The Instigator
bballcrook21
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Reformist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Liberalism Is Not Good for America (Economics)

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 3 votes the winner is...
bballcrook21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 976 times Debate No: 84398
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (3)

 

bballcrook21

Pro

Introduction to Debate:


This is a challenge that I have sent to the user Reformist. I believe that we have some irreconsilable political and economic differences, and that we need to argue them objectively on a formal debating platform.


Almost as a disclaimer, I would like to mention the official rules of this debate, and futher clarify what the debate will be centered.

- This debate will be centered around modern day left wing vs right wing -

This means, that we will be talking about Free Market Capitalism, which is a right wing approach, and government planning, which is a left-wing approach.

As a breakdown, I will be putting up a few topics that we will discuss:

Minimum Wage - specifically being the 10.10 fed. wage Obama is advocating for, and the $15 that Sanders is advocating for.

Government regulation - higher taxes, standards, subsidies, etc.

Conclusively, the debate will be left wing vs right wing. I am trying to write in detail, so that nothing is confusing or outlandish. The debating is open to ANYTHING that involves liberal and conservative/libertarian economic platforms. For the sake of the debate, we will assume that all of the liberals belong to the Democratic party, and that all of the conservatives/Libertarians belong to the Republican Party.
Debate Round No. 1
bballcrook21

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for agreeing to this debate. Hopefully we can have a good set of contentions/discussions and be able to come to some conclusion.


Opening:

Let me start off by stating that the minimum wage was ordained in 1938 at 25 cents per hour, which adjusted for inflation would equal to over $4 today.


Minimum wage jobs are by no means meant as a career. A minimum wage job, for the most part, demands a low skilled worker, which usually equates to the younger population. These people know willingly that they are making little money, and that they have no skill or education to make more money. They still decide to have a family, and then demand higher wages to fit their inadequate decision making.

First Point:


Firstly, raising the minimum wage on a federal level would result in the loss of over 500,000 jobs. In an economy that is getting more dependent on the skills of a worker, which almost always equates to their level of education, minimum wage jobs are in decline.

We have technology that can very well replace minimum wage workers, and these machines have already sprung up in cities that have increased their wages tremendously. Raising minimum wage inadvertently forces small business to cut jobs as well as hours for those that remain. It also drives up prices tremendously, as employers have to pay more money to their workers, which cuts back on overall profit.

The main argument that you can, and that you will make is that people who work these jobs cannot afford necessities. Most "necessities" are created by people who work minimum wage jobs. These products would increase in cost, as the employers have to match wage costs with increased profit. This not only hurts the company, as it creates unnecessary and unwarranted competition that is legislated by a supreme ruling body, but it also hurts the employees.

Private businesses and industry is already raising wages. Many businesses pay more money then the required minimum, such as IKEA, which is a multi-billion dollar company that employs dozens of thousands of people.


Second Point:

It's also not clear that it's constitutional. The Supreme Court, in its opinion in the 1923 case Adkins v. Children"s Hospital of District of Columbia, made a strong argument that a minimum wage was a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of contract embedded in the Fifth Amendment"s language about due process and the deprivation of liberty and property: "To the extent that the sum fixed exceeds the fair value of the services rendered, it amounts to a compulsory exaction from the employer for the support of a partially indigent person, for whose condition there rests upon him no peculiar responsibility, and therefore, in effect, arbitrarily shifts to his shoulders a burden which, if it belongs to anybody, belongs to society as a whole."

First, many people who live in poverty do not work, and would thus be unaffected by an increase in the minimum wage. In addition, workers who earn the minimum wage are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. They are secondary earners " an elderly parent earning some retirement income or a spouse with a part-time job. Or they are young people living with their parents. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that while workers under age 25 make up only about 20% of those who earn hourly wages, they constitute about half of all workers earning the minimum wage or less. Raising the minimum wage is therefore an ineffective anti-poverty proposal.


Sources:

[1]http://www.politifact.com...
[2]https://www.aei.org...
[3]http://fortune.com...
[4]http://www.salon.com...
[5]http://www.bloombergview.com...
[6]http://www.forbes.com...
[7]http://www.slate.com...

Now I shall begin my 2nd argument, which will revolve around an increase in taxes, government standards, and subsidies, as well as overarching gov. involvement in the private sector, or the loss of jobs as a result of it.

First Point (taxes):

It's quite evident that an increase in taxes is both philosophically immoral and economically unsound. It's also quite evident that taxes amount to double the damage to the private sector - first, it halts the facilitation of economic growth, as well as growth in the job market by giving less disposable income to both the middle class and the wealthy, and second, public subsidies are detrimental to the current private market that has not yet been destroyed by higher taxation.

From a philosophical standpoint, higher taxation can only be achieved through government coercion and the initiation of force, which is detrimental to the continuation of any free and just society, especially one that that abides by the United States Constitution. When government initiates force to its citizens, it is thereby tyrannical, and out to be destroyed.

As stated by Thomas Jefferson, "if a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". A common Libertarian ideal, which is an aspect for the side I am arguing, is the denial of an unjust law. This equates to the following, that if a law happens to delve into anything other than the liberties espoused to you, which are Life, Liberty, and Property, than that law is unjust, and therefore is not a law.

From an economic standpoint, which is more logical, as it commits no fallacies - the raising of taxes aids the lessening of private sector growth, which has a direct correlation with the lessening of overall economic growth. This has quite a negative effect on the overall economy, as well as the disposable incomes of the individuals who help to facilitate consumer demand.

As it can also be seen, the wealthy and the middle class (which is where most of these tax burdens are directed towards) already pay quite a lot in taxes, and are the structure of the national tax income.















These are some statistics that I have posted up above in the form of graphs and data structures, to help facilitate the movement of my argument. For the case of characters, I shall move onto my next argument.

Direct Gov. Involvement (Subsidies, Social Programs, etc)

One of the most fruitful misconceptions as to the two most highly sought after social programs (Free health care and free education) is unfounded and illogical in nature.

First Point:

I want to state that health care costs have risen as an effect of government regulation and intervention in the market.


It's common logic that the point of a business is to profit from the product or service that it provides. In this profit, it can only acquiesce funds by selling a product or providing a service which is affordable and of some level of quality. What occurs when government gets involved?

First, when government regulates the businesses, the cost of production increases, so the only feasible way to remain in business would be to increase prices. When prices get to a level in which the common people can no longer acquire the product or service provided, then they get restless, and the gov. takes note.

One of the easiest ways to show economic illiteracy and blatant denial of facts is to present a case in which one states that health care costs rose just because of the private sector, and this rise was not fueled by the government. If a system is stable, and the interactions and exchanges are voluntary, then the system will remain functioning for quite a long time. Need I remind you that health care has been private for the past 230 years, and no problems arose until government got involved.

There is a dilemma, and is almost law, called Fiduciary Responsibility, in which if there is an opportunity, regardless of your personal beliefs or morals, you are required to take this opportunity, in order to please your shareholders. This means, that if the government in willing to subsidize a business, regardless of the CEO's beliefs, they have to take these subsidies, as that is their Fiduciary Responsibility.

In the case of health care, if prices rise as a result of taxation and regulation, as well as a result of Cronyism, then the people will petition the government. When government decides to come into the private market to subsidize free health care, or free housing, or free education, quality will automatically drop, competition will automatically cease, and prices will automatically rise.

If the businesses understand that the gov. is willing to pay for the consumer, and since the government is much wealthier than any individual and also has significant legal power, these businesses will increase prices, which will make more people have to live under gov. subsidies. When this occurs, these companies can have a steady supply of guaranteed income that they did not have to compete for. This is bad for the people, this is bad for competition, and all the liberals who say it are bad for America.



Sources:
[1]http://www.cato.org...
[2]http://www.pewresearch.org...
[3]http://www.forbes.com...
[4]http://taxfoundation.org...
[5]http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...
[6]http://www.multibriefs.com...
[7]https://mises.org...
Reformist

Con

I'm Reformist and I believe Liberalism is GOOD for America. I will follow my opponent's series of points and provide my viewpoint on them.

Minimum Wage: The minimum wage today is 7.25 an hour. The proposed minimum wage by Obama is 10.10 an hour and by Sanders it is 15 an hour. (I support about a 12.50)

Minimum wage jobs while they are the lowest earning jobs still need to provide a decent amount of income to live. According to the living wage calculator the minimum wage now is not a living wage. More than a 1/5 of children live in poverty and more than 40 percent of children live in low income families. If a person wants a family he should be able to support them using any job. Their quality of life may be bad but they should still be able to subsist of the money they receive. Something that is not happening today.

First Point:

Raising the minimum wage would not cause lost of jobs BUT lets just say it did so did slavery. In the 1800's millions of Africa Americans had no jobs and wandered around the country looking for jobs and the Southern slave owners didn't have any workers to pick cotton. Yet people still supported the decision even though it wasn't a financially sound decision. It was about what was right for the African Americans. This is about what's right for the worker. Even if we lose some jobs along we need to change the way we work.

However! Raising the minimum wage would NOT cause a loss of jobs. According to the department of labor:

"In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

Business cant afford the minimum wage? Again according the Department of Labor

"A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."

Prices would increase but only by 4.3 percent.

As for the constitutionality of the minimum the case that went to the supreme court to decide this was rejected as in the Supreme court did not even want to bother with such an open and close case.

Poverty: It is actually proven that increasing the minimum wage would lift many out of poverty according to the department of labor the reason for poverty is not because people don't work its because children are born into poverty and lack education opportunities. And wow look the ideology that supports more affordable education is liberalism.

Sources:
http://webapps.dol.gov...
http://livingwage.mit.edu...
http://www.dol.gov...
https://www.purdue.edu...
http://www.natlawreview.com...
http://www.dol.gov...

Now onto your 2nd argument:

With higher taxes come higher incomes. Low taxes actually leads to low wages.

http://www.usnews.com...

If you look at the graph the liberal states are generally the states that have a high tax rate BUT have also higher income while the states that were conservative had huge tax rates compared to their low wages.

I don't understand why taxes are immoral. Taxes are money you pay to the government but under conservatives you will never see that money ever again. But with liberals you can see your investment aka free college and health care.

According to your standpoint we should have taxes. A man can yell that any taxes is an initiation of force. No taxes? Good luck with that.

Also tax cuts lead to economic growth? That's a lie and its actually the opposite

http://www.nytimes.com...

While the middle class already pays their fair share the rich do not.

In this graph you will see why we need higher tax rates for the rich

https://www.bing.com...

Government regulation of business is to stop the idea of monopolies. If there is just one monopoly then consumers have no choice. I really don't understand how this is a bad idea. Thanks to the government we have price ceilings where a price cannot exceed a certain point. If we didn't have this gas may be 12 dollars a gallon if all the oil industries got together. So thanks to the government we save money.

When it comes to quality over quantity when it comes to social programs it doesn't matter.

The amount of homeless people in the US: 2.3 to 3.6 million

The amount of people less homes: millions when not even counting ones for rent

Sometimes people cant afford things so they need the government

In a liberal society everyone lives their life how they want to and the needy are met with needs

Sources:
http://www.usnews.com...
http://www.usnews.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...
https://www.bing.com...

http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 2
bballcrook21

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for responding with his arguments. Round 2 is strictly arguments though, not rebuttals.

Contention 1:

"Minimum wage jobs ... not happening today. " I've cut this to not waste characters

What my opponent fails to realize is that the amount of income that is generated by an individual is equal to the amount of income they generate for the owner of the business. All wages are set by the market, in accordance with productivity, efficiency, skill, experience, loyalty, etc.


If I were to hire an individual who does very poor work and is very inefficient, while paying them an income that they were not deserving of, I would quickly go out of business. If I were to do this while leading a large corporation, I would be removed from whatever position I am by the Board of Directors as well as the stockholders, and then quickly sued for lowering the productivity of their stocks.

My opponent also brings family into the mix, which is oddly irrelevant. It is highly substantiated that a family should not be created by two partners that live on a minimum wage, and using morality as a means of achieving plausibility is unreasonable and frankly makes absolutely no sense.


Contention 2:

"Raising the minimum wage... the way we work." I've cut this to not waste characters.

To analyze the point of slavery - forced labor without pay and voluntary labor with low pay are two very separate things. My opponent is using a historically ignorant argument to portray his own in a sense of emotion, which strays away from the most rational side of the debate.

As for history itself, these African Americans were not by any means wandering around the country. When slavery was abolished, many of the freed slaves went back to their plantations to work voluntarily, as they were not forced to do this. However, these individuals had very little property, so in exchange for housing, clothing, and food, they gave their labor. They quickly became indebted, and this was all done because of a lack of political freedom, which is taken away by the government.


Contention 3:

"Poverty: It is actually proven that increasing the minimum wage would lift many out of poverty according to the department of labor the reason for poverty is not because people don't work its because children are born into poverty and lack education opportunities. And wow look the ideology that supports more affordable education is liberalism. "

The ideology that supports government funded education is liberalism; the ideology that supports affordable education is Libertarianism, which is an offshoot of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is very different from the statist Socialist liberals we have currently that play off of racial hatred of more successful people for political gain.


It is undoubtedly that minimum wage being raised would lift a FEW out of poverty, while cutting back jobs, which would then place many back into poverty.

My opponent fails to realize the economic vs political aspect of the minimum wage. Every debate coming from the left-wing side on economics is based around emotion and moral values, while the realistic arguments should be based around facts, statistics, data, and rational analysis, rather than some fallacious emotional aspect. The whole idea of the minimum wage itself is to guarantee a set income to individuals who cannot earn something of that caliber with their current skill set, which frankly is deplorable. To even suggest that someone should be paid more than they are worth makes absolutely no sense at all.

Actually, a liberal news source from New York seems to disagree with my opponents claim that people would be brought out of poverty - "But raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour is not the way to get wages up in this country. In fact, it would cause perhaps as many as a million people to lose their jobs." [1]

Contention 4:

"If you look at the graph the liberal states are generally the states that have a high tax rate BUT have also higher income while the states that were conservative had huge tax rates compared to their low wages."

My opponent fails to realize the simplest part of economics, which is purchasing power and cost of goods. This is inexcusable ignorance on the part of my opponent.

Wealth varies in accordance with cost. If an individual makes a net income of $100,000 annually, but the cost of even the simplest product is $5, then that man or woman is not very wealthy. If an individual makes $10,000,000 annually, and the cost of a luxury car is $50,000, then that man is quite wealthy.

Contention 5:

"I don't understand why taxes are immoral. Taxes are money you pay to the government but under conservatives you will never see that money ever again. But with liberals you can see your investment aka free college and health care."

This is one of the most idiotic statements to be uttered in a conversation. Firstly, taxes are an initiation of force. They are not voluntary, and they are not based on choice. When force is initiated for any gain other than self - defense, that becomes an immoral act, and is grounds for scrutiny.


Second, you do not need to define for me what taxes are.

Thirdly, you have shown me absolutely no proof that tax money, on a ratio basis, was used more inefficiently by conservatives than by liberals. In fact, it is in the conservatives who want less taxes, which equates to less money the government can inefficiently misuse.

Lastly, free college and free health care are not investments. An investment is voluntary, and money being exerted from one individual by force is theft and embezzlement, which is immoral and unlawful.

There is a myriad of economic flaws that you have presented, that I will not go into detail for, due to character restrictions. The idea of free college and health care being a productive investment is unsubstantiated and completely false.


Contention 6:

"While the middle class already pays their fair share the rich do not."

I have literally shown you a graph that presents the statistics on the rich paying more in taxes than any other member of the United States.

To ignore facts that are distasteful to you and then just present your own is intellectual dishonesty. The rich paying their fair share is a complete political myth. They already pay their fair share by creating jobs and bringing technology to the United States, rather than living off of government subsidies and leeching off of welfare.


Contention 7:

"Government regulation of business is to stop the idea of monopolies. If there is just one monopoly then consumers have no choice. I really don't understand how this is a bad idea. Thanks to the government we have price ceilings where a price cannot exceed a certain point. If we didn't have this gas may be 12 dollars a gallon if all the oil industries got together. So thanks to the government we save money."

I will create a scenario for my opponent, as I find that will be best suited for explaining why the above assertion is completely unfounded and frankly, stupid.


Let's say that I am the owner of "Greedy Bastard Cancer Association", and I create a pill that can do away with cancer, with its cost of production being set at $5,000. Then, I decide to corner the market and price gouge for $50,000, which is a 1000% profit rate. Keep in mind that the average profit rate in any free market is around 3-4%, maybe 5% if you are really lucky, but other than that, your competitors will kill you. A 1000% profit rate is too much, and no corporation will ever do something of this caliber, because they will make no money.

My opponent also fails to understand the ideas of Fiduciary Responsibility and Good Will, which are two somewhat complex business economics ideas. Fiduciary Responsibility means that the CEO of any company (doesn't have to be CEO, just someone powerful) has to abide by the rules that the Board of Directors and shareholders set, meaning that if any opportunity arises, regardless of their personal goals, they have to capitalize on this. That means, if you are some ultra-Socialist, lover of all, and happen to be a CEO of a major corporation, which is already highly unlikely, you will have to do as you are expected by the Board of Directors and the shareholders, or else they will fire you and then sue you for minimizing the productivity of their shares.

Good Will, on the other hand, is moral responsibility. Good Will means that a company that appeals to the public, and donates, or holds fundraisers, will always be favored over the companies that are hateful. This is why you do not see a lot of loudmouthed CEOs. as they risk their profits being marginalized if they were to anger the public.

To continue with my scenario, let's say that the media decides to find some poor people who happen to have cancer, and then they depict these individuals who cannot get treatment because this company, "Greedy Bastard Cancer Association" decides to price gouge. As a result of this, they will lose a great amount of good will, which will drop their profit margin by a great amount. This is why you see most corporations having payment programs to help people.

Even if there is no compassion involved, and it's purely for economic gain, showing good will towards others will be rewarding for the company, so they will never raise the cost of these necessities by such a high amount, unless they are able to by government subsidies and protection (these are not conservative principles; stimulus spending is a liberal principle).


I am running out of characters, so I shall carry over my rebuttal for my next round.


Sources:
[1]http://nypost.com...
[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3]http://www.cnbc.com...
[4]http://www.pewresearch.org...;
Reformist

Con

Ive already lost this debate because I am a very poor debater

I concede this debate to bballcrook. Maybe when I get better we can discuss this again

For the time being you have won.

And you have zero losses in any debates so I was going to lose anyway.

You still haven't changed my views though lol.
Debate Round No. 3
bballcrook21

Pro

Extend current argument.

As for changing my opponent's opinions: That was not the aim of my debate. The aim was to prove, not to persuade.

I shall take this as your formal concession, declaring myself winner of this debate.

Just keep extending your concession over the next few rounds so that we don't have to wait days for this thing to do it automatically.
Debate Round No. 4
bballcrook21

Pro

Extend. Vote for me, as my opponent has conceded.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pittythefool 1 year ago
pittythefool
Lol
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
What? To whom is that directed to?
Posted by pittythefool 1 year ago
pittythefool
You arguing with yourself again!
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Hmm explains why its easy to do that instead of being shoved facts in an online debate lol
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Politician means that they are holding public office, or have held it before. Good debating and being a politician are not causes, they just happen to correlate.

Debating isn't that difficult until you start doing it publicly, when you are forced to think on the spot and be able to outsmart your opponent.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
By politician I was meaning someone who could debate and stand on issues well. That could apply to anyone well suited. What I'm saying is that it can go back and forth. I obviously know little about debating and I'm not an economist.
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
@Reformist Your point was that a politician could. Not someone, but a politician in particular.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Well my point is someone can
Posted by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Politician's aren't debaters. Politicians are rarely intelligent or well-versed. They are mostly political science majors or lawyers who know their way into deceiving and lying to their constituents so they can get some office.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
I want to go into the political field so I'm doing all I can to improve my speaking skills

However I bet a politician can defeat you in a debate. Not every idea is concrete. Like a stupid man once said "Facts are stupid things"

XD
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
bballcrook21ReformistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
bballcrook21ReformistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Bob13 1 year ago
Bob13
bballcrook21ReformistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Con declared his concession and did not respond to Pro's arguments, so Pro's points still stand and he wins the debate.