The Instigator
Amphia
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
pi3.14
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Minimum Wage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2018 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 510 times Debate No: 108244
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Amphia

Pro

First round is acceptance only. Good luck! :)
pi3.14

Con

I accept. Good luck to you too!
Debate Round No. 1
Amphia

Pro

Apologies for the late response.

I believe that minimum wage is good for 2 reasons:

1. Prevents companies from taking advantage of employees, especially immigrants
2. The logic of allowing companies to decide wage is flawed

They will be combined as one argument for flowing's sake.

1/2. Prevents companies from taking advantage of employees and the logic of no minimum wage is flawed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Without some regulation, companies would be able to choose their own wages for employees. In factory working jobs, for example, without a minimum wage, the company could pay the employee $1 dollar an hour. People opposed to the minimum wage argue that if such a company payed such a low wage, no one would work there. This argument is flawed for 2 reasons:

1. In America, in 2014, 62 percent of people over the age of 25 did not have a degree. Studies have shown that the less education you have, the less money you make in terms of the jobs you are able to qualify for. While not all of these people are going to work for a minimum wage job, a lot will because these are the types of jobs they can be hired for. Since they cannot get other, higher paying jobs, they WILL take the $1 an hour wage. Because a tiny wage is better than none right? Employers know this: it's exactly what happened in the Industrial Revolution. Companies took advantage of their employees because they could.

http://www.politifact.com...

2. This logic only works for certain jobs. If I am a teacher and the school offers to pay me $20,000 a year. I could take it but at the same time, there are hundreds of other schools and high demand for teacher jobs. I could go to a different school, or at least I have a better chance of finding a better job. Or a doctor for example, if the hospital doesn't want to pay them the money they feel they deserve, they could go somewhere else easily. But this only applies to jobs in such high demand. People with only the skills for jobs in low demand are likely to be taken advantage of.

Note that high demand jobs such as being a doctor are different from high demand jobs like factory workers because doctors have more leverage than a factory worker.

If you don't believe me when I say that employers will take advantage of their employees just take restaurants as an example. Waiters and waitresses are not paid minimum wage because they receive tips which can provide payment. When you go into restaurants, people look at you weird if you don't tip or if you don't tip a lot. They say: "How could you be so mean? That's their salary!" Well, that's just IT. I didn't come here to pay for their salary, I came to pay for food. Now, the responsibility rests on the client instead of the employer who gets away with paying their waiters $2 an hour. Now, waiters hustle for tips and depend on them to survive. That is not how it is supposed to be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Being honest, I realized through research that I would rater debate whether we should RAISE the minimum wage but after this debate, I'll just make a new one.
pi3.14

Con

Thank you for your argument, and good luck!

"1. Prevents companies from taking advantage of employees, especially immigrants" How exactly do you think it stops companies from taking advantage of employees?
"2. The logic of allowing companies to decide wage is flawed" How so? I believe that the government should be as little as possible while still being able to maintain order and all that. Should the governments be able to decide if somebody gets a $100 wage, because they supposedly know better than the company?

"Without some regulation, companies would be able to choose their own wages for employees." Exactly...

"In factory working jobs, for example, without a minimum wage, the company could pay the employee $1 dollar an hour." Yeah, but remember: the employee doesn't have to work there if they want more than $1 an hour. Also, if they are able to pay their employees $1 an hour, they would likely also change the price of their shoes (or whatever they are making) down since they have less wages they need to spend (they don't have as much money used for wages, so they can lower prices and lose a little bit of money while not having to use that lost money for wages [if you don't understand, I'll try to reexplain this next time].)

"Since they cannot get other, higher paying jobs, they WILL take the $1 an hour wage." Well, $1 is better than nothing. Also, not every restaurant/factory or whatever will pay $1. Some restaurants pay more than minimum wage if they are doing well and have enough money. Also, again, if minimum wage is abolished, prices will go down. Before minimum wage, (it was introduced in 1938) there were dime stores believe it or not! Instead of more expensive dollar stores, things could be sold for a dime or less! Like I said, without minimum wage, everyone can lower their prices. Again, they could look for places that choose to pay more than $1. Also, if there are 50 job openings, but only 40 workers looking for a job in a particular area, the companies will have to do some competing for the workers, which means they would probably have to pay them more than $1 anyway.

"Companies took advantage of their employees because they could [during the Industrial Revolution]." To be honest, I forget most of the stuff I learned about the Industrial Revolution, but I looked it up, and it ended in about 1840. Many things have changed since then. Also, what about after 1840? Companies didn't always take complete advantage of their employees.

"But this only applies to jobs in such high demand. People with only the skills for jobs in low demand are likely to be taken advantage of." Let me ask you this, how many "Now Hiring" signs have you seen around stores, restaurants, etc. have you seen recently? They aren't that rare (where I live). Those kinds of jobs are still in high demand, so the companies would still need to compete on prices. Also, believe it or not, abolishing minimum wage would make more jobs. Instead of paying 10 workers $100 (I'm making these mubers up), companies could half their wage and employ another 10 workers while only having to pay $100. With these extra employees, maybe (say at a restaurant), they could make more food faster, which makes more customers want to come because the lines are shorter, so they get more money, so they can lower prices, so they get even more customers, so maybe now they can get a new location... (this seems extreme, but it could happen). Along the way, they might decide to bump up the employees' wages some to share the wealth. (I used the example of a restaurant because I thought it would be easier to picture and explain.) There are a bunch of restaurants everywhere, so they still need employees, so they could still be in high demand in a way.

"Waiters and waitresses are not paid minimum wage... the employer who gets away with paying their waiters $2 an hour." Again, if minimum wage was abolished, prices would go down which would let them live off of $2 an hour. Also, if they didn't like being a waiter/waitress, they could be cashier, hamburger flipper, Walmart employee, etc.

Also, if someone wants to be paid $1 an hour and the employer is willing to hire them, why should the government make it illegal? That person could be out of a job if the employer won't/can't pay them minimum wage if their company isn't doing well enough. Also, not everyone would depend on a $1 an hour job. Some people are willing to do those sorts of things especially if they are just a high school/college kid who wants a job with flexible hours and doesn't care how much they make, but just want to make something, or maybe they just want experience.

Here is a quote I found: "Ironically, it is legal to hire an unpaid intern in many circumstances. The intern would be willing to work for no pay just to gain experience. But if the company offered to pay the intern $5 an hour, then the transaction all of a sudden becomes illegal." Don't you agree that this is a problem? If somebody wants to pay and intern $5 out of the kindness of their heart even though they don't need to do that, isn't it wrong to make that illegal because of minimum wage? It just hurts the intern; it does not help them whatsoever.

https://www.wealthdaily.com... (I thought this was a decent article if you want to read it.)

Also, I'm probably committing a fallacy here, but my sister took economics in college, and in that class, they went over why minimum wage is bad in detail, and it wasn't an argument/debate or whatever because they had enough facts and all that to prove why it was bad for the economy. It wasn't just the professor's opinion or whatever. (She had an online book, but it expired by now.)

"Being honest, I realized through research that I would rater debate whether we should RAISE the minimum wage but after this debate, I'll just make a new one." You could debate that in this debate if you want. but you don't have to do that. I would be willing to do another debate if you want to do another one. Anyway, I await your response, and good luck!

https://www.economicshelp.org... (This article has some words you probably don't know [neither do I], but you can look at it if you want.)
Debate Round No. 2
Amphia

Pro

My opponent mentions how an employee doesn't have to work at a job where the pay is only $1 an hour. But as I already stated in round 2:

"People opposed to the minimum wage argue that if such a company payed such a low wage, no one would work there. This argument is flawed for 2 reasons:

1. Since many people cannot get other, higher paying jobs, they WILL take the $1 an hour wage. Because a tiny wage is better than none right? Employers know this: it's exactly what happened in the Industrial Revolution. Companies took advantage of their employees because they could. And just because $1 is better than none does not mean it right. That does not suffice for the cost of living.

2. This logic only works for certain jobs. If I am a teacher and the school offers to pay me $20,000 a year. I could take it but at the same time, there are hundreds of other schools and high demand for teacher jobs. I could go to a different school, or at least I have a better chance of finding a better job. Or a doctor for example, if the hospital doesn't want to pay them the money they feel they deserve, they could go somewhere else easily. But this only applies to jobs in such high demand. People with only the skills for jobs in low demand are likely to be taken advantage of."

Also could you please explain this again?:
"Also, if they are able to pay their employees $1 an hour, they would likely also change the price of their shoes (or whatever they are making) down since they have less wages they need to spend (they don't have as much money used for wages, so they can lower prices and lose a little bit of money while not having to use that lost money for wages [if you don't understand, I'll try to reexplain this next time].)"

You're right that not every factory or restaurant will pay their workers $1 an hour. However, many will. I have nothing against capitalism but in a capitalist society, it's about making profits. Money becomes equitable to true success. Unfortunately, with that mindset you get companies that care more about profits than people. If we abolish the minimum wage, companies will take advantage of their employees. I mean, they do it already and it'll just get worse.

"Some restaurants pay more than minimum wage if they are doing well and have enough money. Also, again, if minimum wage is abolished, prices will go down." Maybe some will but again, for many companies it's about profits. Even if they COULD afford to pay their employees more money, they don't have to anymore. And they won't.

You mentioned the dime stores, I feel like that is a misinterpretation of history. I was always under the impression that that was connected to inflation but if you have some sources, could you please provide them in your next argument?

"Many things have changed since then. Also, what about after 1840? Companies didn't always take complete advantage of their employees." You're talking about the first industrial revolution. But there was also a second one and one of the changes we saw was minimum wage. Obviously not every single company took advantage of their workers, but many did. Since there was no minimum wage before 1938 (like you mentioned), companies paid whatever they wanted. These employees worked in horrid conditions, received little pay, and if they were injured on the job, they were just kicked out and not compensated for damages. Why did these companies still thrive if they were so evil? Because there were millions more people who needed work and were wiling to take the other employees' places. This doesn't happen on as large a scale as it used to but my point was that companies are willing to take advantage of employees for profits.

I know minimum wage jobs are in high demand (factory working for example) but that doesn't mean the employees have any leverage. When you work for minimum wage, you don't have much negotiating room like you would have if you were a doctor. If you're a factory worker, you NEED the job and the company has alll the power. If you're a doctor, the hospital NEEDS you and you have a lot more room to argue for your pay. Also, if you are a factory worker and say you want more pay, they'll just tell you to leave and they will find someone else who WILL take the job as is. You mentioned how now the companies could cut the wage and employ more workers but that only benefits the companies like I keep saying. Companies are incentivized to get the most profits. This isn't inherently wrong until they start taking advantage of people. Now, the people are paid less and have even less money to survive on.

Your argument basically is that trickle down economics will occur. The companies cut wages, they improve service quality, get more cut mores, get more profits, lower service prices to benefit consumers, and raise wages because they can afford it. I have never been a huge fan of this because I don't believe it works large scale. I know there are many opposing viewpoints but my view is that it can work but not as much nor as widespread as people believe.

If the restaurant has better service, people will definitely come more often. Thus they get more money. However, they are not necessarily incentivized to lower prices. Why would they do that? Then they get less profits! The restaurant is more likely to keep the prices the same or raise them. Let's just say they keep the prices the same, then the workers are still paid less but the cost of living still hasn't gone down. So now the workers are even poorer. It is also unlikely that they will bump up the wage. Why would they cut the wage, make even more money, and then raise the wage and thus make less? My view might be a little pessimistic to some but assuming every restaurant or factory or company wants to share their profits is a little naive.

I do not think abolishing minimum wage will lead to lower prices. Also, even if other jobs are available, if the wage has been cut everywhere, how likely are people to find a job with a wage that can help them survive? It is most probable that they will end up taking the highest paying job (if it is available) which will still be ridiculously low.

And regarding competition, if the company can now spend money on better service and less on employees, people will still come and purchase their services. The company won't have to worry about competition or companies with higher wages because they will have the best quality (not necessarily the happiest employees). And if their employees are not the best, they have the power. They can fire them and someone else who needs a job will show up at the interview.

I think that the government should not control the economy but they need to supervise it occasionally. We can't allow companies to pay their employees whatever they want, they will take advantage of them.

I understand some people who work minimum wage are just high school kids who want money (not necessarily need it), but what about the adult with a family who is only qualified for this job? I don't think we should abolish the wage because high schools kids don't need money. And also we don't even know that either. Many high school kids work jobs to pay for college or help out in their families. It is not always because they can, sometimes it because they have no other choice.

Regarding interns, I think that the company needs to make a decision. Do you want an intern or an employee? If you want an intern, DO NOT PAY THEM. If you want an employee, pay them a salary or minimum wage. If I was in that situation and if the intern was high quality and deserved a job, I would hire them and pay them appropriately. If they weren't, I wouldn't pay them at all. The intern isn't being hurt, we can all agree that interns are their for experience and references. Their payment is a learning experience. This is different from a factory worker who is there to survive.

If you can find the argument your sister learned, that would be great. But I can't rebut you if I don't know your argument. It would be easy for me to just say "Well, my mom has a degree in economics and she told me the minimum wage is good." That isn't fair on you.

Sorry if I didn't answer some arguments, I realized I only had 13 hours left and it was bed time haha.
pi3.14

Con

Also could you please explain this again? 'Also if they are able to pay their employees...'" I'll try to explain this the opposite way. Imagine a pizza parlor (I think that is what it is called) that has no payments it needs to make except employee wages (no electric, water, etc. [this is to make the example make more sense]). Say they charge $5.00 for pizza, but must use $2.50 of each pizza to put into their employees paychecks. The other $2.50 is profit for the company. Then, imagine one day that the minimum wage (which the pizza parlor was paying the workers) was doubled from $1 and hour to $2 an hour. Now, with each pizza the company sells, they have to set aside twice as much, $5.00, to pay their employees because minimum wage was doubled. (Also, please note that I am making up these numbers for clarification.) Now, the company gets no profits from selling $5.00 pizzas, so they start charging $7.50 so that they still get a profit of $2.50. Before the minimum wage hike, the company sold about 100 pizzas per day. Now, about half the customers have started going to other pizza parlors for their pizzas because the other pizza parlors charge just $6.00 per pizza. Now, the first company, instead of getting $250 per night, they only get $125 per night for profits. To balance this out, they must start charging $10.00 for a pizza so that they get twice as much, $5.00, per pizza in profits. Now they lose a few more customers so that they only earn $200 per night, which is still $50 lower than before the minimum wage increase, so they decide to charge $11.00 per pizza. Now, let's say they get around $240 per night, but they decide to keep the price there to keep the few customers they have. Now the pizza is more than twice as much as before the minimum wage hike, but the employees' wages are just doubled. If the minimum wage were to go down to $1 again, they would probably lower their prices back down to $5.00 again so that they get more profits overall. (Does this make sense?) When they lower their prices, customers would come back because wouldn't you much rather buy a $5.00 dollar pizza, and not an $11 pizza?

"Since many people cannot get other, higher paying jobs, they WILL take the $1 an hour wage." Yeah. And if minimum wage is above $1, then maybe the employer will decide that they don't need that job (maybe just do 2 cashiers instead of 3), and then potential employees get paid $0 an hour.

"$1... That does not suffice for the cost of living." Again, without minimum wage things would get cheaper.

"Unfortunately, with that mindset you get companies that care more about profits than people." So making a minimum wage somehow makes companies love their employees more? Also, they can show employees that they care through other ways, like pension.

"You mentioned the dime stores, I feel like that is a misinterpretation of history. I was always under the impression that that was connected to inflation." I'm sure that there were a variety of causes that they all closed, but my point is that now prices are higher than in the past. Again, some of it is due to inflation and things like that, but minimum wage is still a factor. I don't exactly have a source for this, but, again, minimum wage does pretty much require companies to either lay off workers, raise prices, or completely shut down; otherwise, they don't make enough profits.

"Since there was no minimum wage before 1938 (like you mentioned), companies paid whatever they wanted. These employees worked in horrid conditions, received little pay, and if they were injured on the job, they were just kicked out and not compensated for damages." How would making a minimum wage help this?

"I know minimum wage jobs are in high demand (factory working for example) but that doesn't mean the employees have any leverage." Again, they can apply to work for the company that will give them the best pay, pension, etc. They aren't forced to work some terrible factory job. Again, many restaurants and places like that always have "now hiring" signs up because they need people (sorry if I committed another fallacy there).

"If you're a doctor, the hospital NEEDS you and you have a lot more room to argue for your pay." What you were insinuating earlier is that every company can just kick people out because there are bunches and bunches of people just waiting to get a job. Explain how your reasoning wouldn't apply to doctors as well.

"You mentioned how now the companies could cut the wage and employ more workers but that only benefits the companies like I keep saying." So, it is better for companies to pay 1 worker $100 an hour instead of having 10 workers get paid $10 an hour? Are you saying it is better to be unemployed than to get at least a little pay? Earlier, you said, "Since they cannot get other, higher paying jobs, they WILL take the $1 an hour wage. Because a tiny wage is better than none, right?" (Round 1) So now you say it is better for people to be unemployed? Also, when there are more workers, the customers are also benefitted. Instead of waiting 20 minutes for you pizza, you only have to wait 10. This would not solely benefit the company. It benefits a lot more people than that.

"If the restaurant has better service, people will definitely come more often. Thus they get more money. However, they are not necessarily incentivized to lower prices. Why would they do that? Then they get less profits!" I disagree. Lower prices means more customers which means more money overall. If pizza at company A costs $5 while all the other companies' pizzas cost $20, most customers would go to company A. They would probably get more than 4x the business of the other companies leading to more profits. A lot of people are going to buy something if it is cheap enough.

"Assuming every factory or company wants to share their profits is a little naive." Yeah, companies don't always share their profits with their employees. Bumping up their wages doesn't always help, because the companies just make the customers pay the extra cost. Why would making them pay their employees more make them want to lose profits and do nothing about it?

'It is most probable that they will end up taking the highest paying job (if it is available) which will still be ridiculously low." Maybe, but the prices of everything will also be "ridiculously" low. Also, even with minimum wage, people just take the highest paying job they can find.

"Also regarding competition, if the company can now spend money on better service..." Paying employees better can translate to them being happier which translates to better service... "and less on employees, people will still come and purchase their services. The company won't have to worry about competition..." Yes, they will. Companies always have to worry about competition. "or companies with higher wages because they will have the best quality..." Not necessarily. Quality isn't everything. Other things factor into how many customers you get, like location. Also, you probably agree that McDonald's probably isn't the best quality fast food. They still have way more customers than other places. Plus, quality also normally increases the price of something. If you still somehow have a great quality $5 pizza without making it super expensive, you probably will get more customers. The problem is that you can't make high-quality $5 pizzas very fast. They take more time, so some customers will go to a different pizza company (I like this example, sorry if it gets repetitive) that makes their pizzas faster. Now, your money used on the quality of the pizzas has gone to waste. "(not necessarily the happiest employees)." And unhappy employees can translate to slow, unhappy-looking, possibly rude employees. This translates to your customers not liking your customer service which causes them to go to a different company. Employee happiness is important! "And if their employees are not the best, they have the power. They can fire the, and someone else who needs a job will show up at the interview." You can't just fire people left and right. First off, possible employees will notice how many people get fired, and not want to interview because they fear that they too will be fired soon anyways so it isn't even worth their time to interview. Also, even if people were to show up to an interview, it would be hard to find some perfect, super-friendly, super-fast person. That person is more likely to apply for a job at higher-paying companies. Also, how does minimum wage stop this? I'm sure you still meet bad (slow, rude, etc.) workers at fast food places all the time! Their employers can't just fire people like that left and right because there aren't enough people willing to fill their spot.

"I don't think we should abolish the wage because high schools kids don't need money." So, instead of being able to pay high schoolers $5 an hour, you are going to make more people suffer the effects of higher prices, unemployment and the like?

(Sorry, I'm running out of characters, so I will maybe continue more rebuttals for the next round.)

Just remember, T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.! There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch! This pretty much means that even though some people will get a pay increase, there will still be downsides, such as price increases. If there are no downsides to minimum wage (which you insinuate), then why not raise it to 1 million? Then everybody would be rich according to your argument, right? (This is one of the things I remember from my sister, and yeah, I agree, that wasn't a good point in round 2. Anyway, I incorporate some of her arguments into my own.)

Here are some links you should check out:
https://reason.com...
https://www.facesof15.com...

Thank you for reading this and I await your argument
Debate Round No. 3
Amphia

Pro

In this argument, I will summarize and rebut the most general, bigger picture arguments.

My opponent used an example of a pizza parlor that loses customers because they raise the prices to compensate for the minimum wage being doubled. For one, the competition the pizza parlor has also has to pay minimum wage so they both have to compensate.

Also, consider the alternative:

If the pizza parlor didn't have to pay minimum wage, they could make the wage whatever they wanted. My opponent would like you to believe that this would lead to lower cost of living but this is untrue.

1. Prices would not lower as companies are incentivized to make the most profits
2. No minimum wage=unhappy employees

1. Prices will not lower
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is what I said in Round 3:
"If the restaurant has better service, people will definitely come more often. Thus they get more money. However, they are not necessarily incentivized to lower prices. Why would they do that? Then they get less profits! The restaurant is more likely to keep the prices the same or raise them. Let's just say they keep the prices the same, then the workers are still paid less but the cost of living still hasn't gone down. So now the workers are even poorer."

My opponent argues that the cost of living would lower but this is not true. Even if the restaurant lowered their prices, there are still many other costs that still have not lowered. The employees' rent has will not lower,their bus fare will not lower, gas money will not lower, Wal-Mart groceries will not lower. They still have tons of costs and not enough money to afford them.

2. No minimum wage=unhappy employees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Without a minimum wage, companies will pay their employees whatever they want. When companies pay their employees crap (excuse my French), productivity will lower. The employees have no inspiration or motivation to work anymore. If they keep the job, they will be unhappy because they can barely (if at all) take care of their families or themselves. They will be awful to customers and won't work as hard since they are not being paid as well as they should be. Since their will be terrible service, customers will leave, not stay. And this the company makes less profits.

My opponent also said that if their are no downsides to minimum wage, then why not raise it to a million?
I disagree with this for two reasons:

1. The minimum wage is not perfect but it is much more beneficial than the alternative: a world where employers pay whatever they want to workers, a world reminiscent of the Industrial Revolution
2. Raising the minimum wage to 1 million is not what I'm insinuating. What I'm saying is that the minimum wage has far more benefits than disadvantages as is.

Thanks for debating me, this was a good one :).
pi3.14

Con

Wow, this is getting long! Anyway, here is my closing argument. (Sorry for arguing in the last round and not letting you rebut, but you may challenge me to a part 2 if you please. I'll try to not make a bunch of new points.)

"My opponent used an example of a pizza parlor that loses customers because they raise the prices to compensate for the minimum wage being doubled. For one, the competition the pizza parlor has also has to pay minimum wage so they both have to compensate." There are exceptions to this. For instance, maybe federal minimum wage stays the same, but the city where the pizza parlor is may increase its minimum wage while the parlor's competitors in surrounding cities might not have their minimum wage increased. People living between the two cities would likely choose to go to the pizza parlor with the lower prices which would be in the city with less minimum wage. Also, the pizza parlor's competitors might have already been paying their employees more than what the minimum wage was, so now their employees are still $1 above the current minimum wage, thus not affecting their prices.

You say that prices wouldn't decrease because that would lower a company's profits. In some instances, lowering their prices by, say, 50% (I know this big of a change would likely not happen, but it is a round number) could increase their customers by more than 50%, thus letting them sell more pizzas and letting them make more profits overall.

The employees might not get as much pay, but you could make them happy in other ways, like giving them more vacation days, giving them a discount on your pizzas, having less hours per week if they can't handle that many, giving them longer lunch breaks, etc.

My opponent argues that other things like Wal-Mart groceries won't lower. Again, some minimum wage employees aren't dependent on their job, for example, they could be high schoolers with parents that take care of them, spouses with a better job, etc. Plus, if Wal-Mart lowers their employee pay, they likely could indeed lower their prices.

Again, they can make the employees happy in other ways, such as increasing vacation days, lengthening lunch breaks, etc.

*Just a note, when I offered the "advice" of raising minimum wage to 1 million, I was not actually saying that we should (not that my opponent was saying otherwise, just to be clear). I was just wanting to show that there are disadvantages.
Anyway, if it has more benefits and litte/no disadvantages, it would be a great idea to raise it to 1 million. I argue that there would be disadvantages such as price increases and companies going out of business due to loss of customers due to price increases.

To recap, minimum wage is bad because it causes an increase in prices, sometimes leading to things like unemployment and bad service, and the pros don't outweigh the cons.

(Again, sorry for making new arguments that you can't rebut, though it wasn't mentioned that I couldn't do so.) I agree that this was a good debate and I hope you understand my point of view better now. Good luck in the voting period!
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Amphia 5 months ago
Amphia
True.
Posted by Nd2400 5 months ago
Nd2400
But the teacher put so much pressure on Virginia. And after 9 days they folded meaning the government. To give the teacher a little bit better wage. So usually when people gather up to unify because they deem something is unfair they will usually win. And that what happen in virgina. It happens like this in a lot of places if the wages are actually to low.

Like i said people want to earn more. Not less. That's why the minimum wage is a good thing, but it does need a hike. We can't go backwards on things because it just doesn't work that way.
Posted by TPPDJT 5 months ago
TPPDJT
I love how people trumpet the supposed glories of the free market when in reality no true free market has ever existed.
Posted by Amphia 5 months ago
Amphia
Unfortunately most teacher strikes are pretty useless because by law teachers have to be at school to teach for a certain number of days. I don't know what happened in Virginia but I do know that in some other places, the teachers had to go back to work (maybe California?) anyway. The school administration didn't even care because they knew the teachers would come back.
Posted by Nd2400 5 months ago
Nd2400
Sorry i didn't see this earlier.
But i need to point this out. The minimum wage is different in every state. For example California will have the higher minimum wage than a state like South dakota.

By the way people will boycotts for higher wages. Example, look what happen in Virginia they had a teacher strike because they wanted higher wages. Other retailers also had strikes or union workers go on strikes. Why? So they could get paid better. Everyone want to get more money. Not less....
Posted by Nd2400 5 months ago
Nd2400
Sorry i didn't see this earlier.
But i need to point this out. The minimum wage is different in every state. For example California will have the higher minimum wage than a state like South dakota.

By the way people will boycotts for higher wages. Example, look what happen in Virginia they had a teacher strike because they wanted higher wages. Other retailers also had strikes or union workers go on strikes. Why? So they could get paid better. Everyone want to get more money. Not less....
Posted by Amphia 5 months ago
Amphia
I can see why people might think that but workers are mistreated all over the U.S. and no boycotts are happening. I don't think enough people would care to boycott places where they get necessary supplies.

If Wal-Mart (which by the way has a minimum wage of 8 dollars currently) lowered this wage to $1, I see why people would go crazy. But if it was lowered to $6, it wouldn't be drastic enough to cause national boycotting. And the workers would also still have less to live on considering that other costs of living have not gone down. Also, I think even if wages were reduced to $1, a lot of people would still go to Wal-Mart because it is the cheapest company for groceries. They wouldn't care or they would figure "That's too bad but I need to eat so..."
Posted by Cole478 5 months ago
Cole478
I like how you argue that if the minimum wage was reduced, that the pay of workers would decrease. However, this is actually wrong. The vast vast majority of economists agree that wages are sticky, meaning that they can only go up. And if a company tried to lower wages, it would make national headlines, and there would be a massive boycott of the company. The minimum has gotten to the point where it is practically useless because the vast majority of companies already pay above the minimum wage for even their lowest position. Take Walmart for example. Their in store minimum wage is $11 an hour, almost a 50% increase of the national mandated wage.
Posted by Surgeon 5 months ago
Surgeon
Pro you have both your arguments exactly the wrong way around.

1- The freer the markets are the more both people and companies have to compete for the jobs and employees they want. Imposing a minimum wage level on the market above the clearing rates for labour, forces low skilled and poorly educated people out of work and prevents voluntaristic contracts between individuals and firms where those same people can gain skills and experience. Therefore the poor stay in a cycle of poverty.

2- There is no valid logical problem here. You just do not understand the structure of capital, the reallocation of resource over time and the impact on each individual labour market.
No votes have been placed for this debate.