The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Logician
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Labor Party Beliefs

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 4 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,295 times Debate No: 20595
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Ron-Paul

Con

We will be debating whether things like labor unions, miminum wage, and worker protections are justified and are necessary in an economy. I am debating that these things will destory the economy, and you will be debating that these things will help the economy and society in the long run. Thanks in advance to the debater who accepts this. The first round is for acceptance.
Logician

Pro

I'm not a member of the British Labour Party, and probably never will be, but as the debate as set out in the first round appears to be more about the general ideology - the existence of labor/trade unions, and the benefits/harms of a minimum wage and worker protections, and so on - rather than specific Labour Party policies, I'm happy to accept. Thank you for starting what should be an interesting debate.

Present your arguments :)
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Con

I will split this into three parts.
Labor Unions.
The Minimum Wage.
Labor "Laws".

Point 1 (Labor Unions): Labor Unions have been unnecessary since day one, but now, they are completely unnecessary, and are just hurting the economy and preventing new jobs from being created. Problem One with the Unions: They hurt the economy. How are labor unions bad for the economy? Simple. Labor Unions make companies raise the wage and they prevent workers from working. When the labor unions make companies raise wages, that cuts into their profit which they were going to re-invest into the business. "By increasing the average wage and benefit package above the natural market level, unions adversely affect the profit margins of the businesses and industries they affect The effects of unions have been known to be particularly significant for smaller businesses, which tend to have smaller profit margins. By contributing to increased labor costs and decreased profitability, unions can also slow the growth of businesses, and eventually industries as a whole.": http://www.ehow.com.... This profit margin is necessary to repair equipment, expand (thus hiring more), and other business wants. Problem 2: Labor Unions increase unemployment. In the same manner mentioned above, when labor unions ask for a higher wage, that puts a bigger strain on the profit margin, which means that they are less able to pay wages, and thus, they lay off. It also prevents expanding, which would hire more people. Not to mention, the unions restrict the number of workers who can work that job. "By restricting the number of eligible workers in an industry, unions essentially decrease the labor supply, shifting the labor supply curve upward. As a result, the existence of unions increases the average wage above the level that would naturally occur in the market. Yet the intersection of the new labor supply and demand curves also occurs at a lower employment level. Thus, there is a higher level of unemployment, as essentially businesses can afford to hire fewer workers at the elevated wage.": http://www.ehow.com.... "Economic theory consequently suggests that unions raise the wages of their members at the cost of lower profits and fewer jobs, that lower profits cause businesses to invest less, and that unions have a smaller effect in competitive markets (where a union cannot obtain a monopoly).": http://omegahrsolutions.com.... Problem 3: The reward sloth and penalize hard work. They advocate for the equality of wages in the business. This means that the lazy workers (who are mostly unionized) get the same wages as hard working workers (who are generally not unionized). This is unfair. Why? Because someone who works should get more money than someone who does not work. "They suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent. Unions redistribute wealth between workers. Everyone gets the same seniority-based raise regardless of how much or little he contributes, and this reduces wage inequality in unionized companies… But this increased equality comes at a cost to employers. Often, the best workers will not work under union contracts that put a cap on their wages, so union firms have difficulty attracting and retaining top employees.": http://omegahrsolutions.com.... Problem 4: They are costing tax dollars. So we have to pay them to do a screwy job. Sound unfair? "In other words, the Democratic Party and the unions are engaged in an open conspiracy to defraud the American taxpayer. There's no way that the American people should allow that to continue.": http://townhall.com....

Point 2 (The Minimum Wage): Problem 1: The Minimum Wage is bad for the economy. Why? Because companies are required to pay their employees a certain wage, which eats into profits. But it is unnecessary because in Capitalism, the employee shops around for jobs and the highest wage. So the minimum wage is both bad and unnecessary. "If government could raise the real wages of millions of Americans by merely passing a law announcing that fact, then why stop at $3.35 per hour, or $4.65, or even $107 Isn't $500 per hour more compassionate than $50?""The net loss to society that results from this sweeping act of "wrongful discharge" is staggering. Those losses include: (1) The loss of employment to the individual himself, (2) the shrinking of the economic pie by the loss of his productive contribution, (3) the financial loss to society in supporting him in his idleness (unemployment compensation, welfare, etc.), (4) the financial loss in funding useless job training programs and other government efforts to get him re-employed, and (5) the net loss to society in having consumer prices driven up to cover the higher labor costs, and the loss of market share to foreign competition that may occur.": http://www.thefreemanonline.org.... Problem 2: It raises unemployment. "Advocates of a minimum wage hike ignore the evidence that it increases unemployment among the least productive workers: unskilled teenagers whose employment opportunities are limited. This is unfortunate, because low wage jobs are the first rung on the economic ladder of success for workers entering the labor force. When we cut off the bottom rung by increasing the minimum wage, we keep youngsters from making the transition to work.": http://www.ncpa.org.... The minimum wage, like labor unions, just rewards sloth because the minimum wage effects all emplyees. Including the sloth ones. This sort of legislation kills the economy.

Point 3 (Labor Laws): Problem 1: Again, they are bad for the economy. These things are a little more necessary than the top two, but they have overstepped their bounds on countless occasions. All they do is just restrict output and productivity, which of course would help the economy and business. "Nonunion firms are despised by unions because they are able to make more efficient use of labor without the union's wasteful work rules, and thus often underbid unionized firms.""Is it right for any group to use (or abuse) governmental processes to injure or destroy competitors? Isn't it wrong to use the law as a sword to impose ruinous costs on rivals just because you can get away with it? The unions would scream if their opponents used the same might makes right tactics against them, but philosophical consistency cannot be expected from statists.": http://www.thefreemanonline.org.... The Child Labor Laws: These are unnecessary in this day in age. Companies can not take advantage of anyone anymore. Shouldn't a child be able to work for a wage if the child wants to? If he can do it and wants to, why stop him? Restrictions on laws: These restriction repeals would greatly help the economy, would free up millions of dollars for businesses, would increase productivity, and would provide a fair balance of wages where employees are paid based on their performance and senority instead of on unionization.
Logician

Pro

Before I start, there's just one minor point I need to make: in the UK, "labor unions" are more commonly referred to as "trade unions". For my own ease of reference I will call them "trade unions" in this debate, as this is the phrase to which I am more accustomed. These terms are, as I understand it, though, pretty much synonymous, so this difference in terminology shouldn't matter to much to the crucial issues under debate. With that out of the way, I'll begin:

The major principle that outlines my approach to this debate is as follows:

People should be the cornerstone of government policy, not corporations.

This principle, if it holds true, serves to knock down several of my opponent's arguments about the alleged 'damages' to corporations. If there is a conflict between a corporation getting larger and people's right to a reasonable standard of living and employment, then the latter must come first. There is no right for corporations to be as large as they could become, if that expansion comes to the detriment of a worker's standard of living – simply because workers are people with rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, and other similar documents, and corporations are not.

My opponent may claim that as corporations are made of people – such as employers and shareholders – that corporations to some extent should have the rights that I've just denied them. But I don't think this matches up, even if we consider the balance of rights between employers and shareholders vs the employees, because the conflict that we're talking about here is between the employers'/shareholders' right to preside over a larger company than they currently have, and the employees' right to a reasonable standard of living and employment, as provided for by the minimum wage, trade unions etc. With this balance under examination, I think it's clear that the employees' rights should come first.

Now of course, my opponent also argues that these policies actually cause some harm to employees specifically, so let's move onto them in turn:

THE EXISTENCE OF TRADE UNIONS

The purpose of trade unions is to represent workers' interests to the employers and society at large, mainly because workers – spending a great deal of their day working, surprisingly enough – don't really have the time to do that themselves. In this way, trade unions serve to represent the interests of workers – as people – against the non-human force of corporations, and/or against the less vital interests of employers to a larger company (as compared to the vital rights of workers to a reasonable standard of living and employment). If there's a disparity between the effects of union / work protection laws on workers, then the non-unionised workers should join a union, or set one up if necessary, to ensure that they too can reap the benefits attributed to being in a union. Such a disparity, if/where it exists, should not serve instead as reason to abolish trade unions altogether.

My opponent claims that increased unionisation leads to workers being lazy and becoming "sloths". I don't
quite understand why this would be the case – clearly, employers will reasonably expect a certain level of productivity, and will employ workers with that target in mind, and (presuming they are intelligent enough) will write that level into the contract of employment. If the worker then becomes lazy to the point of harming their productivity, and that of the company as a whole, then they will be fired for failing to live up to the terms of their contract, something which would happen regardless of whether trade unions exist or not.

My opponent also argues that labor laws increase unemployment. Whilst this may be true in some circumstances, there are two ways that one can respond to this: the first is my opponent's strategy, which is to decrease labor laws and thus risk that workers will have their standard of living/employment decreased. The second is to significantly increase the number of jobs, so that if people become unemployed then there is a much greater chance that they will soon become employed again. Increasing jobs has the triple benefit of not only benefiting the workers (because they get money from their employment that can increase their standard of living) and not only benefiting the economy in general (because more people in employment means they have more money to spend into the economy, and more money to pay in taxes, etc.), but also benefits the companies that my opponent seeks to defend, because it allows them to become larger and employ more people.

MINIMUM WAGE

The point of minimum wage is to provide enough money to survive - thats why the amount stops where it does, and doesn't/shouldn't go to $500 per hour etc. According to my opponent, if there is no minimum wage, then employees will 'shop around for the highest wage'. I don't see why this would happen. My opponent talked about unskilled teenagers who are being allegedly "priced out of the market", but all that happens with no minimum wage is that these teenagers – being unskilled and thus have not much to offer that every other prospective worker has - have no bargaining power with the employers and so will take any job they can, regardless of the price, simply because it gets them minutely closer to being able to afford basic living standards. All that my opponent's policy does is harm the people at the bottom of the ladder, whereas those at the top can afford to take lower paid jobs – because either they or their parents already have enough to subsidise their basic living standards - or unpaid internships, to increase work experience and thus give them an even greater advantage over the unskilled teens at the bottom of the ladder.

WORKERS' CONDITIONS LAWS

It is very difficult to make an assessment of my opponent's argument here without many specifics in what he deems to be "unnecessary" laws over workers' conditions, especially as he sensibly concedes that a certain layer of worker protection is necessary. The one category that he does condemn is restrictions on child labor laws.

We shouldn't allow children to work full-time (and we should put restrictions on underage teenagers' ability to work part-time), mainly because that time is better and more profitably spent getting an education, something that they wouldn't have the time to do if they were spending all day in a factory, coal mine or office. Such an education would allow them to develop their intelligence so that they are more able to compete with employers on an intellectual basis - and thus be less likely to be exploited - and give them an "out" so that they are not doomed to spend the rest of their lives either unskilled or with only one skill. It also allows them to progress through the ladders of the company system - evidently people who never had a decent education, and thus are illiterate and innumerate, will never even have a chance of becoming middle managers or CEOs. They will be doomed to be forever on the lower rung of the ladder, something which surely is not in their best interests, and should be protected against.

If there are other categories of laws that my opponent would seek to be abolish as "unnecessary", then I will deal with them if/as they arise, instead of trying to argue generalities.
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Con

I will try to use the term "trade union" instead of labor union, but some of my quotes may mention it the latter way.

Point 1: Corporations are made of employers and shareholders because without them, there would be no company. And there is no conflict between corporations' right to expand and people's reasonable standard of living and employment because when the company grows, they are able to add more workers, provide products at a lower price, and increase GDP, in turn decreases unemployment and increases over per capita GDP and individual household wealth. Without companies expanding, there would be little economic expansion. "In the United States today, virtually every small business, college and charity is incorporated. To suggest that corporations lack speech rights would affect a great many rights and protections that we have come to rely on. Be careful what you wish for.": http://www.npr.org.... This quote is just one of the many that says that corporations have the same rights as people, so they must be considered people. And without a strong employer/stockholder presence in the company, the company can not provide the rights to employees, making them shut down, which in turn increase unemployment.

Point 2: I think you misread my quotes. I said that unionized workers were likely to have lower salaries, higher levels of unemployment, and lower levels of education than non-unionized workers. So to reduce all of those effects and to increase GDP growth, one must get rid of labor unions for moving the economy backwards. "Economic theory consequently suggests that unions raise the wages of their members at the cost of lower profits and fewer jobs, that lower profits cause businesses to invest less, and that unions have a smaller effect in competitive markets (where a union cannot obtain a monopoly).": http://omegahrsolutions.com....... See. This said that unionization is bad. There are two problems with the "unionization increases productivity" argument. One, unionization increases sloth because unions force the company to pay a certain wage for the employee. This wage is required no matter the productivity. So a unionized worker who does nothing would get the same salary was a unionized worker who does a lot, and most likely, gets more wages than the non-unionized worker who even does all that he can. And two, unionization adds to the growing "dumbness" of workers. Since the standards for getting a job are forceibly lowered, people can apply and do a bad job, and they are still protected from losing their jobs. This decreases productivity and GDP growth, the company gets less profit, overtime acquires a loss, then has to shut down, thus causing increases in unemployment. But you can not forceibly create more jobs. Why? Because after the company goes out of business due to the trade unions, do you think the company will return? And plus, even if they didn't, it would be impossible to create enough companies to create enough jobs to help even 10% of the unemployed.

Point 3: "Studies have shown in each case that their wage policies killed jobs for teens. The Massachusetts teen employment rate sank by one-third when the minimum wage rose by 88% between 1995 and 2008".:http://online.wsj.com.... Employees have the right to search for jobs with higher pay. There is nothing stopping them. In fact, because of job competition, competition increases wages. Teens and adults have the right to shop around for jobs. In fact, "According to new numbers from the Labor Department, in 2008 only 1.1% of Americans who work 40 hours a week or more even earned the minimum wage. In other words, 98.9% of 40-hour-a-week workers earn more than the minimum.""Minimum wage jobs are nearly all first-time or part-time jobs, and an estimated two of every three minimum wage workers get a pay raise within a year on the job.": http://online.wsj.com.... Why? Because they can shop around for jobs. And they should be paid based on performance, not unionization. And plus, teenagers have their parents to pay for their room and board, so they don't even need the minimum wage. Not to mention, when the minimum wage is applied to teenagers, it reduces their urge to work at the beginning, thus being burdened to live a live of sloth. It is not as bad when applied to older people because they grew up with hard work (not that it is good for them either though).

Point 4: I think you need to re-read the last point again because you misinterpreted it. A few worker protections are necessary, but there is an extreme overload of them. We don't need to have a lot of the workers' protections laws because we live in the 21st Century. People would not allow that to happen, and they would quit if they were not established. Shopping around for jobs again. I say the child labor laws should stop at age 12. By that time (if the child is thought right), the child has learned most of the basics, and is learning the characteristics of hard work and perseverance, and is learning how to work for a bigger job later on in his or her career. And plus, the laws are voluntary. The children get to decide. "On a side note, aren't these laws a form of ageism, i.e. targeting individuals because of age rather than intellect, ability, or capacity? In the case of the new labor laws, the young are prohibited to work in certain agricultural fields not because of there skill (or lack thereof), but because of their young age. Targeting safety is one thing, but targeting safety laws on the basis of age is another.":http://www.triplepundit.com.... "As Dick Grotton, head of the Maine Restaurant Association, told Bloomberg News: "How come it's OK, even exemplary, for teenagers to spend 40 hours a week in sports, glee club, chorus, debate society or any other select activity sanctioned by the social elite, but if you are a teenager who wants to work or needs to work, there are limits?":http://www.theolympian.com.... Which is another way of saying that kids working is not a bad thing. And plus, if you look at my profile, I am 14. I would know how to balance education and work. And people who are in their 20s who are getting college degrees are balancing their education and work.
Logician

Pro

To deal with the four points made by my opponent in the last round in order:

1: ON THE RIGHTS OF CORPORATIONS, AND THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN SHAREHOLDERS' AND WORKERS' RIGHTS AND INTERESTS

My opponent merely asserts that expanding corporations would, without the minimum wage, have no negative impact on employees' standards of living and income. There is no reason to believe this to be the case: indeed, if all that a company is concerned about is expansion, and increasing the number of workers, then one of the easiest ways to do so is to decrease the wage paid to each worker. This is common practice amongst multi-national corporations, who exploit the lack of minimum wage, overtime and/or child labour laws (or the non-enforcement of existing laws) in order to increase their profits worldwide. See http://homepage.mac.com... for just one example of a company (Nike) that does this. See also http://finance.yahoo.com... for information on Apple doing the same, and for further information on the negative impacts of such disregard for foreign workers. I don't know about my opponent, but it's this sort of information that makes me glad to live in a First World country that doesn't allow for exploitation of its citizens in this way, like Third World countries (along with First World countries like China) so often do.

The fact that companies such as Nike, and Apple, seek to publicly deny these allegations (and are very quick to be seen to make amends when they are definitively proven) shows that they, as much as everyone else, recognise the negative nature of such exploitation. But the marching call of ever-increasing expansion cannot be denied, and they cut corners wherever they can to make an extra buck.

There is also a difference - swept over by my opponent - between accepting that corporations are made up of people, and claiming that corporations are people. It is easy enough to provide free-speech rights to the individuals within such companies - through data protection laws, for instance - without going so far as to grant personhood to inanimate corporations.

2: ON TRADE UNIONS

Noticeably, my opponent did not deal with my argumentation about the positive nature of trade unions, seeking to represent the interests of busy workers who simply don't have the time to read into current employment law, etc., and thus risk being outmaneuvered by management, who have the money to hire consultants to do that work for them. To avoid this exploitation, everyone should join a union.

Also, it is bizarre now that my opponent is making claims about unionised workers that are not only not backed up by the facts, but also by his own source: http://omegahrsolutions.com..., as indeed directly quoted by him. For instance, it can't both be true that unionised workers are likely to have lower salaries (as my opponent claims), and that unions rise the wages of their members (to alleged detrimental effect, as the source claims).

As for why increased minimum wages are justified in the face of such arguments, I refer back to my previous arguments about minimum wages being vital for the maintenance of reasonable standards of living in workers, and the disparity between the interest to a larger company, and the right to such a standard of living.

My opponent also repeats arguments about unionisation and productivity, in regards to alleged "sloth" and "dumbness", and on this I refer back to the previous round, where I argued that sensible companies will write in levels of expected productivity into employment contracts. If these standards are reasonable, then they are enforceable through workers being fired for failing to live up to them.

3: ON TEENAGERS AND THE MINIMUM WAGE

Once again, my opponent has here repeated argumentation without dealing with my rebuttal on the issue: in this situation, regarding the ability of low-/unskilled workers (including/especially teens) to 'shop around' for jobs. To repeat here what I said then:

"All that happens with no minimum wage is that these teenagers – being unskilled and thus have not much to offer that every other prospective worker has - have no bargaining power with the employers and so will take any job they can, regardless of the price, simply because it gets them minutely closer to being able to afford basic living standards. All that my opponent's policy does is harm the people at the bottom of the ladder, whereas those at the top can afford to take lower paid jobs – because either they or their parents already have enough to subsidise their basic living standards - or unpaid internships, to increase work experience and thus give them an even greater advantage over the unskilled teens at the bottom of the ladder."

The comments about "slothful teens" is dealt with by my arguments about contractual levels of productivity in the previous round. Teens, if they have finished high school and are not going to college, should not have to rely on their parents for room and board either. Their parents should be encouraging them to live independently, with a minimum wage acting as incentive via giving them enough money to do so.

4: ON CHILD LABOUR LAWS, AND ASSOCIATED ISSUES

Here, I really don't understand why my opponent claims that I have "misinterpreted" his point, because I haven't. I agree entirely that some workers protection laws may end up to be unnecessary, but unless my opponent names them specifically we cannot really debate whether the laws in question actually are unnecessary. The only specific example my opponent gave was child labour laws - helpfully defined in the second round as laws restricting work for the over-12s - and I did deal with that argument, and will continue to do so now.

The first thing to mention is that I'm sure that my opponent, at the age of 14, would be able to balance schoolwork and work competently. I would like to hope that I also could have done so when I was 14. But not everyone can: especially for teenagers feeling oppressed by their parents' rules, the ability to earn a wage can seem at that point in life overwhelmingly seductive, and it could be difficult for many teenagers to quite understand when to stop, and to comprehend at the point of skipping school in order to go to work, just how much their schoolwork is being affected.

But at this point, my opponent claims that at the age of 12, the child has learned enough. I disagree, for two reasons: firstly, because the school education system is laid out already to give children a good balance through their childhood years of fun/play and work. But secondly, and far more importantly, there is a big stigma against people who don't complete their teenage schooling - in Britain, this would be failing your GCSEs; in America, this would be failing to graduate from high school. Due to a lack of education, their career options are limited. They may be able to work their way through the ladder of one career choice, but what if that career becomes defunct 20/30 years down the line? What if a future recession renders them unemployed and unable to retrain? Giving teenagers an incentive to not finish / ignore their schooling and work full-time may seem seductive to them in the short term, but runs the risk of being far more detrimental in the long-term.

This is the same argument that I deploy against the Dick Grotton argument quoted by my opponent. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with the assumption - 40 hours of leisure activity a week, equivalent to a full-time job, seems way too much to fit in with a good school education - there is a big difference between supplementing your education with skills via sports, glee club or debating, and trashing the lot for paid employment.

Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Con

Point 1: With more profit, why would a company decrease wages? To earn prfit, why would a company decrease wages? For the first one, with more profir, that allows for an INCREASE in wages and more ability to hire, thus reducing unemployment. For the second, if the company decreased wages, the employee would leave and seek better employment. That is a significant advantage of Capitalism. If someone is not satisfied witht their job, they can find another, thus companies are forced to provide good working conditions and high wages to ensure the employee does not leave. In Third World countries, countries do not have fully developed economic systems. They have repressed, totalitarian forms of Government that "set up" and "allow" these working conditions. We cannot use them as an example for that very reason. It's the totalitarian, backward Government and Economy, not the Corporations.

The fact that they have jobs in third-world countires is a blessing to them. What they consider good working conditions and what we consider good working conditions are two totally different things, and to them, the jobs to Apple are some of the best in China for the working class. And plus, many multi-national corporations, like Walmart, are making strides to help the workers and the communities of these countries. Their help has helped thousands of people survive hunger that without them, would have died.

Companies are owned by CEOs and stockholders. These are the "people" behind corporations. They represent the "body" of the company. The corporation functions as a group and a corporation works no different than any other group of people. The body of people make decisions, formulate solutions to problems, and do other things that are characteristic of people. They should be considered people.

Point 2: How can you be outmaneuvered by management? Again, if you have enough complains you can get another job. This isn't really a pro side to trade unions, and I will explain cons later.

Here is what I meant about the trade union salary argument. When unionized workers are employed, they have to be paid a certain wage set by the Union. And that wage keeps getting higher through wage. The business is not allowed to decide when wages are, so when they are running a loss, they still have to pay higher pay and raises to the unionized workers, thus making the loss bigger. Sooner or later, the loss will get too big and the company will go out of business. Thus, the unionized worker has to go to lower-wage work. Now you might be asking, what about the non-unionized workers. Well the majority of workers in the factories are unionized.

I will explain more about the minimum wage later, but to preview, they do not increase the standard of living for workers because one, they are rarelt needed, and two, you should be paid for performance, not just time. And the disparity between a larger company and the right to a standard of living is false because being a part of a larger company does not hinder the standard of living, but in fact helps it, and two, there is no "right" to a good standard of living. That is a responsibility, not a priviledge.

Again, companies cannot write in unionized employees even when their perfromance is bad because they are unionized, so the complaint has to first go through the union before anything can be done about it, and the union always sides with the worker, so when a company tries to fire someone for sloth, they cannot because they find themselves in a legal battle over it with the labor unions and they do not want to waste the money. They are stuck and in a dilemma. That's why your argument here is flawed.

Point 3: Teenage workers are not supposed to make high wages. That is for later in life. If you give them high wages at the beginning, then there will not be much incentive later on to work because they will not be making much more money. Teens do not deserve the same amount because they rarely work as hard. Their "sloth" rate is higher than adults. And plus, teens do not need all of the money that adults do. Most of their expenses are paid for. And they have a lot of bargaining power because the teen can simply go next door. In other words, he can work somewhere else if the company does not provide enough. Having a minimum wage is determinal to the teen because it encourages the "something for nothing" mindset that is killing this nation (both the United States and England). This is a main argument.

Your argument does not really explain the teens aren't lazy argument. You haven't refuted anything. Teens shouldn't rely on their parents for room and board if they are not in high school and are not going to college, but they do becuase they can lazy. So many tenns and now 20-year olds are in their parents' basement because they are to lazy to look around for a job. Their parents' encouragenment does no good. And having a minimum wage does not fix this problem either becuase teens don't want to work. The minimum wage would have to be A LOT higer for teens to actually need to use it.

Point 4: Teens should be able to balance school and work. If they can't, they shouldn't work. But those that can should have the ability to do so, and the Government should not stop them. It should be up to them, but they should decide whether or not they are up to it.

First of all, you are still supposed to put school ahead of work. You still complete your schooling. You got that part wrong. Second of all, having a job would not mean quitting high school.

Whereas school activities may be a liitle fun, maybe exercising, or somewhat educationally benefitial if the person plans on doing that activity in later life, working in the teenage years produces hard work and preservance, teaches good working skills that last a life time and help make sure the person holds down a job for the rest of his or her life, and the job will most certainly either be the job he will be doing later on in life (hopefully not), be practice for a higher job, or just a job to help with working skills, having a job is a very good thing to do as a teenager. It can also be very rewarding, not just financially.

If there are any workers conditions laws that you would like to debate specifically, please tell me. I can't think of any.
Logician

Pro

Logician forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ron-Paul

Con

My arguments from Round 4 are extended into this round.

A little add-on to my original arguments:

Point 1: We live in a first-world country. There are many jobs awaiting the looking consumer. This allows the person to shop around for the highest wage, best benefits, and best working conditions. This means that companies must be competitive with wages and working conditions. The better one company's salary, the more employees it shall have. But in third-world countries, this does not work. Rarely are the Capitalist like this, because most of their jobs are chosen for them, and two, the state, not the corporations, own most of the businesses, meaning that all grievances against working should be brought against the state, not the helpless individual corporation.

The jobs that people have in third-world countries are therefore questionable at best. But when working for a big multi-national corporation like Apple or Walmart, you can enjoy more of the benefits of first-world corporations. Having a job with Apple in China is a blessing compared to some of the other jobs there.

Point 2: The trade-union salary argument is the main reason trade unions are determinal in today's economy. They raise wages too much, thus forcing the comapny to go out of business, thus laying off all of it's employees. The trade unions decide everything. You are not allowed to fire a unionized worker without first going through the union, which is usually just a waste of time. Thus you have a cycle of many companies going out of business because of trade unions. And the sad part is that when unionized workers enter the business, they affect the non-unionized workers in the end when they both lose their jobs.

Point 3: Minimum wage increases unemployment.

70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers. [1] Unemployment in 2006 (teenage) was 4.4%, there was a steady minimum wage. In 2009, after a few minimum wage increases, teenage unemployment was 10.2%. [2] "Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 1,000,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. " [4]

http://online.wsj.com...... [1]
http://www.americanthinker.com...... [2]
http://www.foxbusiness.com...... [3]
http://www.house.gov...... [4]

Point 4: Since my opponent did not bring up any more topics he would like to debate under the "workers laws" category, I have nothing to add.

Vote Pro.
Logician

Pro

Logician forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
Damn, just realized I said vote pro, not vote con. That was a mistake.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Define Labour Party, because I think (but am not sure) whether you mean the British Labour Party, and if so, which ideological state, due to upheavals of political views in the last 30 years. Also, make the debate PRO/CON, so there is no ambiguous ground (i.e. Either Labour economics destroy the economy, or they don't).
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
For the Accepting Debater: The first round is for acceptance.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Ron-PaulLogicianTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Ron-PaulLogicianTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits Good arguments
Vote Placed by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Ron-PaulLogicianTied
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: I just vote for the FF for now, and maybe finish later.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
Ron-PaulLogicianTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: via forfeit