tier debater they might have gone for $9.00 to minimize the risks, which I would find insanely difficult to counter.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
What do you mean?
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
congrats you almost made me concede
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: A very interesting debate. I thought both parties gave thoughtful responses. However, I thought that Con's claims that unemployment and inflation would rise was more compelling. Arguments to him.