The Instigator
numerical25
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
2Pac
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Minimum Wage Laws Should be dropped.

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...
2Pac
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,143 times Debate No: 26080
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

numerical25

Pro

The only way to bring back jobs to the U.S. is by eliminating the minimum wage. By increasing the minimum wage, you increase the cost of living and therefore decrease the quality of life. All goods, virtual and non-virtual require labor cost. We now live in a society where virtually everything we do requires services and these services are the contents of our quality of life.
2Pac

Con

First and foremost I would like to thank my opponent for starting a fabulous debate. Now before we move on to any part of the show, I would like to point out that because my opponent has not placed any regulations of this debate, such as asking for acceptance on the first round, I will just move straight-forward with my rebuttals and main argument and will go into detail as to why the minimum wage is crucial for economic success.


I would also like to state that because the instigator is arguing to establish a change to an entire system that he has the burden of proof which means that he is responsible and obligated to prove every single point of his in this debate. If even one point in his argument is unfounded and untrue, then there must be a vote for con.


Lecture 1.0
Regulation

Before I even go to my main argument, let me put forth a definition as to what the minimum wage actually is:

Minimum Wage
"the lowest wage paid or permitted to be paid; specifically: a wage fixed by legal authority or by contract as the least that may be paid either to employed persons generally or to a particular category of employed persons."

In short, the minimum wage is the lowest wage that is permitted by law. So if a company or business is to abide by the law, whether how good of an employee you are, your pay check will never fall below the minimum wage which for those of you who are curious to hear ranges from $7.25 all the way up to $9.04 (as of 2012) in the United States.

A personal friend of mines recently got a degree and graduated from college. This person luckily was able to be employed almost as quickly as they graduated and began to work whilst being paid the minimum wage which is extremely common for people who are just entering the job market. This event however is only possible if the minimum wage is enforced. In a hypothetical situation, if the minimum wage is eliminated as proposed by my opponent, workers would receive a random variety of wages in which their employer decides to pay them and since my opponent has demolished all basis of the minimum wage, the employees can now no longer seek justice. You would see some people get paid $2 per hour while other people are paid $8 per hour. This would farther lead to the collapse of the economy; people will complain endlessly. What if their employer despised a specific worker and gave the employee a wage that he could barely survive on? There are many what-ifs in which my opponent must answer and prove if such a system were put in place.


Why Eliminating the Minimum Wage Hampers Lower-Income Americans



Firstly I would like to state that my opponent is proposing a plan to (1)completely eliminate and abolish the minimum wage. What my opponent is saying (2)is that as the minimum wage increases, so will inflation. In order to help organize this debate, I will split my response into several sub-sections, each addressing my opponents plan:


1.0: "Furthermore, no employer should be allowed to unreasonably profit by exploiting the lack of negotiating power of low-wage workers. The free market fails to set a fair price when one side holds all the bargaining chips. In another context, this is why laws exist against monopolies. If only one supplier supplies a good, it can charge more than the good is worth because the purchaser is powerless to obtain it elsewhere. Low-wage workers are in the opposite position of the monopolist. They lack the skills that command higher wages, but, because they need to work to survive, they cannot withhold their labor from the market. The monopolist can set the price at almost whatever level it wants, while the low-wage worker must take almost whatever is offered for his or her labor. Minimum wages exist for the same reason that laws against monopolies exist they deal with situations in which the market fails to set fairprices."

Now what my opponent is proposing is to abolish the minimum wage which in effect will allow monopolists who already control large segments of the market to force lower-income Americans to take whatever wage in which they are being offered. My opponents system creates something that is highly exploitable and likely to be abused by monopolists who are likely to say "Why should I pay my workers $8 when I can pay them $5 instead?" This system proposed by my opponent greatly benefits the rulers of the market while forcing lower-waged income Americans to fight for the scraps.


2.0: My opponent claims that by increasing the minimum wage, prices will rise and the quality of life will decrease. What my opponent failed to specify however was how much would the increase be? It would be more than a pleasure for me to present a counter-example but unfortunately I will need to wait until my opponent goes into more detail as to how much will the minimum wage be increased.


3.0: In order to show my opponent the benefits that the minimum wage would bring, I will present statistical data to support my argument:


"If the federal minimum wage were raised to $7.00, as proposed in the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2004, the bottom 40% of households by wages and salaries would receive nearly 60% of the benefits, despite the fact that they earn only 15.8% of earnings (Figure 1)."



Conclusion

In my argument I have presented a number of statistical information and situations which effectively shows that by eliminating the minimum wage, my opponents plan will lead to monopolists controlling the job-market and forcing lower-waged Americans to take whatever the wage that is being offered to them.

Summary 2.0: My opponent was unable to provide an amount as to how much does the minimum wage need to rise in order to justify his statements so I will wait for farther input from my opponent in the next round.

My opponent also has the burden of proof because he is proposing to establish a change to a existing policy and system. By this definition, if my opponent is unable to prove even one of his points then a vote for con must be decreed.

I thank my opponent for starting this debate and will be looking forward to the next round.

Citations:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.epi.org...

Economic Policy Institute Analysis of Current Population Survey Ongoing Rotation Group

Debate Round No. 1
numerical25

Pro

numerical25 forfeited this round.
2Pac

Con

My opponent has forfeited and has not met his burden of proof. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
numerical25

Pro

numerical25 forfeited this round.
2Pac

Con

(See Above)
Debate Round No. 3
numerical25

Pro

numerical25 forfeited this round.
2Pac

Con

(See Above)
Debate Round No. 4
numerical25

Pro

numerical25 forfeited this round.
2Pac

Con

My argument stands and because my opponent has the burden of proof that he failed to meet, a vote for con must be decreed. Thanks for putting up a great debate!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
numerical252PacTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
numerical252PacTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Full FF
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
numerical252PacTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Forfeited and didnt even introduce any arguments of his own.