The Instigator
YoungWisdom
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Crazy4Steelers07
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished in the United States

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...
Crazy4Steelers07
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,715 times Debate No: 8830
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

YoungWisdom

Pro

By supporting minimum wage, you're assuming that employers have all the control in terms of how much they pay their employees, and that an employer and their employee can't negotiate wages. In this country, the GDP is high enough that nobody is going to agree to work for two cents an hour. For example, the employer and the employee can reasonably come to a compromise of say, for example, three dollars an hour.

But how does this argue against minimum wage? Well, when you consider the fact that minimum wage causes inflation (due to the fact that employers have to raise the price of goods to compensate for the money lost for paying employees), you come to realize that the increased wage is virtually meaningless. This essentially entails that the three dollars per hour earned in the example above is worth more than the roughly five dollars you earn per hour under minimum wage.

Other disadvantages of minimum wage are as follows: (1) lower-skilled workers have fewer job opportunities, (2) most industrial jobs are outsourced, (3) businesses spend less training on their employees, and (4) excludes low cost competitors from the market.

(http://www.indiana.edu...)
(http://www.heritage.org...)
Crazy4Steelers07

Con

First off, you do not have to assume that the Employers have all the control to support a minimum wage, in fact you should assume quiet the contray. In a Country that does not have a Minimum wage, employees are forced to work at employer rates, in countries with some minimum wage they aren't. Example: USA. We currently have a minimum wage and you can still bargain collectivly. (Read the sign that any place of business is required by law to post for their employees.) The minium wage is merely a protective barrier to prevent people from getting paid 2 cents an hours.

Furthermore, let me establish that Con does not have to defend the minimum wage at any set value. Rather let it be set at value X. This is because the within the USA each state has different values for minium wage, and those values are even constently changing. This debate centers on the use of the theory of Minimum wage over the actual value of the minimum wage because the practicle value changes from location to location.

The United States of America prides itself in being able to not be a third rate country. The economic stature is good, and most people would want it to stay that way. The reason the USA is above the world economically is because they require a standard of living and work at a certain level. The truth is, now in todays world of globalization, for the current american culture to exsist the minimum wage is required. Though, American cities now present 'slums' and 'ghettos'. These people are merely lazy, OD'ed on Drugs, or have minimum wage jobs can't afford anything better. The American populous has seen an 'outsourcing' of lower undeserable jobs to the rest of the world (Namly India and China) in order to raise the American Standard of living. Why? Because these countries have workers willing to work....yes, willing to work, for PENNIES an hours. What does this do to Americans? It allows products to be made, shipped, and sold to you at priced that are as low as can be. Thus Walmart and McDonalds drive out all of their compotion by undercutting everybody by offering cheaper products. A minimum wage acts as a barrier, if their was no US minimum wages companies would insource these people from China and India to work for nothing, in slums they create, and have thousand strong communities of basically 'slaves' working for them right here in our back yard. And as the popular slongan goes: NIMB (Not In My Backyard). Americans don't care if it exsists, as long as they don't see it. Even if lower skilled workers would have job oppurtunities, they would be in slums for PENNIES an hour. He11, they would probally make more money begging on a street corner.

By now, you probally don't believe people would work for nothing. But its true, if Americans won't then they will find other people. 1.5 billion live on less than one dollar a day (http://findarticles.com...). I'm sure they'd be happy with 10 cents an hour on a 14 hour shift.

Basically the debate boils down to this: Have a Minimum wage to protect the American populous from ruthless big companies, or let the trust days of the early 1900's rearise.

My opponent explains how minimum wages hurt the american populous by increasing inflation, however through outsourcing American Companies have already been able to reduce costs to lower prices, thes price have bottomed out and can't get any lower. When you competators work for $.43 an hour, we as Americans would have to do the same (actually less to reduce costs) and in so doing, our salaries and thus purchasing power would demintion so much that even if a toy cost ten cents less, the 90% loss of american purchasing power for someone in a low skilled/minimum wage job would no longer allow them to buy the product (6.55 national minimum wage average)

All in all the loss of a minimum wage would reduce the standard of living in the united states, and [contary to Pro assumtion] allows the Employer (not the Employee) all the power in at the bargaining table because they will just insource labor that will work for cheaper (Mostly like the Mexicans that want in anyway).

Vote Con, if you want a bright happy American that you have now. Not one overrun with poverty and big trust dominating the countryside.
Debate Round No. 1
YoungWisdom

Pro

I would first like to respond to the following statement you made: "In a Country that does not have a Minimum wage, employees are forced to work at employer rates, in countries with some minimum wage they aren't."

In a country that does not have minimum wage, there are three reasons why employers have the control (or rather, why people are willing to work for wages as low as they are): (1) the GDP per capita in that country is far lower, and therefore, the impoverished people are willing to work for much less, (2) these countries usually have relatively, if not blatantly oppressive regimes that will punish workers who refuse to work, and (3) the lack of anti-trust laws and business regulation diminishes competitiveness . In the few nations that don't have minimum wage, but that don't meet either of these two conditions, there are almost always alternatives put in place, such as collective bargaining agreements (whether or not these alternatives are productive is another issue).

I would also like to reinforce your understanding of what I meant when I said "by supporting minimum wage, you're assuming that employers have all the control." I could be wrong, but based on your response, you seem to have misunderstood what I said. In other words, you seem to think that I meant that minimum wage laws GIVE the employer all the control. Let me be more specific: by supporting minimum wage laws, you're assuming that employers have all the control when such laws are not legislated. But as I've stated, the GDP in this country is high enough that nobody is going to work for 2 cents an hour.

In your fourth paragraph, you point out the fact that if Americans aren't willing to work for next to nothing, then people in other countries will. Keep in mind that it is only the manufacturing jobs that get outsourced; any jobs in the service industry must remain here. And as you obviously understand, minimum wage CAUSES outsourcing of industrial jobs, so in order for your argument to remain consistent, whether or not minimum wage laws are in place has virtually no effect on whether or not these jobs get outsourced. However, you also need to consider the cost of importing goods made outside the country; the benefit employers get from hiring third world citizens who are willing to work for virtually nothing is negated by these costs. Hiring employees at home is much cheaper, and therefore employers can afford to hire employees at higher wages, while still earning more profit than they would had they outsourced these jobs. Because of all this, the assertion you made in your sixth paragraph, the one about how prices have already bottomed out because of outsourcing, is not really a sustainable argument.

The argument becomes even more unsustainable when the following is considered: even under minimum wage, you'll frequently find that employers and employees DO, in fact, negotiate wages, even in relatively low-level jobs, and employees will earn wages that are quite a bit above minimum wage. This is because employers have decided that they can afford to make a compromise with their employees that is most suitable for both their interests.

What makes abolishing minimum wage even more plausible is the fact that there's a much better alternative, one that still provides a guaranteed income, yet has virtually none of the negative side effects of minimum wage: it's called the negative income tax.

Here's how it works: the negative income tax involves a yearly fixed government payment granted to any working or disabled individual, and is used in conjunction with a flat tax rate. So suppose you had a fixed government payment of $10,000 dollars a year, and there was a flat tax rate of 25%. A person making $40,000 a year would break even; they would pay no taxes, nor would they earn any money, because their fixed government payment would be equal to the percentage lost after taxes (i.e. 25% of $40,000 equals $10,000, which, in this scenario, is equal to the fixed government payment involved). A person who hypothetically makes only $0.40 a year would still end up with near the $10,000 of the government payment. The $10,000 payment is only slightly less than what would be earned under a minimum wage of roughly $5.00 an hour, yet would be worth quite a bit more, because inflation would no longer be an issue.

What's also great about the negative income tax is that it can essentially pay for itself, because it would eliminate the need for social security, welfare, food stamps, and of course, minimum wage. And ultimately, outsourcing would no longer be a problem.
Crazy4Steelers07

Con

OK, add a contention: Every one has one
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Almost every country in the world has a minimum wage.

My opponent fails to comprhend insourcing. Clearly the opposite of outsourcing. What would happen without a Minimum wage in the USA would be that all of these low wage workers (Mexican, Chinesee, and Indian) would come to America to do manufactoring jobs to negate the cost of shipping that my opponent brought up. Everyone would still get paid the same just they would be here doing the work, and we'd have large pockets of manufacturing town in American with some of the most impovished people in the world that would basically be indentured servants because they'd have to pay back their shipping over here and for their green cards and would be trapped in these 'mining towns'. If my opponent doesn't believe this is a flausible outcome, then read a history book. Furthermore, those un-outsourcable Service Jobs: 1)IT service jobs are outsourced to India in the Millions, and 2)Guess who's going to be the cashier at McDonalds now? Some Mexican or Chinesee worker who'll do the job for $.40 cents an hour. America will be over run by people will to do their jobs at 1/10 of the price and thus ultimently devode America of a middle class forming and Astocracy Elite (the CEO's of places like Walmart and McDonalds) and everyone else. End of story.

My opponents alternative for a reversed income taxes fails on several levels. 1) He fails to show any precedance for it to work 2) He fails to adequently show how it would not increase taxes. 45% of americans fall below his 40 thousand dollars a year total that would be required to not recieve goverment aid and actually start paying taxes. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Of course this does not exclude those not in the work for (over 65 and retired or under 18 and not seeking employment). Resultin in all of those people getting money from the goverment. 3) Ten thousand dollars a year is 1/3 of the current US poverty line, even if prices of goods where reduced (which they won't be) minimum wage employees even w/ this goverment help would need goods to be reduced by 66% of their cost in order to just hit the poverty, meaning this goverment aid would be unadecuatly sufficent. 4)The goverment should not have to support its citizen exclusivly, if it did then are goverment would be pushing towards communism, my opponent would have to prove its not. 5)

My opponent arguement about employers negotiating wages even under minimum wage is obviously true, employees do have the ability to negotiate with a minimum wage. A bar is set and then employers must action their bids higher then the minimum to attract the best employees, the problem mostly lies in low skill and service jobs (like Cashier, Fry Cook, Stocker). The entry level postions typically require no vast training or vast amount of skill. Consiquently, almost anyone is qualified to take these jobs and thus their is a higher demand for employment here and thus a lower insentive for employers to compete or pay more to get these employees. As I stated, the insourcing effect would occure without a minimum wage, thus lower the effective abiality for Amercians to get resonable minimum wage jobs.

Ultimently, my opponent claims that the Minimum Wage has caused inflation. In order for his claim to be considered, you have to look at his intial example, make 3 dollars and hour verses 6. So my opponent to gain any offensive ground would have to conslusivly prove that inflation through minimum wage has doubled the price of ALL goods in America (Food, Cars, Houses, Toys, Office Supplies, Furniture, Technology) in order for his claim to be even close to accurate.

Failure to do so resides in voters having to vote con because the pro would have no offfense.
Debate Round No. 2
YoungWisdom

Pro

Whether or not most countries have minimum wage laws is hardly relevant, and considering the fact that most of the world's nations are doing poorly economically, it doesn't really strengthen your position.

You ask me to prove that the Negative Income Tax is not communist. Seriously? You obviously need to look up the definitions of words before you use them, namely the word communism. Communism is the political ideology advocating that all property be shared by the people and/or owned by the state. How you manage to come to the conclusion that the Negative Income Tax is communist is beyond me. In fact, the fact that the government is GIVING money to individuals, as opposed to SHARING it, automatically makes it NOT communist; it doesn't fall under the category of money being shared by the people, and it involves the government giving up ownership, not holding it. In addition, I think it would be useful for you to better understand the definition of money, which is "a circulating medium of exchange". The whole reason money exists as a system of "exchange" is to enable people to purchase and obtain personal and individualized ownership of products, and not shared ownership. So in fact, under true communism, there would be no need for money.

Aside from that, the way that you throw the term towards the concept I brought fourth as freely as you do, without justification, is astonishingly cheap. First and foremost, you take for granted the fact that people, most of whom have an extraordinarily superficial understanding of what the word even means, automatically discredit something as soon as they believe it's communist. They do so because their minimal knowledge of the word's meaning only allows them to understand the fact that its bad. Most know nothing more beyond that, so it's easy to convince them that something you don't like is communist, simply by labeling it as such.

In terms of how you point out my example of $3.00 versus $6.00, I'd first like to point out that my example actually involved $3.00 and $5.00. But all things aside, it doesn't matter what numbers are used in the examples. The example is merely intended to make a general point, not to declare that the variables of that example are or would be the same in all situations. The same goes for the numbers I used for both the tax percentage and the fixed payment amount in my example for the negative income tax. It doesn't mean the numbers HAVE to be $10,000 and 25%. In other words, it doesn't have to be set up so that 45% of Americans fall below the break-even point. It can be adjusted accordingly. Besides, if you mean to imply that this percentage would mean that the government would not be taking in enough taxes to sustain itself, you're forgetting the fact that government expenses such as social security, welfare, and food stamps would become obsolete under the system.

I never said anything about negative income tax NOT increasing taxes. I never even said I'm in favor of lowering, or even maintaining our current tax rate. And to be frank, you're doing roughly the same thing you were doing with the word "communism." You're essentially throwing the phrase "increased taxes" around, taking for granted the fact that people don't like paying taxes, yet they ignore the fact that taxes are how our society functions.

You claim that minimum wage decreases insourcing, while a lack of minimum wage increases it. In order for this to be true, you'd have to rephrase it in the following way: insourcing remains roughly the same with or without minimum wage laws. Under minimum wage, more immigrants are attracted into the country due to the increased wage, yet things ultimately balance out, due to the fact that more jobs are available within their country of origin, and therefore, roughly the same amount of people are willing to stay. Without minimum wage, more immigrants are attracted into the country due to the fact that there are less jobs available in their country of origin, yet others remain home because the amount of income received would be more or less the same.

The negative income tax would not encourage illegal immigrants to enter the country (illegal immigrants, by the way, account for the vast majority of insourced jobs that work for the lowest wages). Essentially, in order for a person to receive their fixed payment from the government, they would essentially have to go through a process that would reveal whether or not that person had documented proof of citizenship. Any illegal immigrant attempting to go through this process is ultimately asking to be deported.

As for anything else you've said in your second round, I suggest you go back to my previous arguments; they already explain why the rest of these are incorrect. Besides, I've just about run out of characters.
Crazy4Steelers07

Con

My opponent did not as I asked prove the amount of inflation that would be reduced if the jobs where done in america. All he said was he vowed for 40% not 50%. W/e, still you gotta show me something to go off of.

My opponent reverse income taxes idea is still flawed because it would take a huge large scale over hall of the American bussiness system that would not only be costly but almost impossible to fund or implement. Furthermore, his reverse model makes noone under that 40,000 dollar mark paying taxes, meaning that the most succesful and wealthy individuals in America would be responisble to support 45% of America. Also, people who did work (example with .40 a year; I can find that the street) would be getting welfare (basically same thing) for not work and since everyone would get it regardless then noone would have any insentive to work 'cause they can get free money.

My insourcing argument has yet to be succesfully awnsered. My opponent brings up the logic mexican illegal immigrants can't work in America. Yes obviously, however my opponent fails to relize that any company can bring over anybody they want to work on work visa's. Without a minimum wage, these companies would look for the cheapest labor. If they couldn't find it in the US, then they would look else where and bring it here to eliminate or severally reduce shipping cost my opponent himself claimed where so high.

My opponent states that insourcing would 'remain about the same regardless'. However, his logic is flawed. Yes, as he said 'more immigrants are attracted into the country due to the increased wage' however their is a snag: NO company is going to bring workers from other countries to work here for minimum wage if people here are willing to work for the wage. Thus, since Americans are willing to work for the set minimum wage, companies will use them and not foreigners. And when they can use foreigners for jobs they outsource them to countries that are cheaper. Thus, with a minimum wage insourcing does not take place for low skilled jobs. Without one, companies can bring in people to work for lower wages.
Analogy: It would just be like the old coal mine days, a bunch of people are get paid current minimum wage, then suddenly its gone. Employers cut pay by 80%. Everyone goes on strike. Company brings in workers from other countries to do the work at the desired wage which is higher then what they are getting paid now. Boom, suddenly American mimimum wage jobs are being done at fraction of the cost and low skilled americans are screwed.

In China, people work in the factors for .40 cents a day because it is better then the alternative: Starving to death trying to farm a 1/2 acre plot of land that needs to feed 20 people for a year. Those people would be happy to come to America and work for .40 or even .50 cents a day. We can keep building factories their because they're are so many of them we've yet to max out the number of jobs they need. Furthermore, Chinese, Mexicans, and Indians all want to come to America anyway for a 'better life' (Even though it will be worse if we abolished the minimum wage.) So the insentive to some here would be there for any of them.

Without the abiality to effectly reduce the insourcing or the mass exstortion of employees for insanly low wages there is no reason the minimum wage should be abolished.
Debate Round No. 3
YoungWisdom

Pro

YoungWisdom forfeited this round.
Crazy4Steelers07

Con

Crazy4Steelers07 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
YoungWisdom

Pro

YoungWisdom forfeited this round.
Crazy4Steelers07

Con

Basically my opponent forfieted, and he doesn't even have an active acount anymore. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"We can keep building factories their because they're are so many of them we've yet to max out the number of jobs they need."

There/their/they're fail.

CON's arguments are rather weak. However, PRO's forfeit will probably cost him the debate.
Posted by Crazy4Steelers07 7 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
We gotta finish this debate 'cause I'm going out of town Saturday and then I won't be able to respond
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
5 rounds is a lot on this topic.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Corycogley77479 7 years ago
Corycogley77479
YoungWisdomCrazy4Steelers07Tied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
YoungWisdomCrazy4Steelers07Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Crazy4Steelers07 7 years ago
Crazy4Steelers07
YoungWisdomCrazy4Steelers07Tied
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