Debate Rounds (4)
2nd second argument
3rd round disagreeing point
4th closing argument, more rebuttals.
Well, i am against the minimum wage, and I know that idea is un-popular, I'm only debating this to make a point.
Minimum wage has increased unemployment and is a big reason that immigration is a problem. The reason it makes immigration a problem is because you can pay immigrants a lot less and they won't complain whereas you have to pay a teenager 7.50 $ an hour.
good luck and have fun.
Having a minimum wage is a good thing. Despite my opponent's claims, minimum wage has not increased unemployment. I also believe that minimum wage should not and does not play a role when it comes to immigration.
I look forward to this debate, and I will wait to hear my opponent's arguments before making my own points clear.
Well with that explained , I will talk about the immigration. It shouldn't affect immigration, but it does. Here's why, you can pay them what their worth! If there worth minimum wage, pay them it, if not pay them less. If there was no minimum wage we could compete with these immigrants more easily because you don't have to pay me more then what I'm worth. If I am worth 4$ and the and so is the illegal then you can hire either one, then it comes down to who is gonna have less face tattoos because i don't want my businesses looking it hires from the lowest of the low. Does this make sense? Because looking at it from a common sense stand point it does.
Milton Friedman's argument, in your video, contains a major fallacy. Looking at the numbers, Friedman sees a correlation between minimum wage and a rise in teenage unemployment. From this he claims that one must've caused the other.
First and foremost, let's get something straight. Whenever people talk about the unemployment rates in this country, the harm unemployment does to the economy, etc. THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT TEENAGERS!! Looking at unemployment rates of teenagers is not what normal people do when they want to assess the societal effects of unemployment.
Nevertheless, he sees that there is a correlation between teenage unemployment and a minimum wage. But anyone that has studied any scientific discipline knows that correlations DO NOT show causation. I.e. Just because both teenage unemployment and minimum wage increased together, this does not imply that one caused the other.
I would say that a much more likely explanation is that our progress in society caused both. Our progress stopped places from paying slave wages to employees. Whether or not you think so, this is progress.
What about teenage unemployment? How does progress explain this phenomenon? Quite simple actually. Back in the 1950's, going to college was not considered the norm. Now college enrollment is at an all time high.
Teenagers are no longer entering the workforce, not because of some minimum wage, but because they now attend college. This so-called "problem" with teenage unemployment is actually not a problem at all. It is progress.
This is common sense to anyone nowadays. But back when this video was recorded, the college trend was just beginning. What is obvious today was not obvious back then. Friedman saw the correlation and assumed that minimum wage must've caused teenage unemployment. So when you say "The video is old, but the arguments are still the same" you are wrong. Today we understand the real reason why there is a rise in teenage unemployment. It is because more and more teenagers now attend college.
The point you make on immigration will actually be true regardless of whether or not there is a minimum wage. Yes, someone now hired on the books must be paid minimum wage (usually). But there are also non-immigrants that work off the books. I've done it myself.
Here is the problem. You claim that the teenager will only work for minimum wage, but an illegal immigrant will do it for less. This may be true, but does a minimum wage stop that? I think not.
If there is no minimum wage, you think "we could compete with these immigrants more easily because you don't have to pay me more [than] what I'm worth." What you must understand is that even without a minimum wage, we would see a similar trend. When the employer starts bargaining on a price for a menial job, I guarantee that the illegal immigrant will still outbid the teenager and do the job for less. Minimum wage or no minimum wage, the illegal immigrant is sure to say that he will do it for less pay.
So the point that immigrants now work for less is a moot point. They will always work for less, regardless of the presence or absence of a minimum wage.
Some of Friedman's Other Points
Friedman claims that minimum wage will stop an employer from hiring unskilled workers. But in the real world, the unskilled labor is still needed.
If you need someone to sweep up, mop up, and clean the toilets, a minimum wage won't change the fact that you need someone for these duties. These are not duties that you can give to a manager or someone higher up. Whatever the minimum wage may be, someone will still have to be hired to sweep, mop and clean toilets.
With minimum wage, you are not going to hire someone with a better resume who you think is "worth" the minimum wage rate. This is for the simple reason that someone with the better resume is not going to apply to this position. The only people that will apply are people that are "unskilled." So the choice is to hire them at minimum wage, or leave the place filthy.
All minimum wage does is ensure that these "unskilled" workers do not work for next to nothing. The labor is still required, and because of that, employers cannot take advantage of the less educated employees.
Minimum Wage Benefits
Minimum wage helps lower income families by reducing their struggle. It doesn't lift them out of poverty, but it does make things easier.
In poorer communities, the presence of a minimum wage ensures that the low wage workers spend a bit more at local businesses AND rely less on social assistance.
Minimum wage helps tax payers in general. Government assistant programs add to the tax bill. Minimum wage is a way to help the working poor without adding anything to the tax bill.
In essence, minimum wage is a good thing. It prevents unfairness and slave wages for unskilled laborers. And the points raised against a minimum wage all contain flawed logic.
Yes but usually you get paid minimum wage, and still you can pay the immigrant less and they won't tell. So in the adult world during this recession the minimum wage gives the immigrant an job advantage. And with no minimum wage the teenager DOES have a fighting chance vs. the immigrant. His kills may be equal to or even more then on of these people so the kid now has a chance in the workforce.
You say we need unskilled workers. yes, but these jobs are limited they can't hire all of the unemployed. So this argument for you is very limited. And also the manager may hire someone for sweeping no matter the minimum wage. Well my argument isn't all about someone's skill, but also their efficiency. If yo aren't efficient at what you do then your in trouble. Also for every person you hire, their unskilled job gas a price. If i owned a pizza parlor and i needed someone to sweep the place because it took one hour of my time that job would be worth x amount of dollars. If i could make 10$ that hour but had to pay him 7.50$ I would only make 2.50$. So I wouldn't hire as easily. So if someone came in with 1$ an hour skills i wouldn't do it, i would wait for someone with the skills to do it efficiently so I could pay them 7.50 without as much pain to my pocket.
You want a minimum wage because you think the government will help you have money. The average person can still say NO to a low wage wage. Also it guarantees that those poor people will be unemployed because their skills on average are less then 7.50$ an hour. So that argument still stands.
So your tax idea. In the way you phrase it it's good, I agree with you. But not for the person paying it. If they were paid 2.50$ they would pay little to no taxes each tax season, but when you are paid 7.50$ you get taxes, and when you make that little you don't want the taxes. So without the minimum wage you get paid what you are worth, and you can still say no to a lower wage if you believe your worth more.
Now i will press forward new issues. The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs. The most fundamental principle of economics is 'supply and demand'. In the case of labor, this means that the supply of workers goes up as wage goes up, and the demand for workers by employers goes down as the wage goes up. For example, imagine a janitorial job was advertised for hire. If the wage is $100 per hour, thousands of people would want the job. If the wage was $1 per hour, you probably wouldn't find anyone to do it. Conversely, if the government forced the employer to pay at least $7 per hour, the employer might decide not to hire a janitor at all, instead opting to have other staff pick up the duties. Thus, a job would be lost because of the minimum wage. Another example is restaurant employment. A manager might have $10,000 in her monthly budget to hire bus persons. If the wage is set at $7 per hour, the manager may only be able to hire 10 bus people instead of 15. Setting a mandated wage limit disrupts market forces of supply and demand. Just because there is no minimum wage doesn't mean companies can pay whatever they want. Would you work a dishwashing job that paid 25 cents per hour? Would anyone? If they raised the wage to $4 per hour, they might be able to hire a high school student. Consider some highly skilled jobs such as accountant, lawyer, and engineer. Do these people make $5.15 an hour? Obviously, the answer is no. Market factors of supply and demand determine how many jobs are available and what each job would pay. In summary, as the minimum wage goes up, the number of people employed goes down. When the minimum wage goes down, the number of people employed goes up. Keep in mind: the minimum wage only applies if someone is employed.
Here's a link to a site that hows you that the minimum wage sounds good, but doesn't end well: http://www.thefreemanonline.org...
and this one is from a buissness standpoint: http://www.rightremedy.org...
Minimum wage makes jobs get outsourced to china or other countries. If you make a company pay it's workers more here in America it's more of an incentive to move to countries were the workers work for less. the only way to keep jobs here in America is to make the environment for businesses simple and cheap. A minimum wage just makes things tougher for companies to do business in America. Remember that American companies may have no choice but to outsource with the high cost in the U.S.--they may go out of business entirely if they can't cut costs to a level that's competitive with foreign competitors.
"The funny thing is you arguing against Milton Friedman and he has a Nobel prize in economics."
It is true that Milton Friedman won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences (actual Nobel Prize categories are only for Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace). However, just because he won this prestigious prize, often associated with the Nobel prizes, this does not mean that Milton Friedman is infallible.
After all, Milton Friedman also came up with the notion of the negative income tax. This is a social welfare program that would pay poorer families the difference of a minimum income to survive, regardless of employment. Most economists believe that instituting this proposed policy would skyrocket the unemployment rate. The reasoning is that poorer families would actually be given an incentive to quit and rake in a similar income without working.
Now I know that this goes off on a tangent, but I had to bring up the Negative Income Tax to prove a point. That point: Milton Friedman is not infallible! Even he can be wrong, despite the Sveriges Riksbank Prize.
"And you also say all he talks about are teenagers, but he is talking about minorities too so you need to listen more clearly."
He mentions minorities towards the end of the video. But the only numbers he gives apply to teenagers. There are no numbers given to back up his other claims.
Furthermore, at the end of the video, he is asked if there are ANY benefits to a minimum wage. He says that there are "none whatsoever." Even those articles from people that oppose minimum wage often weigh the pros and the cons, and the pro side of the column is never blank.
Extreme viewpoints on either side of the spectrum are pretty much always wrong. And Friedman stating that there is absolutely no benefit at all from minimum wage is definitely an extreme viewpoint. Because the view is so extreme, we must conclude that it too is wrong.
On Teenage Unemployment
This is an article from the New York Times:
This article shows that there are other explanations for teenage unemployment.
Two of the best reasons given:
The recession has recent college graduates taking jobs that would've typically gone to teenagers. That leads to less teens having a job.
Dean Baker, the Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, claims that teenagers' abilities to rely on family allow them to be pickier about jobs. I think this is true. Times have changed over the years, and people rely more and more on their parents for a longer period of time. This trend is obvious now, but was not obvious back when Friedman made that video. So he attributed the teenage unemployment rate to minimum wage. But, as I stated before, correlations DO NOT show causation.
"you use the example of slaves. that was much earlier then this film, so your example is very improbable."
When I speak of people working for "slave wages", I hope the voters are intelligent enough to realize that I am not taking about slavery.
On your "pizza parlor" example
If you could make $10 in an hour while you work, and could pay someone $7.50 to sweep, so that you bring in $2.50 profit, this is something any intelligent businessman WOULD do. Making $2.50 is better than making zero. That is a basic business principle.
If, after all expenses, you wind up with a total profit of one penny or more, you do it. Your reluctance to take the $2.50 profit only shows a flaw in your reasoning.
"If they were paid 2.50$ they would pay little to no taxes each tax season, but when you are paid 7.50$ you get taxes, and when you make that little you don't want the taxes."
I think you overestimate the value of $7.50 an hour. It is still barely enough to support a single person. And anyone that would rather get paid $2.50 an hour without taxes is someone that must be terrible at math.
"The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs."
You then elaborate on this point, and explain the reasoning. But here is a link to a peer-reviewed journal article that shows that minimum wage DOES NOT increase unemployment.
Here is a quote from the article:
"The large negative elasticities in the traditional specification are generated primarily by regional and local differences in employment trends that are unrelated to minimum wage policies."
If you read through the study, it shows that minimum wage and minimum wage increases do not affect employment trends.
On your links
The first link you provide can be dismissed on its ludicrous claims alone. The author of that article believes that a minimum wage of $107/hour or $500/hour would follow the same type of reasoning as a minimum wage of $4.65/hour. This is clearly a ridiculous notion. His "point" of why stop at $5? Why not $50? $100? etc. is clearly idiotic and I think most reasonable people will conclude that it is NOT the same thing.
The second link you claim is from "a [business] standpoint."
First off, this "[business] standpoint" is from a ministry. The page is filled with bible quotes. Getting your economic policies from the bible is not what I would perceive as a business standpoint.
Furthermore, it says "If you do the math, you’ll see that raising the minimum wage is not good for the poor or for businesses." Yet it gives no numbers for people to "do the math." Maybe the assumption is that some bible quotations are a good substitute for mathematics.
Workers here are ALWAYS going to require more money than illegal immigrants or outsourced workers in poorer countries. The presence or absence of a minimum wage does not and will not change that.
In fact, the "outsourced" jobs have to be over-the-phone jobs (you can't get someone living in India to clean the toilets). These over-the-phone jobs are often commission based (i.e. no salary). Without the salary, there is no minimum wage for these jobs. Americans can compete just as easily. But Americans will not work for the low commission, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ABLE TO. So the point about outsourcing is simply false. Commission based jobs are not required to pay minimum wage. Taking away a minimum wage doesn't affect these jobs at all.
When it comes to big business, past experience has shown that they will abuse the labor market and exploit workers if given a chance. Workers need a minimum amount of income to survive.
When it comes to unemployment, the peer-reviewed article shows that minimum wage doesn't affect unemployment. When given a choice between a ministry article, some guy that thinks a $500 minimum wage is the same as a $5 minimum, a YouTube video, and a peer-reviewed journal article, I go with the peer-reviewed article.
The internet is filled with ideas and opinions on every topic. Anyone can always find a website that supports his or her own views. With so many viewpoints, all of them with a site, we must decipher which source is the most reliable.
No matter how intelligent someone may be, or what prizes the person has won, VALID ideas accepted in a particular discipline come from peer-reviewed journal articles. They do not come from blogs, or personal websites.
A minimum wage stops big companies from exploiting its workers. And when it comes to social welfare programs, a minimum wage places more of a burden on the big companies and less of a burden on the taxpayers.
The negative effects of unemployment are a myth. Correlations DO NOT show causation.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com... this shows a graph proving that every time minimum wage goes up, unemployment goes up too. (it's recent to it applies more).
And yes, Milton Friedman could be wrong, but mist economists also agree the minimum wage creates unemployment. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem like your goal is to prove Milton wrong, not me wrong.
Yes, the pro side is never left blank, but this was an older video. Also I believe he meant their are no big reasons that show a minimum wage is good. (Also usually the con side s bigger, just saying)
Yes their are other reasons for teenage unemployment, but you can't blame a recession always because even when economics are doing well and the wages increase you see a higher unemployment.
Minimum wage doesn't mean slave wages! I have said this you aren't debunking me! Here's why you wont get them, 1. you will get paid as much as the employer thinks you are 2. you can always say NO to a lower wage.
Yes making 2.50 is better then zero, but when minimum wage increases then your profit becomes lower and will eventually become negative you to fire workers, in turn increasing unemployment. And also you took out the rest of that argument, the job is worth less then the pay so it's worthless.
Well yes their will always be peer-reviewed papers on either side, but there are more on mine. Here's one on my side:
http://www.epi.org... as i said, there's some on each side.
Ok the taxes. 25% of 7.50 = 1.87500. So about 5 dollars an hour. Not bad, better then 2.50. But hat happens when a minimum wage person refuses to pay taxes? Many of them do. They get arrested by the IRS. So on 2.50 you needn't worry about this. So it's get arrested if you refuse. Obviously this doesn't pertain to everyone.
My outscoursing argument still stands.
Heres a page that says minimum wage is good for a worker (wage wise) and bad for buissnes: http://illinois.statehousenewsonline.com...
well good for worker. Great! Bad for buissnes, darn! If its bad for buissnes then the buissnes may close which means by bye jobs.
I wil press another argument. Also pertaining to jobs.
A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans. Most businesses, especially in the manufacturing and retailing area, have many mundane tasks that need to be done, such as running a cash register or tightening a bolt on an assembly line. One of the reasons the manufacturing sector has not been part of the job recovery is that businesses have found it's much cheaper to use machines to do tasks that were previously done by people. Whenever businesses automate any task, they usually must spend a lot of upfront money and time in order to save down the line. Because of the minimum wage, spending the upfront time & money seems more worthwhile. For example, Wal-Mart is in the process of adding automated check-outs to almost all of its stores. Thus, all those cashier jobs will disappear. Imagine what would happen if the minimum wage was raised to $8-10 or more, as some politicians want. Do you think Wal-Mart will be more willing or less willing to add more automated checkouts?
Here's another one that says it's hard to set the minimum wage anyway. Sice cost of living is diffrent everywhere you can't really tell wat is a good wage, making it inneffecient and in some cases bad. If cost of living in california is higher then in texas then the minimum wage kids in california will have a hard time. So having a minimum wage may be good for areas like washington or LA, like a high one, but in cities where its lower abolish it.
You start of with this:"http://1.bp.blogspot.com... shows a graph proving that every time minimum wage goes up, unemployment goes up too. (it's recent to it applies more)."
The graph does NOT prove that every time minimum wage goes up, unemployment goes up. It only shows the connection between minimum wage increases and TEENAGE unemployment. Furthermore, even this correlation doesn't seem to be a very strong one. The teenage unemployment rate keeps going up and down, up and down, while the minimum wage steadily increases in a stair-like pattern. The two do not coincide.
"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem like your goal is to prove Milton wrong, not me wrong."
In Round 2, you used Milton Friedman's video as the entire basis for your argument. When that video is the argument, naturally that is what I will rebut. When you defend him, I am going to counter. The focus on Friedman in this debate is not my doing.
"Minimum wage doesn't mean slave wages! I have said this you aren't debunking me! Here's why you wont get them, 1. you will get paid as much as the employer thinks you are 2. you can always say NO to a lower wage."
I'm not even sure what to make of this. I take it that the gist of your argument is this: without a minimum wage, the employer will simply pay you what he thinks you're worth, and if it is too low you can simply say "no."
Unfortunately, this is not the case. The workers that have minimum wage jobs don't really have many options. Because of their situation, many of these workers wouldn't be able to say "no", even if the wages weren't enough to properly live. The presence of a minimum wage prevents employers from exploiting these workers that would be practically forced to accept whatever they can get.
"Yes making 2.50 is better then zero, but when minimum wage increases then your profit becomes lower and will eventually become negative you to fire workers, in turn increasing unemployment."
Back to your pizza parlour example: minimum wage does not increase randomly. It increases with rising costs. As costs rise, the cost of the pizza in your pizza parlour would also rise. And whereas you made $10 in that hour, you would now make $12. As a result, the minimum wage would NOT exceed the profit and become negative. Simply because minimum wage doesn't increase while everything else is stagnant. It all increases together.
"Well yes their will always be peer-reviewed papers on either side, but there are more on mine. Here's one on my side:
http://www.epi.org... i said, there's some on each side."
When it comes to this article, I suppose I should thank you for not actually reading it. Because this article supports MY side of the argument.
Quote from the article: "Without more examination, this observation is as useful in understanding state job markets as noting that joblessness has been on the rise in New York since the last time the Yankees won the World Series. It might be true, but it doesn’t mean one is causing the other."
This is something I've been pointing out all along. Correlations DO NOT show causation.
Here's another quote from the article:
"Contrary to Garthwaite’s oversimplification of the employment picture in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, some key facts about these states show that a number of factors unrelated to minimum wage increases are actually responsible for high unemployment rates."
It goes on to list the actual factors responsible for unemployment. But I think the main thing here, is that even YOUR link proves my point. The minimum wage didn't cause unemployment. Unemployment was caused by other factors. Minimum wage was just unlucky enough to have a correlation with unemployment rates. But, to repeat again, correlations do not show causation.
Your example with the minimum wage earners not paying taxes and getting arrested is so ridiculous, that I am not even going to bother with a rebuttal.
"Heres a page that says minimum wage is good for a worker (wage wise) and bad for buissnes"
Yes, this is obvious. Businesses would love to pay workers even less than minimum wage if they could get away with it. But if the minimum wage (which is always very low in comparison to everyone else's salary) is enough to force a business to close, then that business must've been a terrible one. In fact, a business that makes so little revenue to allow a minimum wage to bring it down is a business that would most certainly fail regardless of a minimum wage.
Businesses have already shown in the past that they will exploit workers and pay them less than is needed to survive. A minimum wage is needed to stop this exploitation.
"A minimum wage gives businesses an additional incentive to mechanize duties previously held by humans."
The incentive to replace workers with machines is one that will always be present. A minimum wage actually plays no role in this. The cost-efficiency, quality control and speed of machines will always appeal to businesses, even if there was no minimum wage. This is demonstrated by technology replacing jobs in countries without a minimum wage.
"Here's another one that says it's hard to set the minimum wage anyway. Sice cost of living is diffrent everywhere you can't really tell wat is a good wage, making it inneffecient and in some cases bad."
That is precisely why the minimum wage is different depending on the location.
So this example makes no sense. The minimum wage for LA is not going to be the same as the one in Arkansas.
In short, the presence of a minimum wage does NOT lead to unemployment. Even when you presented correlations and articles, all of those revolved around TEENAGE unemployment. I have shown the real reasons why teenage unemployment has risen. Furthermore, people ages 16-19 aren't the ones that we need to focus on when it comes to unemployment. But I suppose when it came to regular unemployment, the people that are anti minimum wage didn't really have a correlation, so they had to resort to some post hoc analysis to find a correlation somewhere. That's why all of those correlations are just based on teens.
As I've said before, having a minimum wage is a good thing. It stops the exploitation of workers by companies.
It also helps the taxpayers. With a minimum wage, the burden of providing for low income families rests more on the shoulders of the companies. Without a minimum wage, that burden goes to social welfare programs paid for by taxpayers. People making minimum wage may still need social assistance, but at least the burden is now shared. If businesses were able to pay even less than the minimum wage, more of the burden would fall on the taxpayers shoulders.
Both the peer-reviewed article I posted, AND the one posted by my opponent clearly show that minimum wage does not cause unemployment.
In summary, the presence of a minimum wage is needed. That's why we have one.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: minimum wage was designed to protect workers from companies during the gilded age, since then the role of the minimum wage has evolved but the con could not definitivly tie minimum wage to unemployment or immigration. Con's graph did not help his argument but i found it very cool so i gave him sources. pretty good debate even though yall kind of went off track with Milton Friedman
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.