Federal Minimum Wage should be $20 per hour for everyone.
Debate Rounds (1)
Here is by Devil's advocate argument for why the minimum wage should be eliminated.
The minimum wage should be based on the free market forces and no minimum wage should be set by the Federal Government.
If the Market is only willing to pay $5 per hour, that is it.
America has a Capitalistic Economic system where supply and demand determine prices and wages.
Governmental interference will destroy America's economy; and, fewer people will be employed by requiring companies to pay higher wages than the market dictates.
If people can't move themselves up the wage ladder by improving their skills, they deserve to be paid whatever the market forces decide.
After all, America is not a Communistic economy.
I look forward to hearing Pro's argument for why the government should be setting minimum wages.
I believe that America should be a society where people engage themselves in volunteer work/community service. If American workers are to be paid, then it should be through a trade system. I believe that money is too stressful for many people to deal with and would make life more simpler. Of course, a negative in this type of system would be that many people would choose to be lazy and never leave their homes, because they would not be required to work. Most likely they would not work out of the good of their heart, even though they would have that opportunity if money was not an issue in the world. I think that people would be less greedy if money was not in place in America. I believe that this would also help with the crime rate.
Another negative though, would be people that own businesses. Technically, the way I see it, then there would not be any competition among businesses. And a question though, would be how a person could even define a person as owning a business if America did not use money. Perhaps we could have money on the business/corporate level, but on the individual level live off of a trading system or out of the goodness of our hearts by doing volunteer work and helping others. I am not an economist or a money person at all, so I would not truly know the impact of a moneyless society and one that would involve trading. I just believe that it would be a neat idea. For people that work in the financial/accounting field then they might be out of a job of what they enjoy doing since money would not be used (except unless it was used on a business level). So, if we look at it that way, then maybe not so much.
Minimum wage, if we are looking into using money on an individual basis/personal level, then there should not be a set minimum wage. It should be based on what employers can afford to pay their employees, while also keeping the current economic conditions into consideration. However, some people might view this as an unfair policy, because people in some professions or at some companies would earn more in a minimum wage, while people in a different profession or at a different company would earn less as a minimum wage.
I am not sure that I believe money should be eliminated completely, because on a business level it would be good to have it, because that would take away the entrepreneurial spirit of those people who want to own their own companies. But things should not be as expensive on an individual basis if people on a personal level have to use money. The only way that I think that a trading system might work is if we use this on an individual basis. We Americans want stuff though, and we are so impatient. So, Americans most likely would not have the patience to sit and wait on things if we use a trading system.
At least, I believe that we need to make life easier on people and not make everything so expensive. I know some people who propose that there should be a limit to how much employers are allowed to pay their workers. Such, as no one being allowed to earn more than $50,000.00 per year for example (of course they would still be allowed to invest money), and no less than $30,000.00 per year. I'm not sure what the best method would be, because I will be honest that I am not really the kind of person who pays the most attention to money or having a ton of it. I'm trying to think about it looking at the big picture and keeping other people in mind.
Truth is, we need to make changes in America because so many people are having difficulty making ends meet. It's only going to get worse before it gets better if changes are not made soon. I know that I have always been very blessed in the world of money and grew up in an advantaged household. I know many other people who did not though. So, sometimes it is rather difficult for me to sit and relax when so many people are struggling in this world and struggling to even find housing. I just really feel for other people, and I try and help other people in anyway that I can.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, this vote is decided more by who actually argued the point than by the arguments made. Pro makes a case that's not very well articulated, lacks any sort of evidence and is generally short on warrants. But it's a case, with impacts and harms. Con's post is not a case. It's an evaluation of the situation we live in. I'm not sure I see any actual arguments in there for why the $20 minimum wage is good. I see a lot of interesting ideas about how Con looks at the world, but I don't see a uniting argument with anything to weigh within the round. So much as Pro does the bare minimum to fulfill his burden in the round, Con simply doesn't respond, nor does she present her own set of impacts specific to the topic.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.