The Instigator
Letsdebate24
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
JackFritschy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is free enterprise without limitations a good thing?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Letsdebate24
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 43075
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Letsdebate24

Con

Free enterprise without limitations has allowed people to attain vast quantities of wealth and not always in the most legitimate or moral of ways. We have seen many examples of corrupt individuals taking advantage of others to make a profit and its a virulent problem in this country. For example: I once worked for a molding company in Florida that brought the owner over 6 million a year straight to his pocket. Now this man would hire people to start out at 8.50 an hour which is slightly above minimum wage and the average employee had not seen a raise in over 5 years but because jobs were scarce in a failing economy there were next to no other jobs available. He took advantage of peoples desperation and made a substantial profit off of it. Keep in mind this man makes on average 6 million a year but he would not have the ventilation fixed in a factory that could exceed 100 degrees f in spring. Many of the machines the operators used were in desperate need of repair to ensure they were safe to use but his motto was "if it cranks out parts, it aint broken" Needless to say people were injured. Ill get to the main point of the paragraph when the debate is accepted
JackFritschy

Pro

will people do attain wealth in corrupt fashion, it is only through use of government that companies create major monopolies that quash competition. The bank bailouts are a good example. Every society that has embraced laiz faire free markets has prospered. Chile, the US, Great Britain. I can keep going on. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty then any government program. People against free markets seem to almost to suggest that it is a form of slavery. That the worker has no choice. I will point out that capitalism is a free system where people choose to work together. If people really hate there job, they leave. Capitalism only works when several groups work together in a manner in which everyone is satisfied with the end result.
Debate Round No. 1
Letsdebate24

Con

Eliminating competition was not the point I was trying to make or even monopolies. Companies that have zero government influence can monopolize an industry but a monopoly is still not the biggest problem. The problem is that people are often times not payed properly. Take my former employer for example. For him to pay us a fair wage would have put no dents in his bank account but his greed kept him from paying fairly and there were quite a few people that had managed to find a better source of employment and they took it but for the majority of us we were stuck. Sure we could have quit but then we would have no job and to go without a single paycheck is a devastating blow to the majority of Americans. To simply say "if you don't like it, leave" isn't a viable option for most people. Most people whom I speak to about this subject are immediately opposed to such a system that I would suggest but they rarely take the time to stop and think about it. Is it fair that a tycoon can make a fortune off of people that make minimum wage working like dogs for meager pay? Take a congressman for example, they make millions for little to no work while our soldiers, teachers, policemen, and firefighters make not even a quarter of a congressman's pay. Or how about an NFL player that gets paid millions to play a game. Is that fair? Any of the four jobs I mentioned is vastly more important than a politicians job. So why not pay accordingly? It's ironic really that our government supports and even profits from free enterprise but when it comes to our military no such thing exists. They are paid equally according to their rank. Why not implement such a system into our society? The only ones that would be negatively affected by such a drastic change would be the very wealthy so naturally they would be opposed to such a thing but for a middle class American that same change would only improve their lives.
JackFritschy

Pro

While people do attain wealth in corrupt fashion, it is only through use of government that companies create major monopolies that quash competition. The bank bailouts are a good example. Every society that has embraced laiz faire free markets has prospered. Chile, the US, Great Britain. I can keep going on. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty then any government program. People against free markets seem to almost to suggest that it is a form of slavery. That the worker has no choice. I will point out that capitalism is a free system where people choose to work together. If people really hate there job, they leave. Capitalism only works when several groups work together in a manner in which everyone is satisfied with the end result.
Debate Round No. 2
Letsdebate24

Con

That was the same reply you made in round one
JackFritschy

Pro

Oh very sorry for that. That was an accident. As to your points, your main contention is that workers are underpaid and exploited. This tends to not occur because people become more valuable as they gain worker skills. This means that they receive raises or they are hired by competitors. You can see this in statistics. Only 2.8% of workers make the minimum wage. So out of millions of workers, only around 3 out of 100 of them are paid minimum wage. That is very small. This shows that most employers will offer higher wages to attract workers.

You might say that these workers will never get raises and will live in perpetual poverty. You would say that they work long hours and many years with no increase in pay. Statistics show this isn't true. 50% are young people. 24% are teenagers. 64% work only part time. 44% work in food preparation, which we call restaurants. Simply point, the average minimum wage worker is a very young adult or teenager working few hours part time, usually in food prep. This also doesn't take into account tips food workers make. While they might not keep all of the tip, depending on where they work, it means they are earning a bit more then reported.

The fact that minimum wage workers are mainly young is because they are inexperienced and so they are paid less. They are also working less hours. They will soon start working full time and gain work experience. By raising the minimum wage, you only make it harder for people to hire young experienced workers. Less workers also means less production which in turn means less goods. Less goods creates a lower class of living for the poor.

Easing of economic restraint leads to powerful economies with higher standers of living and more development. Chile was a very good example of this. Massive government control over the economy led to inflation and poverty. When the government turned to free market capitalism, the economy boomed, poverty shrunk and it became one of the major economies of South America.
Debate Round No. 3
Letsdebate24

Con

It is true that there is a small percentage of the American people that receive minimum wage but the term minimum wage is just a term used to define the lowest legal wage an individual can be paid. If someone were to receive 1 dollar more than what is the legal minimum they are technically not getting paid minimum wage but that does not mean they are not being under paid. The average teacher makes 45k annually before taxes. Now for the people entrusted with teaching the future leaders of the country that is a shamefully underpaid career. The vast majority of them are highly overworked due to cut backs and a general lack of funding. Public school funding comes from taxes which we all have to pay and they can be pretty daunting for those that do not make a decent salary. Now if the school taxes were raised the schools would flourish and more teachers could be hired lightening the load and stress off of already over worked teachers therefore increasing productivity and efficiency. Now suppose that people were paid drastically better, an increase in such a tax would not be detrimental to the way of life. The government is the highest paid industry in the country by far except for the entertainment industry and im not talking about the government employees that should be getting paid more. As I stated earlier a politician will make millions while the soldiers they send to fight in wars make not even a quarter of the annual income. Where is the justice in that?
You made the comment that if minimum wage were to be raised it would be trouble for everyone in general but that is only partially true. The owners of companies aspire to make millions and dictate the pay of their subordinates accordingly to their own profit desire. If their income were to capped off the money they would have made could be distributed to people more fairly. The military system used has proven to be very efficient and if such a system were used nation wide the economy would thrive like never before. That is not to say that everyone should be paid exactly the same but there is a critical need to re-evaluate the pay system. Economical analyst have stated that when the few elite hold the majority of the wealth it can only make the economy more fragile.
JackFritschy

Pro

Con has fallen prey to the fallacy that profit and greed is bad so government should correct that. The driving force of economics is PROFIT. The most important word in economics is PROFIT. Profit is the great motivator in market economies. So people invest to make profit. If you take away means to make profit, you take away desire to invest. So if you cap corporate pay, you take their incentive to expand the economy. The same goes with price controls and other devices intended to "protect" the consumer. No profit no growth.

It's the same problem with schools. There is no incentive to improve because government has a virtual MONOPOLY on education. You say that teachers are underpaid. 45k for a nine month job! That ain't that bad. Teacher salaries can get as high as 85k. The proof of my statement is in basic economics. Despite supposedly being underpaid, tons of students get teaching degrees and teaching is a rapidly expanding profession. It is basic economics that if something is undervalued, their is a SHORTAGE of it. No one would want to take that job. Teaching is BOOMING, so it can't be undervalued.

If government had no monopoly over education, better teachers would be paid far higher salaries. Teachers unions have been fighting merit pay for many years. As for the claim of cash strapped schools, that is totally false. Contrary to cons belief, we are throwing piles of cash at a broken system! We are spending record amounts of money on schools, and students still don't improve. Why? Well if a school gets a million dollars, what might it spend it on? For one, it would by improvements for the gym and cafeteria. Maybe more computers. New nice textbooks. Cool stuff. We are spending 1$10,500 per STUDENT. That's $315,000 for a class of 30. So what will these shiny new toys do? Nothing really. Nice books don't make kids learn. Nice gyms don't make kids learn. Computers don't make kids learn. The only thing that can make kids learn is good teachers. Unfortunately, there's no incentive to make teachers teach better. Because union contracts make it EXTREMELY hard to fire a teacher, you can be horrible and stay on the job. If you are really good, you won't get paid any more. Normally their would be competition to that would pay teachers more, but government controls the industry.

Con seems to have a problem with the greed of corporations and how much money they have. It has never occurred to him that investors want of profit makes them take risks, innovate products, and put money in the economy that benefits the middle class? Con has already coincided that few workers work minimum wage. He argues that the could be paid one dollar above the wage. If a business really wanted to exploit a worker, why not pay him minimum wage. Why pay him $1 extra when you could get away paying him minimum wage. It's because they can't get away paying that low for a worker worth more. There are plenty of restaurants in town, if the cook Joe won't get a raise and he has worked for a while as a cook, he can go work for someone else. Over his restaurant work, his labor has attained VALUE. While this helps workers, with a minimum wage business while not hire low skilled workers. With that lovely $15 minimum wage, no one will hire a teenager who only produces $8 of product an hour.

As for profit seeking, those who wish to make it easier are said to be in favor of trickle down economics. No such thing is true. This term is just used to make capitalism look bad. In free market economics, workers benefit before the investor. If someone builds a restaurant, there's a good chance that it will fail. But workers are needed for the restaurant as long as it's in business. If it fails after year, the investor loses, but the workers got lots of money working their. So money TRICKLES UP not down. Workers make easy profit. So free markets are beneficial to workers as well.

http://www.pewresearch.org...
http://www.census.gov...
http://pithocrates.com...
http://www.examiner.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Letsdebate24

Con

If there were not such drastic differences in the earnings of Americans the economy could only flourish. If the average American had more money to spend what happens? Typically they spend it and then what happens to the economy? It grows and expands.
I can assure there is no high school teacher making 85K the closest I've heard to that is one of my college professors who came in at 68k. If something is undervalued obviously there will be a shortage for a reason. If you cannot make a decent salary in that field people are obviously not going to be eager to work that job unless it is their passion. That's the reason so many schools have teachers with 40 students to a teacher. That is an overwhelming task even for a veteran teacher. The majority of schools have this problem of being overcrowded.
I graduated from a high school in Florida that had this exact problem, the education system had over 1 billion dollars cut, that's a record amount. Students cant improve if the quality of teaching is being hindered by an overload. A good teacher as you put it can be up till the early hours of the morning grading papers from a crowded class and that has an impact on the teacher. Note that im speaking from experience not some survey or statistic thought up.
No one is saying that investors cannot still make a profit but there should be limits. Pro cannot possibly believe that an NFL player for example is just going to quit playing a game for money just because he no longer gets 10 million for a contract. Even if his pay were knocked down to 1 million where else would he possibly get the kind of income so easily?
The economy has gone through a recession because it became weak, Americans were literally short on cash, thus they spent less and the economy suffered because of it. Everyone has met someone they know to be very proficient at their job but they are not giving it 100% because they feel the pay is not what it should be. Its much like buying a car, you get what you pay for. If you buy a car for 2k your not going to get a hot rod with all the specs are you? Of course not but if you spend 45k your going to get a far better ride. The same principle goes for employees, you get what you pay for. When an employee is proficient at their job and no raise comes the employees morale will decline and it will more than likely have an impact on their work so it would benefit the employer to ensure that the employee be treated fairly. It would seem that Pro is under the belief that if the pay scales were more evenly balanced the economy would only suffer.
JackFritschy

Pro

JackFritschy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Letsdebate24JackFritschyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Havent read through all the arguments yet but pro did FF the last round and double posted his own argument so conduct to the con