The Instigator
acer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
32 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 6 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,592 times Debate No: 8914
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (6)

 

acer

Pro

Minimum Wage is the lowest hourly, daily or monthly wage that employers may legally pay to employees or workers". http://en.wikipedia.org....

I am PRO, therefore my objective is to prove that having a minimum wage does more good than bad. For CON to win, he must prove that having minimum wage is the worst possible option.

1. The reason that minimum wage was first introduced was because of companies taking advantage of it employees. They did this by paying them incredibly low wages. Since they made so little money, they had very little to spend on other things but food.
However, with the minimum wage, they could earn a little more than bare minimum.

2. Also, minimum wage is actually pretty low. $6.55 an hour is not much money to employers that earn millions. And most jobs that employ people at minimum wage actually would earn that much money any way. I agree that if a certain job produces much less profit than should be earned with minimum wage, the law should not be enacted there.

However, as a whole having minimum wage is a better option compared to the alternative of no minimum wage.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
I will review more arguments in round 2.
wjmelements

Con

I thank my opponent, acer, for challenging me to this debate.

Wage is always less than the value of the hourly produce of an employee's labour. Otherwise, the employee would not be hired.

Because of the nature of wage, we can divide the effects of minimum wage into three categories:
-When the value of the minimum wage is below what would otherwise have been paid
-When the value of the minimum wage is above the real value of the produce of labour
-When the value of the minimum wage is between what would otherwise have been paid and the real value of the produce of labour

If a minimum wage is lower than a job would otherwise pay, then it has no effect.

If a minimum wage is higher than the economic value of a job, then it eliminates that job from economic feasibility. This occurred in American Samoa with the canning industry. http://www.realclearmarkets.com...

If a minimum wage is higher than what a job would otherwise pay, but lower than the economic value of a job, then the costs of labour increase.
If the costs of labour increase, the costs of products the labour produce increase.
If the costs of the products that said labour increases, then the price of everything goes up.
This price inflation balances out the effect of the minimum wage, so that the real (as opposed to nominal) value of the minimum wage drops again below the price labour would have otherwise paid.
This effect is comparable to the "negative feedback" system in the human body.

So, in no case can a minimum wage have a positive effect.

Further, the third said case causes politicians to again raise the minimum wage, eliminating more jobs and creating more price inflation.

Now, to my opponent's case:
1. My opponent asserts that the minimum wage protects workers from company abuse. However, there are other ways to do this without a minimum wage:
-Employees may strike until wages and/or benefits improve
-Employees may organize into labour unions and therefore force employers to pay them monopoly wages

A minimum wage, however, is compulsory, and has negative economic effects, as discussed earlier.

2. My opponent asserts that jobs should be eliminated if they are not especially valuable. This is the primary cause of unemployment during a recession; as wage deflation occurs, more and more jobs are pushed below the minimum wage line. This explains why states with a higher minimum wage (Michigan) are hurt worse during economic downturns. http://www.house.gov... http://www.epionline.org... http://netrightnation.com...

In this manner, a minimum wage law intensifies recessions by increasing unemployment and limiting the market's ability to adapt.

I thank my opponent for his arguments and await additional arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
acer

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

First of, I would like to clarify my position. I am not for a higher minimum wage, but a lower minimum wage that is around the wage that should actually be paid. The minimum wage should be like the minimum needed for survival.

1. "If a minimum wage is lower than a job would otherwise pay, then it has no effect."
Right. The person would get paid higher than minimum wage because that what the job produces. This has no negative effect because it has no effect.

2. "If a minimum wage is higher than the economic value of a job, then it eliminates that job from economic feasibility. This occurred in American Samoa with the canning industry." This only happened because government did not regulate the minimum wage effectively. The workers were already getting a fair amount and the minimum wage should not have been raised. Again, I am not for a higher minimum wage, but one that stops companies from taking advantage of employees. Also, how many jobs are actually producing lower than the minimum wage? Not a lot.

3. "-Employees may strike until wages and/or benefits improve
-Employees may organize into labour unions and therefore force employers to pay them monopoly wages"
Yes, but some employees have to survive. If they went on a strike, they would no longer have a source of income and therefore would not be able to buy food or pay bills. This is not an option they can afford.

4. My opponent asserts that jobs should be eliminated if they are not especially valuable. This is the primary cause of unemployment during a recession; as wage deflation occurs, more and more jobs are pushed below the minimum wage line. This explains why states with a higher minimum wage (Michigan) are hurt worse during economic downturns. http://www.house.gov...... http://www.epionline.org...... http://netrightnation.com......
Again, I do not want a higher minimum wage, but one where people can still survive.

I thank my opponent for his arguments and await his responses next turn
wjmelements

Con

I thank my opponent for posting a response.

My opponent asserts that a low minimum wage would only outsource a few jobs. This is correct in the short run; however, in the long run, a deflatory recession would push more and more jobs out of existence. The best option therefore would be to have no minimum wage, as it would allow for wages to fluctuate.

Government cannot set a fixed minimum wage and change it effectively to react to day-to-day market changes. Government is not that efficient.

And again, as I have stated, the minimum wage produces no positive effect. My opponent's only argument remaining for it is that it allows people to remain surviving. This would be an issue if there weren't a "natural" market minimum wage.
Even Karl Marx conceded that people can earn no less than a natural minimum wage equal to the minimal costs of living. This is because the natural minimal costs of labour are equal to the costs of subsisting workers.

Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, agreed:
http://www.econlib.org... (Chapter 8, Of the Wages of Labour: "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must every where earn at least double their own maintenance"
From same chapter:
"There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give the labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages considerably above this rate [meaning double the costs of the maintinence of the workers]; evidently the lowest which is consistent with common humanity."

So, a minimum wage is not even necessary to keep workers from starving, as the market naturally gives workers enough to subsist times 2.

I will now let my opponent present his final case.
Debate Round No. 2
acer

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding in a quick manner. This has been a very fun debate.

1."My opponent asserts that a low minimum wage would only outsource a few jobs. This is correct in the short run; however, in the long run, a deflatory recession would push more and more jobs out of existence. The best option therefore would be to have no minimum wage, as it would allow for wages to fluctuate."
How would it outsource any jobs if the workers are being paid their natural wage. The minimum wage I am talking about is lower than most natural wages. The wages can still fluctuate as long as they are above the lower minimum wage.

2. "Government cannot set a fixed minimum wage and change it effectively to react to day-to-day market changes. Government is not that efficient."
Why not. It spends billions of dollars on wasteful things. It could spend a few million making itself more efficient. I agree, a fixed minimum wage is bad, but some sort of minimum wage should be there so people don't earn less than their natural wage.

3. "So, a minimum wage is not even necessary to keep workers from starving, as the market naturally gives workers enough to subsist times 2."
Really? So, if there was suddenly no minimum wage than workers having to support families would be earning much less. they would not be able to support themselves and would be forced to rely on government. However, the minimum wage really should not apply to all because a boy running a paper route does not have to support his family. There, it would be plainly stupid.

I don't agree with the way that minimum wage is run, but I do agree that there should be one. If it is run correctly, then it would be benificial to the economy. I believe that of instead of trying to abolish it, we should try to correct it.

I again would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and I await his last response.

Vote PRO.
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent asserts that his minimum wage would allow wages to fluctuate "as long as they are above the lower minimum wage". The deal is though, that wages still pass below this line in times of deflation. This creates unemployment and fuels the recession. It still has a negative effect in this regard.

My opponent also asserts that a minimum wage is "bad". This is clearly a concession.
He then asserts that the minimum wage should exist so that people don't earn less than the natural minimum wage. However, people do not earn less than the natural minimum wage. So, such a wage would have no effect and would therefore only create an otherwise unnecessary government bureaucracy.

Welfare payments DO allow wages to slip below the natural minimum wage, but this is irrelevant to the debate at hand.

My opponent asserts that government could spend millions of dollars "making itself more effient. My opponent says not how this would work. Money can not make Congress change the minimum wage quicker.

My opponent then asserts that in some situations, a minimum wage is not necessary. In order to make this work, more government bureaucracy would be needed to approve each case under which someone makes below the minimum wage.

My opponent's only argument for a minimum wage is that it should prevent people from being paid below the natural minimum wage. As I have already argued, this does not happen. This fact is something that even Karl Marx has agreed with. http://www.scribd.com...-

The minimum wage, therefore, cannot be corrected, as it is always a harmful policy to all wage labourers.

VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
ERR AHH>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already voted. I have been out drinking to night and riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I love being a rebel !!!!
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
ERR ahh it is post voting period what a dumb a## I am . Made my comment before I voted or should I say, tried to vote.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Voted con based on reality and real world economic experience. Pro can make all the arguments he wants for a minimum wage, but his arguments go against reality. It is that simple.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Arguments and sources to CON.

acer really didn't work this out very well. He argued for an artificial minimum wage below the natural minimum wage (useless), and then that minimum wage would not be applied to all jobs in which the natural minimum wage does not exist (double useless).
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"As a former employer, I found that people who are willing to work for minimum wage cost more to employ and pay than they produce."

My dad said that too. Everything you've said I've heard before. You're right.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
As a former employer, I found that people who are willing to work for minimum wage cost more to employ and pay than they produce. People who work for minimum wage are basically useless. They have to be monitored and told what to do over and over again from my experience. The exception being a student working part time after school for party money, but even they won't work for minimum wage. An adult who works for minimum wage, useless.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
There's also the Youtube source fails
- "Embedding has been disabled by request"
- when the video's owner takes the vid down.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
The three kinds of source fail:
1. Copy/Paste fail
2. Cutoff fail
3. "Website down" fail
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Yep. Copy and paste fail.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
acer has a source fail on his hands.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by critterrice 7 years ago
critterrice
acerwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
acerwjmelementsTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
acerwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
acerwjmelementsTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
acerwjmelementsTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
acerwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06