The Instigator
Codename_X
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 781 times Debate No: 84262
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Codename_X

Pro

Resolution: If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease.

Definitions:
Increased: To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment;add to
Minimum wage: The lowest wage payable to employees in general or to designated employees
as fixed by law or by union agreement.
Spending: To spend money
Decrease: To make less; cause to diminish:

Rules
The first round is acceptance only
No profanity
No trolling
donald.keller

Con

I'll accept this debate, and wish my opponent luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Codename_X

Pro

Thanks to Con for accepting the debate.

Here is a graph of the United States Federal Government's total spending for the year 2015 (1).s://media.nationalpriorities.org...; alt="" width="798" height="728" />

A. The People
"Social security, unemployment and labor" include food stamps and welfare. About 35.4% of all Americans are on welfare. The population of the United States is 318.9 million (3), making the amount of people on welfare, in the United States, 112.89 million people. Furthermore, there are 47 million Americans on food stamps (4). So, there are about 112.89 million people on welfare, and 47 million on food stamps.

B. The Costs
The United States spends about $131.9 billion on welfare (not including food stamps) (5). They also spend about $76.6 billion on food stamps (6). 47.8% of all food stamp recipients are working (7), and 56% of welfare recipients are working (8). That is $36,614,800,000 of US government money going to WORKING people who receive food stamps, and $73,864,000,000 of USFG money goes to WORKING welfare recipients.

C. Minimum Wage
Raising minimum wage would decrease the amount of working recipients of welfare and food stamps. This would greatly decrease the amount of money spent in the USFG.

Thank you for reading.


Sources
(1) https://www.nationalpriorities.org...
(2) http://economyincrisis.org...
(3) http://www.census.gov...
(4) https://www.washingtonpost.com...
(5) http://www.statisticbrain.com...
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(7) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(8) http://blogs.wsj.com...
(9)
donald.keller

Con

Thank you for this debate.

Premise I: Burden of Prove.

As the resolution makes a claim that must be proven, as it is theoretical, BOP is on Pro to do so. Based on the set of arguments put forth by Pro, it would seem his burdens must be fulfilled by addressing, at it's core, the following question: "How does Minimum Wage impact poverty."

Pro, as of now, has not met his BOP, as he has not answered that question. He states that raising MW would lower welfare costs, but without addressing how MW impacts poverty, he haven't proven why or how it'd decrease welfare costs.

Rebuttal I: Pro's Case.

The error in Pro's case is that it can be simplified into an incomplete syllogism.
P1) The people are on Welfare.
P2) Welfare costs X amount.
C) Increasing MW would decrease Welfare costs.

To make this complete, Pro needs P3... A statement explaining how MW impacts those in P1. He must make, and prove, this claim. While 112.89 million people may be on Welfare, how many of those are on MW? Another error is the broadness of C, making the syllogism ineffective at explaining all the variables and circumstances that lead to C.

If, for example, Pro does prove P3... The introduction of employment effects of MW, including disemployment and demographic shifts in employment, could prove a long term increase in spending and completely mess up his syllogism. Another error here is that Welfare is a huge concept. It engulfs a number of programs. 113 million people aren't poor in the US... Therefore it goes to reason that not all welfare recipients are receiving welfare because they are poor or not making enough money, or that they are MW workers.

Argument I: Demographics of Minimum Wage.

Only 2% of workers in the US is on Minimum Wage. This accounts for, at most, just over 3.75 million workers (1). This is would make up only 3.3% of the 112.89 million people on Welfare. However, this still doesn't tell us how many of these people are on welfare. The thing about Minimum Wage and welfare is that we must look at household income. Not personal income. A man with a child, earning only $5,000 a year, would be considered poor. However, if he lived with his parents, who earn $45k a year, the household income is $50k a year... Far above poverty. They are not legally poor.

The average household income for Minimum Wage workers is $50,700+ a year (2). The household would require 11 members to be legally poor (3). At that average, it can be reasoned that most, if not almost all, minimum wage workers are far from poor. This is because a couple earning minimum wage would still earn around $24,000 a year if they are working 30 hours a week (national average for post-high school citizens being 35.) Almost $10,000 above their poverty rate.

A study by R. Nelson found that 87% of those effected by Minimum Wage increases were not poor, and 56% lived in households earning more than twice the poverty rate (4). At most, only 13% impacted were poor, however, there is no indication that MW increases help them, as sudden tax increases on their income, decreased hours, and sudden lay offs would affect their pay and situation. At 13% of the affected being poor, this is only 0.0043% of those on welfare.

Such a petty effect on poverty is negated by the negative impact of a MW increase, as a number of studies found. I will address that in my next Argument.

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org...
[2] http://www.forbes.com...
[3] https://aspe.hhs.gov...
[4] http://www.academia.edu...
[]

Argument II: Effects of Minimum Wage.

The negative impact of Minimum Wage negates all benefits. A 2010 study by J. Sabia and R. Burkhauser shows that Minimum Wage increases did not reduce poverty at all [5]. However, a number of studies claim they increase disemployment, leading to more unemployment costs, welfare, and food stamps. Such studies, such as Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen [6] and a mass review of studies and literature by D. Nuemark [7] show that there is a very real disemployment impact of MW increases.

Backing up Nuemark and Brown, et al, are a vast number of literature claiming disemployment effects. Such studies include D. Henderson and Sabia, Hanson, and Burkhauser [8,9]. In Henderson's study, they analyzed California's 15% increase proposal while under Governor Schwarzenegger. They found that the increase would destroy 35,000 -70,000 unskilled jobs. Effectively landing 3% of their youth into unemployment. The impact on their lives and their children's would cost the federal government tens of billions if applied to the whole US. The impact, they found, was as high as 140,000 total jobs in California, and if applied to the whole US, 600,000 youth jobs and 800,000 jobs total.

Returning to Argument I, only 13% of those effected by a wage increase were poor. That's half of the 800,000 people who would lose their jobs. Ignoring how a prior mentioned study showed that the increase didn't help that 13% anyways. According to a 1997 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a minimum wage hike in 1996 led to a 4.5% increase in poverty (10).

[5] http://www.people.vcu.edu...
[6] http://www.nber.org...
[7] http://www.socsci.uci.edu...
[8] http://www.ncpa.org...
[9] http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu...
[10] http://www.nber.org...
[]

Argument III: Less USFG Income = More Debt

The final variable is a reduction in income, as corporations lose profit. They expand less, and even see massive cuts in productivity as they have to use less employees to stay afloat and keep prices down (11). The loss in Corporate tax revenue matched with the increase in Welfare costs would lead in a massive increase in borrowing. This would lead to far higher interest costs in time. Increasing the US Debt by just $50 bn a year would lead to potential $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion in debt + interest after only a decade. This assumes cost increases ends at 10 years... The long term debt would, by itself, negate the Resolution.

[11] http://sites.psu.edu...
[]

Conclusion:
Raising the MW would not effect poverty in a positive manner. If anything, it greatly increases poverty, causes massive disemployment, and hurts employers. This negates Pro's whole case, while affirming the negative. The resolution is disproven.
Debate Round No. 2
Codename_X

Pro

Thanks for the response. I (Codename_x, Con) will first begin with a few rebuttals for Con's case, then give some of my own arguments.

Rebuttal A : "Burden of Prove"

Con has stated that I have not upheld the burden of proof. Con has also stated that the resolution is "How does minimum wage impact poverty." Quite obviously, con has not read my resolution, it being, "If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease." The impact of minimum wage on poverty is not the same as the impact of minimum wage on government spending. I have supported the burden of proof.

As a result, many of Con's arguments do not help to disprove the resolution, "If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease," but instead support Con's, "How does Minimum Wage impact poverty."

Rebuttal B: "Demographics of Minimum Wage"

"Only 2% of workers in the US is on Minimum Wage." ~Con
Just five states in the United States do not have their own minimum wage; these states being Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee (1). These states only have to comply with the federal minimum wage, the remaining 45 states, have their own minimum wage, all higher than the federal one (2). So, only workers from these five states are able to receive federal minimum wage, without it being unlawful. This source only counts people earning exactly minimum wage, it does not count people earning only a few cents above it. These people earning only a few cents above minimum wage would still be impacted with a realalistic minimum wage change (3).

Most of Con's argument (Demographics of Minimum Wage) is explaining how many minimum wage earners are not below the "poverty line". However, this fails to disprove the resolution, as none of this explains how minimum wage would not decrease USFG spending.

Rebuttal C: "Effects of Minimum Wage"

"However, a number of studies claim they increase disemployment, leading to more unemployment costs, welfare, and food stamps." ~Con
There have been 19 minimum wage amendments since 1961 (4). Each of these dates I will give you, the minimum wage was increased: in 1964, 1965, 1967, 1976, 1996, and 1997 unemployment went down the year after the minimum wage increase. In 1961, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1975, 1976, 1981, 1991, 1996, 1997, and 2009, unemployment decreased over a period of 4 years (4)(5). So in 11 out of the 19 amendments to increase minimum wage, there was actually an employment increase, further decreasing the amount of money spent on welfare and foodstamps. Increased minimum wage does not decrease employment.

Rebuttal D: "Less USFG Income = More Debt"

Raising the minimum wage would in fact not hurt the productivity of companies. About 66% of low-wage earners are employed by large corporations (9). The National Employment Law Project produced a paper that proved, there would be no significant decline in the productivity, or hiring of companies employing low-wage workers if the minimum wage was to be increased (9).

"Increasing the US Debt by just $50 bn a year" ~Con
This is not sourced, and there is no data to back up this claim. The National Employment Law Project's, Big Businesses, Corporate Profits, and the Minimum Wage disproves this theory.


Argument A: Social Security, Unemployment & Labor

*Copy and pasted from first argument:
There is $36,614,800,000 of US government money going to WORKING people who receive food stamps, and $73,864,000,000 of USFG money goes to WORKING welfare recipients.
So raising the minimum wage to a "living wage" could save the USFG up to $110 billion!

Different welfare programs for Walmart workers alone costed the USFG an estimated $6 billion (12)! The average income of a sales Associate working at Walmart is $8.81, so these workers would be affected by a minimum wage change (15). Walmart employs about 1.4 million people in the US, about 1.15% of all of America's workers (13) (14). Overall, the United States would save money if the minimum wage was to be increased.

Thank you readers for reading. I would also like to wish anyone reading this a happy New Years (if you are not reading this before New Years that is).

Con, I await your response.

Sources:

(1) http://tinyurl.com...
(2) http://tinyurl.com...
(3) http://tinyurl.com...
(4) http://tinyurl.com...
(5) http://tinyurl.com...
(6) http://tinyurl.com...
(7) http://tinyurl.com...
(8) http://tinyurl.com...
(9) http://tinyurl.com...
(10) http://tinyurl.com...
(11) http://tinyurl.com...
(12) http://tinyurl.com...
(13) http://tinyurl.com...
(14) http://tinyurl.com...
(15) http://tinyurl.com...
donald.keller

Con

Premise I: Burden of Prove.

Pro blatantly misreads my case. I didn't say the resolution was "x"... I said that, to affirm the resolution, Pro must answer "x". My cases addresses the resolution, whereas I have shown that Pro did nothing to prove the resolution.

To restate Pro's arguments...
P1) The people are on Welfare.
P2) Welfare costs X amount.
C) Increasing MW would decrease Welfare costs.

As I said, Pro most prove that increasing the minimum wage would impact those in P1.

Argument I: Demographics of Minimum Wage

Pro puts out a claim, but does nothing to quantify it. He claims that more people are on/near Minimum Wage, but doesn't say how many more. 3%? 5%? Pro doesn't answer this. As for the opening few sentences about state minimum wages, there is no relevance. This debate is about federal minimum wage, and only 2% of the working are at the US federal Minimum Wage.

If Pro CAN'T prove that most Minimum Wage workers are in poverty, then he fails to prove his case, as his whole case is about how increasing wages decreases welfare costs. However, by conceding all of my arguments, he has conceded his own case. If most minimum wage workers aren't in poverty, then increasing minimum wage does little to impact welfare costs.

More importantly, Pro concede the following cases:
- The average household income for Minimum Wage workers is $50,700+ a year.
- 87% of those effected by Minimum Wage increases were not poor.
- 56% lived in households earning more than twice the poverty rate.
- Raising Minimum Wage would only affect 0.0043% of those on welfare

By conceding these points, Pro can not prove that raising minimum wage would decrease welfare costs. If increasing minimum wage doesn't decrease poverty, it won't decrease welfare spending.

Argument II: Effect of Minimum Wage

A) Prior Case
Pro's only argument is a blunt display of information with no detail, no context, and no variables being accounted for. My studies have accounted for all variables and context that may alter, and distort, the conclusion. Pro has not accounted for these. Nor does his employment increase account only for employment rates among minimum wage workers. As such, we must assume his analyzes is not valid. In fact, just accounting for the employment of the youth alone shows us a far different picture, where unemployment amoung teenagers correlates perfectly with the increasing/decreasing value of the minimum wage (1). This alone shows how important these variables are.

My studies are based on reviewing minimum wage increases that have happened (one of my studies even dealing with the 1997 amendment), and found, after clearing all the variables that distort Pro's assessment, that the increase hurt employment. Pro's assessment also fails to account for disemployment. Pro may notice that I often talk about disemployment, not unemployment. Increasing minimum wage doesn't have a sudden, immediate effect. It can take a year or two to find the effects in place. Increasing minimum wage can decrease employment in the long-term by decreasing the rate of additional employment.... Called disemployment.

A study by Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen found that, for every 1% increase in the Minimum Wage, there is a 0.12% increase in disemployment... Sometimes as high as 0.92% increase. To increase Minimum Wage to Obama's proposed $10.10, we'd risk seeing an increase in unemployment by as much as 9% (2). Another study, by Nuemark, backed up this claim (3). Later, Nuemark redid his evaluation, and found that with new variables accounted for, there was a similar disemployment rate (4).

A review found that in 2011, McDonald's hired 64,000 Americans, but in Europe (with it's higher MWs), they replaced workers with 7,000 self-serve computers. They intend to do much the same in the US as well due to increasing minimum wage costs (5). Mark Wilson found that increased unemployment among the youth followed increases in minimum wage (6). This effect hurts the long-term success of these youth, making them costlier for the Government.

I also want to note that, at only a 57% rate of success (11 out of 19 amendments), he has disproven his case about unemployment. He must prove that increasing the minimum wage WOULD decrease spending. Not that it MIGHT (57% could) decrease spending.

[1] http://web.archive.org...
[2] http://www.nber.org...
[3] http://www.nber.org...
[4] http://www.nber.org...
[5] http://www.wsj.com...
[6] http://object.cato.org...

Argument III: Less USFG Income = More Debt.

Pro claims that 66% of low-wage earners are working for Large Corporations. His source is wrong in how it assesses who they work for, however. If 100 employees are working for McDonald's, his source would claim that they are working for a "big corporation." But this is wrong... They are employed by a small business franchising from McDonald's. That small business pays the employees wages, not McDonald's themselves. And that small business owner is bringing in tiny profit rates of around 6% or less (7) This, by itself, disproves Pro's whole study from NELP, as well. These studies were built on the false premise that the corporation, and not the actual franchisers, employs and pays the employees. Therefore, their results are corrupted.

Pro's case is also flawed in that it reviews the productivity of the employees, and not the overall productivity rate. If the corporation decreases employment by 30% in order to fix losses, and the productivity of each employee increased by 10%, they would still see a 23% decrease in productivity. My Argument II case proves these potentionally massive unemployment/disemployment effects.

Pro dropped the rest of this case, including lower profit margins.

As for the $50 bn claim... This need not be sourced. Pro's attempt to discredit this is rather silly. I didn't say the debt WOULD increase by $50 bn here... I was showing how much debt and interest a $50 bn a year deficit would cause. Over a decade, that would amount to $500 billion in debt, which would produce at least another $500 billion in interest. Pro is acting as though I said increasing the minimum wage would lead to a $50 bn increase in the deficit.

Based on US income tax revenues (8), it's likely that, with the CBO's unemployment estimate in mind, an increase to $10.10 could cost the USFG over $10 bn a year in income tax. $20 bn a year if we include unemployment costs from Rebuttal I. The cost could be $100 bn+ based on Brown, Kilroy, and Kohen's study.

[7] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...

Rebuttal I: Welfare Costs

Pro's copy/paste seems pointless... These number don't tell us anything about who is on welfare. My whole case proved that those people on welfare are not the same as the people on Minimum Wage. Perhaps if Pro hadn't been so quick to concede my case, his case would still work.

Pro says that Walmart employees receive $6 billion in welfare, these statistics are recession related. To find an accurate measurement of how much welfare is spent on Minimum Wage, Pro needs to give us a number that accounts for the recession. However, even then, Pro fails to account for the largest issue...

Pro has NOT proven that increasing Minimum Wage would counter these welfare costs. A study by Heritage Foundation found that, if increased to $10.10, the minimum wage increase would do nothing to reduce Welfare costs (8). Nor has Pro proven that, if it did decrease welfare costs, it would be larger then the negative impacts. The cost of the 1997 increase, as an example, and if accounting for population increases, would cost $8 bn - $10 bn alone just for unemployment increases if enacted today. Well over the $6 bn welfare costs for Walmart.

I addressed these impacts in Argument II and Argument III.

[8] http://www.heritage.org...

Conclusion:
I have shown that great disemployment effects would be seen from an increase in Minimum Wage. I have also shown the costs of these effects. Pro has not proven that minimum wage workers greatly impact welfare costs, while I have shown that the vast majority of them are too far from poverty to have an impact. Pro has also failed to prove that, among the few who are poor, increasing their wages would help them, while I have proven it wouldn't.

Pro has not affirmed the resolution. And the argument he has conceded (especially from Argument I) prevent him from doing so.
Debate Round No. 3
Codename_X

Pro

Thanks for the response, Con.

Rebuttal A: "Burden of Prove"

"Pro blatantly misreads my case. I didn't say the resolution was "x"... I said that, to affirm the resolution, Pro must answer "x"." ~Con
"...the following question: "How does Minimum Wage impact poverty."" ~Con
The core question of this debate is not "how does minimum wage impact poverty," as suggested by Con, but rather how minimum wage impacts USFG spending. I did not misread Con's statement as Con asserted I did, instead Con completely ignored the basis of the resolution.

Rebuttal B: "Demographics of Minimum Wage"

"He claims that more people are on/near Minimum Wage, but doesn't say how many more. 3%? 5%? Pro doesn't answer this" ~Con
About 26% of our workforce, or 35 million Americans makes less than $10.55. This is over 1/4th of the US' total workforce, and a minimum wage lift would stop many people's government reliance on different welfare programs.

"This debate is about federal minimum wage, and only 2% of the working are at the US federal Minimum Wage." ~Con
Raising the minimum wage to a "living wage," would lift the wages of 35 million US citizens.

"- The average household income for Minimum Wage workers is $50,700+ a year." ~Con
The average amount of time spent working per week is 47 hours (2). The minimum wage is currently $7.25 (3), and there are around 52 weeks in a year. This means that the average minimum wage worker earns about $17,719 annually (47*52*7.25). This is far off from Con's "$50,700+ a year" mark.

"- 87% of those effected by Minimum Wage increases were not poor." ~Con
Being poor, and being in poverty are two entirely different things (4). Con used a website showing what the poverty line is for American citizens, not how much it takes to be poor. Furthermore this statistic is entirely inaccurate. There are 1.954 million part time workers at or below minimum wage (5). You work part-time if you work 30 hours or less per week (6). So, a minimum wage, part-time worker earns about $10,933 annually. This is below your stated website's $11,770 annually to be in poverty.

"- 56% lived in households earning more than twice the poverty rate." ~Con
Using the math above, it would take about 6

56% of welfare recipients are working, to qualify for welfare you can only earn up to a certain amount of money. People earning above a "living wage" would most likely not receive welfare.

Rebuttal B: "Effect of Minimum Wage"

"Pro's only argument is a blunt display of information with no detail, no context, and no variables being accounted for." ~Con
My argument shows that in the past, there has been no signs if minimum wage leading to unemployment. With no real evidence of minimum wage increases leading to unemployment, Con's argument is invalid. These statistics show that there has been no real change in employment because of minimum wage in the past, and there will not be in the future.

Rebuttal C: "Less USFG Income = More Debt"

Raising the minimum wage would leave 28 million Americans with more capital to invest in the economy, causing economic growth (8). Raising the minimum wage infact makes workers more productive, increasing what each worker could do. As well, most US businesses are in financial shape to keep their employees if the minimum wage were to be raised.

Minimum Wage

Raising the minimum wage could help the economy, via increased investments and worker productivity (8). Over $70 billion of USFG money goes to working welfare recipients. Raising the minimum wage would decrease the amount of workers reliant on welfare, as these workers would then be able to support themselves (and their family if need be). Minimum wage workers are poor, (poor enough to receive welfare at least), and raising minimum wage would help stop many people being reliable on government welfare programs.

Sources:
(1) http://tinyurl.com...
(2) http://tinyurl.com...
(3) http://tinyurl.com...
(4)
donald.keller

Con

Premise I: Burden of Prove.

Pro specifically said I had mentioned the Resolution being "Question A." Now he claims he was saying something different. Either-way, Pro is wrong. The Resolution is about whether Minimum Wage decreases USFG spending... Since Pro's case is that it does so by decreasing welfare on the grounds of it lowering poverty, he must answer how it effects those in poverty... This is because if he fails to prove it lowers poverty, the case he set up fails to stand.

I should note that BOP is on Pro. He must provide offensive proof (as opposed to just defensive prove.)

Argument I: Demographics of Minimum Wage.

Pro says 35 million workers are earning less than $10.10 a year. This isn't true... The most reasonable estimate is CNN's 15 million... (1) Far less than half of Pro's claim. And since I've proven that someone working $7.65 an hour is still above poverty, Pro's case means little.

Pro has done nothing to prove these people are poor, while I have given irrefutable evidence that they are, in fact, not in poverty. Most of my Arguments I case from the beginning was dropped last round... Arguments that make Pro's case here pointless. I will repeat those dropped cases again:

- The average household income for Minimum Wage workers is $50,700+ a year.
- 87% of those effected by Minimum Wage increases were not poor.
- 56% lived in households earning more than twice the poverty rate.
- Raising Minimum Wage would only affect 0.0043% of those on welfare

So long as Pro can't prove those 15 million earning $10.10 or less are poor, he loses this debate. To carry on my case, raising the MW to $10.10 would cost upwards of 1,000,000 jobs, according to the CBO... Most of whom weren't poor until after they become jobless (2). This 1,000,000 jobs lost is above the number of impoverished the CBO claims would be helped.

Pro continues by misrepresenting my case to the point of lying. He says I claimed the average income of one minimum wage worker is $50,000+ a year (after having dropped the argument). I said the average HOUSEHOLD Income is $50,000, which is true (3). I need not explain why Pro's refutation here isn't compelling... A teenager earning Minimum Wage, with parents earning $20,000 a year each, would live in a house with a Household income of around $50,000. If anything, he proves my point that MW workers are above poverty, as the poverty rate for a worker is $11,770. If two parents worked at Pro's claimed income, they would be nearly $20,000 above their poverty rate, capable of raising 4 children with plenty of money left... Pro's own math is self-refuting if accepted as true.

Pro's whole case seems to assume all MW workers are living alone... They are teenagers living with parents. That is how so many people can live on MW, with household incomes so high. Unless Pro wants to quantify what it takes to be poor, he has no case. My source for the rate of people effected by hikes being poor uses the poverty rate for determining poorness, as does the USFG when handing out most welfare.

If we review the Demographics of Minimum Wage Workers even more, we find that 3/5th of the people Pro talks about are enrolled in shool (4). Only 22% of the people he references are in poverty, and the average worker's Household income is over 150% the poverty threshold for their family. Even among the group of MW workers out of High School, the average household income is STILL above $42,000 a year.

Pro's case for the MW worker being poor, and in need of welfare, simply isn't true.

[1] http://money.cnn.com...
[2] https://www.cbo.gov...
[3]http://www.forbes.com...
[4] http://www.heritage.org...

Argument II: Effects of Minimum Wage.

Pro's numbers mean nothing. They ignore every law of academia... They don't account for variables and context, or any other force that impacts the stats. If Minimum Wage is increased in 2016, and then a new industry forms, hiring 10 million workers, Pro's method would claim the wage hike caused the employment increase... He MUST account for these variables, as my source did, to make his point adequate. His number don't even account for how many of those jobs where MW jobs...

That being said, he claims his numbers show the MW leads to employment increases, with no signs of disemployment. However, only 57% of the hikes saw increases in the job market. This is far from "With no real evidence of minimum wage increases leading to unemployment." 57% of successes doesn't even count as a correlation, better yet causation. Especially since the job market increases just as often every year MW didn't increased. The only truth can be found by clearing out the clutter than corrupts one's numbers.

To strengthen both this argument, and Argument I, even CNN reports that a review of studies show no indication that increasing Minimum Wage would decrease Poverty (5). They even claim that most wage gains where seen by higher earning workers, and not those in poverty. Another review of studies find the same results (6). Minimum Wage increases, correlating well with each argument I made (especially in Argument I) do not reduce poverty.

Following a time-tested method of research, Holtz-Eakin find that a hike to $15 an hour would cost 6,600,000 jobs, or 3,800,000 million jobs at $12. FAR over the CBO's estimates (7).

[5] http://www.cnn.com...
[6] http://econlog.econlib.org...
[7] http://americanactionforum.org...

Argument III: Less USFG Income = More Debt

Raising the Minimum Wage would cost nearly a million jobs, billions of dollars in hours, and billions in lost corporate income as less people can afford the higher prices. Pro can not throw out one benefit without weighing it against the harms.

If Person A sees their income increase 20%, their productivity increase 15%, and prices increase 10%, but he loses 30% of his hours, he will see the following:
Productivity decrease 19.5%.
Income decrease 16%.
Ability to buy things decrease 37%.

The negative impacts of Minimum Wage would quickly negate Pro's benefits. Even the CBO claims that very little of the new revenue would be acquired by people who are legally impoverished. Based on the CBO's 1 million jobs lost, and Pro's MW income listed in Argument 1, over $17.7 billion would be lost a year. Despite how the CBO says impoverished families will earn $5 billion more before losses are included. This is a net loss of $12.7 billion.

Using the numbers from Holtz-Eakin's study, over $115 billion would be lost in wages at $15 an hour.

Pro says US businesses can keep their employees... This is completely wrong. Most MW establishments are licensed. Based on income v profits, the KFC I work for brings in at least $50,000 a year in profit, and we have 25 employees. An increase to the fabled $15 an hour would cost us nearly $280,000 a year, twice our profit rate. Franchisers can't afford to spend that kind of money each year. My sources have long since already shown that Pro's claim here is wrong.

Seattle is seeing restaurants close at a high rate now, and many resturants are having to close at earlier hours, and reduce labour (8). This (primarily the closing early and reucing labour part) is exactly what I claimed... Reducing worker's hours to make up for costs, which decreases paychecks and productivity.

[8] http://www.forbes.com...

Conclusion:
Increasing the Minimum Wage would cost far too many jobs, plummeting otherwise healthy Americans into unemployment and poverty. I have already shown that increasing the MW would not help the poor, and that, if anything, it would increase dependency on Welfare for millions as hours, and jobs, are cut.
Debate Round No. 4
Codename_X

Pro

Thanks for your argument, Con.

Rebuttal A: "Demographics of Minimum Wage"


"Pro says 35 million workers are earning less than $10.10 a year. This isn't true..." ~Con
Firstly, I stated that 35 million workers are earning below $10.55 / hour. Not "$10.10 a year" as Con stated. In fact, I actually stated, "About 26% of our workforce, or 35 million Americans makes less than $10.55." ~Me (see my 4th argument, Rebuttal B: "Demographics of Minimum Wage"). My statement remains true, as Con's CNN article only states how many people earn $10.00 / hour or less.

"And since I've proven that someone working $7.65 an hour is still above poverty, Pro's case means little." ~Con
The average hourly time spent working per week in the US is 47 hours (1). Around 70.1% of all minimum wage earners are part-time workers (2) (yes I realise you stated $7.65 / hour, but as a seemingly random number, there is very little in the way of statistics regarding part-time and full-time workers. Besides, the statistics from $7.25 to $7.65 / hour would be fairly similar). So, the average minimum wage earner works part-time, and part-time is defined as working 34 hours or below a week (3). The largest percent of part-time minimum wage workers work 20-24 hours a week (2). So lets take an average minimum wage earner, working 20-24 hours a week. So using Con's "someone working $7.65 an hour is still above poverty," we can calculate that someone making 24 hours a week, making $7.65 an hour earns $9,547.20 a year (52*7.65*24). This is far below the given $11,770 a year. So in conclusion, an average person earning $7.65 an hour is below the poverty line.

"Most of my Arguments I case from the beginning was dropped last round..." ~Con
Con has completely failed to read my case. Last round I gave evidence against all of Con's cases, but as Con has done nothing to read it, I will restate my opposing facts.


"The average household income for Minimum Wage workers is $50,700+ a year." ~Con
Most minimum wage earners have never been married (2). Minimum wage is $7.25 / hour (4). The majority of minimum wage earners work part-time (2). Out of all the part-time minimum wage earners, most work 20-24 hours a week (2). There are 52 weeks in 1 year. So, an average minimum wage worker earns $9,048 a year (7.25*52*24). This is much less than $50,700.

"87% of those effected by Minimum Wage increases were not poor." ~Con
This claim is unsourced and inaccurate. First of all, being poor and being in poverty are two entirely different things (6). To make this claim you (presumably) used a website that stated what the poverty line was, as it is used in a variety other of your arguments (5). You can see my last argument for a full explanation why your statement is not true.


"- 56% lived in households earning more than twice the poverty rate." ~Con
Most minimum wage earners have never been married (2). Minimum wage is $7.25 / hour (4). The majority of minimum wage earners work part-time (2). Out of all the part-time minimum wage earners, most work 20-24 hours a week (2). There are 52 weeks in 1 year. So, an average minimum wage worker earns $9,048 a year (7.25*52*24). This is less than the poverty rate of $11,770 (5).


"Raising Minimum Wage would only affect 0.0043% of those on welfare" ~Con
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would end 1.7 million American's reliance on welfare (7). This is just how many Americans this would raise out of welfare, the amount of Americans on welfare that would be affected would be much greater. If Con's statement was true, raising the minimum wage would only affect 4,714 people (109,631,000*0.000043). This is far from the truth.

"I said the average HOUSEHOLD Income is $50,000, which is true (3)." ~Con

I'd first like to question the source from which you got this information. Con got this fact from a Forbes article made by a contributor. The author of the article sourced this claim from a page that has now been DELETED (9). This article being deleted could likely stem from false or unsupported claims. Also, other facts/statistic show that this claim is incorrect. Most minimum wage earners live in homes by themselves, so there is no one else in their household, and with the average minimum wage earner earning only $9,048 a year (see fourth paragraph of Rebuttal A), this claim is untrue. Let's say that this was true, it still does nothing to disprove the resolution. This joined household income of $50,000 from 3 workers, is too much money to receive welfare; the government would not give them their financial assistance (10).

"Pro's whole case seems to assume all MW workers are living alone" ~Con
Not all, but most do. Besides, as stated above, many minimum wage workers living alone do not receive welfare.

"Only 22% of the people he references are in poverty" ~Con
See second and sixth paragraphs in the Rebuttal A section for full explanation.


Rebuttal B: "Effects of Minimum Wage"

"They don't account for variables and context, or any other force that impacts the stats." ~Con
What would make a minimum wage increase in 2016 any different from any of the other 19 minimum wage increases (see round 3).


"If Minimum Wage is increased in 2016, and then a new industry forms, hiring 10 million workers, Pro's method would claim the wage hike caused the employment increase."
Unless pro can prove that a new industry formed in 1961, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1975, 1976 1981, 1991, 1996, 1997, and 2009 that caused increased employment, this argument is unreliable.


Rebuttal C: "Less USFG Income = More Debt"

Con is forgetting some very important things. A higher minimum wage means people have more money to spend on stocks/investments, increasing different companies abilities to pay a higher minimum wage, and also boosting the economy. An increased minimum wage also mean people have more money to spend on the company's products, further increasing that company's profits, giving them the ability to pay a higher minimum wage.

Conclusion and Key Points

The average minimum wage earner earns about $9,048 a year, well below $12,000, the maximum amount of money one person can make yearly and still receive welfare. Raising the minimum wage to $10.55 would make that person earn much over $12,000 a year, taking them off of welfare, lowering the amount of money the USFG spends on it. Throughout past experiences with raising the minimum wage, there have been no real signs that connect an increase in minimum wage to unemployment. Raising the minimum wage would also increase the amount of money these low wage workers would be able to spend on different products, and investments, further boosting the economy, and allowing the different companies to be able to pay for the increased wages. Taxes on low wage earners would increase, and an increased income means a better ability to take care of one's self, further decreasing health care costs. Altogether, raising the USFG minimum wage would help to decrease total spending.


Thanks to all the readers for reading, all the voters for voting, and to Con for giving his arguments. This debate concludes with still, no liable evidence disproving the fact that minimum wage, does indeed decrease government spending. Thank you.

Sources

(1) http://tinyurl.com...
(2) http://tinyurl.com...
(3) http://tinyurl.com...
(4) http://tinyurl.com...
(5) http://tinyurl.com...
(6) http://tinyurl.com...
(7) http://tinyurl.com...
(8) http://tinyurl.com...
(9) http://tinyurl.com...
(10) http://tinyurl.com...
donald.keller

Con

Argument I: Demographics of Minimum Wage

Even if Pro proves that 20 million people work between the $0.55 gap, compared to only 15 million workers in the $2.35 gap between mw and $10.00 (meaning that 57% of all low earners are in the top 18% of low income, which better proves my case.) He can't simply increase the parameters to make the number seem bigger. He had to prove everything above $10.00, or anything above $9.00, or $8.00, is within the paramets of 'poor.' In fact, a person on minimum wage only needs to work 29.5 hours a week to be above poverty, well below the national average work week. In fact, anyone earning $10.00 an hour off Pro's presumed 25 hours a week would earn almost $1,500 above poverty, so why is wages above that important?

Not that it matters, because unless Pro proved those 15-35 million people are poor and on welfare, he has no case to make. Now Pro is reversing his numbers. He said 47 hours is Average, and now he's saying 20-30 is average... He can't switch up his numbers half way through after I prove the first numbers hurt him. Pro said 47 hours, he needs to live with it. Even at 25 hours, a independent couple still earns $19,000+ a year...

The biggest problem here is his constant ignoring of my stats. Almost ALL part-time minimum wage workers are in school, or part of a bigger household. Pro has spent the WHOLE debate pretending those arguments don't exist. Virtually all part-timers aren't dependent on their income, and those who are, are part-time because they lack the skills and experience to have a full-time job. Usually, they are new employees, or have disproven themselves as quality workers. A raise in minimum wage would ruin their careers.

Pro dropped my A1 arguments... He may have attempted to address them last round, but Pro must understand that arguments should be addressed the round they are made. Not after they are dropped. Despite trying to address the cases, Pro simply fails at it. Saying things like how minimum wage earners can't earn $50,000 a year, when I CLEARLY SAID HOUSEHOLD INCOME. These issues all remain unanswered by Pro, who ignores basic parts of my argument that clearly disproves his case.

The facts are... The average household income of minimum wage workers are far too high for Pro's case is stand, and more than half of them are living with their parents, or are secondary earners in their houses. There is simply no case that enough of them are on welfare to prove Pro's case.

In fact, my case about the effects of Minimum Wage alone outweigh Pro's non-existent benefits.

Argument II: Effects of Minimum Wage.

Pro has simply ignored what I said. His denial is not an argument. Source after source, I have proven that minimum wage leads to job loss. All he had was crude numbers that only prove numbers mean nothing without a methodology. He couldn't even account for the fact that EVERY year sees increases and decreases, and his years are no different from the non-raise years. This is why methodology is important.

I win on this argument alone... Pro so strongly believes his numbers, that he concedes this debate, as his numbers show that only 57% of raises lead to increases in jobs, while the resolution required ALL raises to lead to increases.

That being said, Pro doesn't account for my studies, he just ignores them. Regarding his issue with my claim about new industries, that was an example of how his methods don't work... It's HIM who must prove his simplistic system is correct.

Argument III: Less USFG Income = More Debt

Pro has ignored that I disproved ALL of those last round... I literally responded to each of these cases, and Pro dropped all of them. His case literally pretends I didn't say a thing last round... I shall repeat my last round:

If Person A sees their income increase 20%, their productivity increase 15%, and prices increase 10%, but he loses 30% of his hours, he will see the following:
Productivity decrease 19.5%.
Income decrease 16%.
Ability to buy things decrease 37%.

Holtz-Eakin proved that the employees saw massive losses in revenue and hours... When I show that increasing wages decrease overall income by decreasing their hours. Pro needs to reply with more than "Con ignores that raising wages will lead to more income."

The cost in lost production, income, and consumption will lead to greater federal debt, meaning higher interest and spending. Pro simply doesn't respond to my arguments. In fact, the cost alone would greatly push millions into welfare over time, costing the USFG billions in increased welfare.

Conclusion:

I've shown through out the debate that minimum wage simply doesn't correlate with poverty, and raising it would actually INCREASE poverty, joblessness, and DECREASE labor and productivity. This all leads to higher debt, welfare, and spending.

The cost to people will outweigh all of Pro's supposed benefits. Especially since I've shown that the demographics disprove Pro's "benefits" and arguments. The harms of raising minimum wage will cost the Government more money, without saving any. Pro had to prove it "WOULD" save money, not that it "MIGHT" save money... Especially if the best he can show is a 57% positive correlation with job loss v job gain (and even that number isn't accurate.)

Raising minimum wage will, at most, not decrease Government spending. It is likely to greatly increase USFG spending.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Round 1

Pro talks about how 35.4% are on welfare and how the U.S spends 131.9 billion on welfare and 76.6 billion of food stamps. Pro presents information, but this doesn"t actually prove that the minimum wage would decrease federal spending. This argument was pretty empty unfortunately.

Con doesn"t even need to prove anything about the Minimum wage but does however. He talks about how the MW increasing more debt, and how it actually hurts employees. He also talked about how only 13% of workers who were effected by the wage increase were poor.

Pro has already lost the debate at this point, since refuting Con"s arguments will not help him win. So Con wins since Pro failed to upheld the burden of proof, since he did not prove MW decreases federal spending.
Posted by Codename_X 1 year ago
Codename_X
Here is link...
http://imgur.com...
Sorry it took so long I had internet difficulties
Posted by Codename_X 1 year ago
Codename_X
for some reason the last part of my debate wasn't working when I went to edit to review. will upload the sources shortly.
Posted by Codename_X 1 year ago
Codename_X
Next argument will be posted with very little time left. Have been very busy for the past few days.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
Sorry. Playing new game from the Steam Sale.

I'll write my arguments now.
Posted by Codename_X 1 year ago
Codename_X
hmmm. My graph didn't work. That's odd as it showed up in edit mode. Go to https://www.nationalpriorities.org... and look at the total federal spending for 2015 for the pie chart. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
I accept.
Posted by BlazingRodent 1 year ago
BlazingRodent
I would take this if we debate a few days from now.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Codename_Xdonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In comments.