Debate Rounds (4)
2nd round- Opening statements
3rd round- Rebuttals
4th round- Closing statements
Supply= The amount of people willing to work.
Demand= The amount of people the companies are willing to hire.
Price= The cost of the wage.
Quantity= The amount of actual workers.
Now if the price [Raise] was higher and the supply was higher we would see many more people wanting to work but very few actually being hired or seeing the raise.
Minimum wage has many negative effects on the small business simply because the small business just can't afford to pay the workers a 15 dollar an hour wage. Thus creating much less competition, and a higher unemployment rate.
Some workers are not actually worth 10 or even 15 dollars an hour so the company will not hire them simply because they are not worth it at that time but rather they will hire someone with experience. The main problem with this is that it is much harder to get a job when you have no experience in a minimum wage job market.
It is often argued that we need to provide a living wage to all; so then why don't we make the wage 50, or even 1000 dollars? Many times I will be told that's ridiculous, no company would pay that much, so the logic would apply that a raise by even 1 dollar would kill the companies initiative to hire more workers, and in return raise the amount of people unemployed. And when unemployment is increased the amount of people that enter government assistance programs also goes up, which in return causes taxes to be raised on people and companies, therefore the people that got the raise are paying more in taxes to give the ones who were fired welfare, Medicaid, and other social programs.
Under a minimum wage system companies rarely pay more than what the minimum wage is because other companies will pay the exact same price for workers. However without a minimum wage the competition would skyrocket, and in return so would the wages.
While the unemployment rate is only 8% in the United States, teen unemployment is at a record high of 25%, and many economists say this is because of the minimum wage, and that teens are not worth the new proposed wages.
Many American kids will be looking for their first jobs when they are out of high school, and raising the wage will make it less likely they will get the most important entry-level jobs. It is not the teens fault they just don't have the needed experience.
When companies are forced to pay more per worker less money can go into expansion of the company and therefore fewer jobs are available. The best way to actually address poverty would to have tax credits for low-income workers and tax policies that encourage asset development and savings for the lower class.
The government has no right to tell a business how much they have to pay their employees. The reason is because the business has one more regulation and is that much closer to government run and controlled business, which is communism.
When the minimum wage is abolished, and competition rises if an employee thinks his employer is not paying him a fair wage he will simply walk out the door, and go to the company's competitor and get a better paying job. That is just the way the free market works, and putting more rules and regulations on the business will only hurt the free market, and cause major recession, thus skyrocketing unemployment.
A world without regulation would look something like this" More on this kind of society on the last link.
"Per capita income would be $101,000, not $54,000.
"Per capita wealth would be $480,000, not $260,000.
"The US would have no federal, state or municipal debts or deficits.
"Pensions would be fully funded. So would Social Security.
"The 2014 GDP would be $32 trillion, not $17.5 trillion.
con's main point is that with a minimum wage there's less jobs. first i'm not pushing for a fifteen hour job. just that we have a minimum wage, otherwise companies would pay like two or three dollars an hour. and the bottomline is that those who won't hire as many people or wont go into business will just have to suck it up. we as a socieity as weighing the pros and cons, and at 7.25 an hour most businesses can afford it and won't be affected. we don't want to go too much more or less.
i am for a minimum wage. i am not arguing a specifc amount, just that it be a reasonable amount a single person can live off of reasonably. we're only debating whether it should exist or not, not how much. i am responding to common objection to the wage from the get go.
anywhere i look anyone can get a job for minimum wage if they have their bits together. the only people i know, from experience only which might not be accurate i concede, who can't get a job at minimum wage are the dim wit slacker type. so, no one is being denied a job because of the wage, really. maybe the low wits are being denied 3.50 jobs, i'm not sure, but i doubt we should worry about that too much.
i say 3.50 jobs, because that's what the wages would go to without the minimum. to prove this, all we need to do is look back to the 80s. back then, the minimum by law was 3.50. and you can bet people were being paid that much at mcdonald's too. what did increasing it do? it simply caused the people who were paid much less than they shold have to be paid more. so, i think the notion is empiraclly proven wrong that economics will cause the wage to increase, if only we'd ban the minimum, because it hangs around at the minimum, stopping it from going lower. if it were still 3.50 today, that's what people would be paid.
and yes, i agree, workers don't stay at exactly 3.50 for long but increase with experience, but they do stay in that low territory for long. so you can't argue it's only temporary.
they can work their way up to better jobs, sometimes but not always. whatever the case, they should get a fairer wage whether temporary or long lasting. most places like mcdonald's and other sterotypical places can afford it, and make enough to pay a fairer wage, so they should. also, i'd be open to allowing categorical exclusions or something for people who pick dandelions for others or somehting. they shouldn't be paid minimum wage. most jobs should though, mcdonald's etc.
if you can't afford to pay a decent wage, you sholdnt be in business. we're always denying someone the opportunity to hire for beans but that doesn't mean we should just ban the minimum wage.
There's an abundance of unskilled labor out there. So much in fact, that empiracally, employers can and do pay employees beans without a minimum. That's exploitation. Imagine a giant owning everything... all he has to do is make the peons fight for peanuts, and that's what happens today effectively. You have no right to take advantage of people, because everyone deserves a minimum if they are working something substantial. Please respond to this by addressing the giant who exploits peons, and the analogies I posted above about equal access to the earth's resources.
it's like denying indians the right to land: as a practical matter we have to have laws that prevent them from land, but we should recognize how our laws infringe, and act accordingly. with indians, and here. or, imagine a primitive world where a man has all the land taken up by the laws of man, and using technology to claim it like in farming etc: a family wanting to branch off can't because of the law of man, the law of God says they can. it's not stealing, it's fixing the fact the family has the right to take what God has given everyone but laws prevent it and keep things civil. these analogies are happening today, as we prevent people access to the natural world, which is a right. we have to recognize how laws infringe and act accordingly, if not by ging land, then by something else, to be reasonable and not partition everything absurdly.
also, even if some places pay more than minimum doesn't mean we shouldn't have the minimum, as has been suggested. if it's not being used, hten great. if it is, then that's when it matters and the law should exist.
also, i agree a wage increases inflation, but it does not nullify having the wage. peple often argue increasing wage increases price of goods so teh wage increase is canelled out and they are doomed to minimum living. but this is not the case. true inflatino would be if everyone got their wages increased. if just the minimum gets it, inflation would increase, but not wholly, and so the incrase would be much less proportionally ot the increase in minimum.
"con's main point is that with a minimum wage there's less jobs. first i'm not pushing for a fifteen hour job. just that we have a minimum wage, otherwise companies would pay like two or three dollars an hour"- Pro.
First off the logic would still stand that if 15 dollars would kill jobs so would $7.25. Secondly would you honestly work for 2 or 3 dollars an hour?? I know that I wouldn't, and I don't know many that would. Therefore the companies will have to pay their employees more.
"the minimum by law was 3.50. and you can bet people were being paid that much at mcdonald's too."- Pro
Pro has just proven the problem with enacting a minimum wage- when it is in place that's all the workers are paid and the companies lose initiative to pay more because all other competition is paying the minimum as well.
"they should get a fairer wage "- Pro
Why wouldn't we raise the wage to 50 dollars then? That sounds very fair to me. Now you can't say that would kill jobs otherwise you should not be in favor of any minimum wage.
"f you can't afford to pay a decent wage, you sholdnt be in business."- Pro
What is a decent wage?? The government has no right to tell what every worker is worth. I may not be worth 7.25 but you are telling businesses to suck it up and hire me anyway. I would be willing to work for 5 dollars an hour but the law says I can't. Therefore the business will not hire me and go for another worker.(1)
"There's an abundance of unskilled labor out there. So much in fact, that empiracally, employers can and do pay employees beans without a minimum"- Pro
Where is the proof of this? Even if this was true it is still worth it to the "peons" working for that giant otherwise they would quit the job. Who provides these jobs? The giants or the peons? The giants are the ones creating these jobs.
"it's like denying indians the right to land: as a practical matter we have to have laws that prevent them from land, but we should recognize how our laws infringe, and act accordingly. with indians, and here. or, imagine a primitive world where a man has all the land taken up by the laws of man, and using technology to claim it like in farming etc: a family wanting to branch off can't because of the law of man, the law of God says they can. it's not stealing, it's fixing the fact the family has the right to take what God has given everyone but laws prevent it and keep things civil. these analogies are happening today, as we prevent people access to the natural world, which is a right. we have to recognize how laws infringe and act accordingly, if not by ging land, then by something else, to be reasonable and not partition everything absurdly."- Pro
So I have no idea how this analogy is related to minimum wage. We already give First Nations land, and that has nothing to do with the minimum wage. It would also help if you made that analogy partially more readable as I find it hard to read when you use the poor grammar that you do.
Small business gets killed with a minimum wage because they can't compete paying a higher wage. These small business owners are seeing the struggles of over 170,000 pages of regulation- including the minimum wage.(2)
Why are you OK with allowing small business to fail?? This would only increase unemployment and result in higher taxes for the rest of the country. This would also increase monopolies and cause the price of goods and services to skyrocket, thus proving your argument wrong that they do in fact cancel each other out.
Pro has failed to provide any links backing her claims that the minimum wage does more good than harm.
most people who make the minimum wage don't choose to. they have no choice. at that point it becomes exploitation of the masses of unskilled labor, the effectively unlimited pool of labor we have. even if they get their foot in the door for awhile, they might just increase their wages a dollar or two or something, for the people who are not able to branch off and become engineers etc. the minimum wage then does more than protect the exact wage itself... it protects the whole territory of low end wages. the person who makes 3 dollars an hour makes two dollars more.... or if it seven dollars they make two dollars more than that.
con says ive made the point that minimum wage does harm cause it causes businesses to pay that, all of them, and nothing mroe. the point though, is that each business could choose to pay more, but they dont have to, so they don't. the minimum wage then doesn't cause them to pay less, it causes them to pay more. they pay 7 instead of 3, for example.
con asks why we don't raise it to fifty. because it kills jobs too much. i never said it didn't. even the current minimum wage kills jobs. it's just we've taken a cost benefit analysis and decided most can afford 7 without too much job loss. your rhetorical point might work better with somebody who wants 15 dollars an hour. all i'm arging is that we have the wage, and the currrent wage seems pretty decent
con says the government has not right to dictate value of labor. the problem though, is if they don't, the businesses will exploit the effectively unlimited supply of unskilled labor we have. they would make people work for beans, because they can. exploit, take advantage of, however you want to say it. you might not like the word "exploit" but it's without a doubt taking advantage of them. how could you possibly say it isn't?
con asks where the proof is that employors would pay beans without a minium wage. as i said before, just look at history. they always pay the minimum wage, and not much more. in the eighties they paid 3 cause they had to, in the 90s they paid five, and so on.
i also find problematic con's equivocation of regulations and the minimum wage. they are not the same. regulations can be burdensome, but that doesn't mean we can't have a common sense minimum wage. true, the wage is a sort of regulation, but it is one, and it is the right thing to do. i also find problematic con's use of a random website's claim that we could double everyone's income without regulatios such that teh average person would make 100000 dollars a year. these sorts of claims makes it hard to take con seriously.
con says i haven't shown that the wage does more good than harm. but i have. we've done a cost benefit analysis and shown that most, by far most, can afford to pay 7, instead of 3, for example. that means millions of people are making more monety than they otherwise would, and they are not being taken advantage of. the costs of a few jobs lost is mroe negligble cause the standard structure of society still exists.. tehre's still mcdonalds, and walmart, and every other basic business. they just are forced to pay something more meaningful.
if anything, con hasn't shown how the minimum wage does more harm than good. and no, just pointing out that some theoretical jobs are lost doesn't cut it. we still have a standard society that works fine, people are just paid somehting decent.
Pros main argument is that without minimum wage the companies will exploit their workers, however she does not understand that in the workplace there is no such thing as exploitation. The reason for this is because the employee thinks he or she is getting paid fairly for the work they are doing otherwise they would not do that job for that amount.
I fail to see pros proof of this cost analysis and would like to ask why not 10.10 rather than just 10. In fact what is the perfect number for a wage?
The main problem with the minimum wage is it discriminates against the unskilled worker, such as teens. The main reason is that the unskilled worker is not worth as much. Another group this discriminates against is WOMEN. Take for example welding where men make up 94% of the work force. Now let's say a man and a woman went in with no experience and the same skills, who would the company hire? Most likely the male would be hired, now let's say the woman said I'll work for 4 dollars less, they would probably hire the female. This is not exploitation otherwise the female would not have said I will work for that little amount.
Pro has also stated a major problem with the minimum wage- it is that the companies have no reason to pay more. However in a non- minimum wage society, competition is increased thus raising the price of each individual worker based on skill.
In regards to the non-regulated society, it is basic economics. The reason is that when the government does not intervene people spend more money, putting more into the economy, and everyone gets richer. A great example of a non-taxed, non-regulated site is Netflix. Everyone wins- the CEO of Netflix gets money while people pay $7.99 per month for unlimited movies and TV shows. This is why non-regulation works, it is worth it to the customers to buy that service and the CEO gets more money.
This is why I will never favor a minimum wage in any case.
con continues to act like people can just not take low wages. he doesn't respond to my idea that most are forced to take low wages and can't just leave. he doesn't respond to my question of how it's not taking advantage of the masses of people who are effectively unlimited pool of unskilled labor.
i dont need a specific number for what the wage ought to be. i just need to show that it's needed, and i think i've done that.
con says the wage discriminates against teens and such. they are mostly affected by the job losses. but again after a cost benefit analysis we see that most jobs can afford to pay the wage and we still have a very intact social structure that works fine... people are just paid more than they otherwise would be.
con contiues to act as if companies would pay more if we didn't have a minimum wage. con has offered no proof of this, and ignored that they've always paid what htey had to and have always been free to pay more. nothing is stopping them from paying more.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.