Is free enterprise without limitations a good thing?
Debate Rounds (5)
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.
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.
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.
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 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 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:||1||0|
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
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.