The Instigator
soccerisfun
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Accelerator
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 457 times Debate No: 83209
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

soccerisfun

Pro

First is acceptance. second is case. 3rd is rebuttals. 4th is more rebuttals. 5th is summary and voters, no new arguments.
I affirm.
Rules:
No forfeits. Post links to all articles. No trollings. No religious arguments.
Accelerator

Con

I, Accelerator, hereby accept this challenge in that the US government should not raise the minimum wage.

Aschente! (I swear by the rules)
Debate Round No. 1
soccerisfun

Pro

I affirm and value morality. This implies util as the value criterion, i.e. having the best results possible is the most moral action. Sinnot Armstrong (http://sites.duke.edu...):
Of course, there are many other versions of deontology. (...) deontological theories unable to explain moral substitutability. This comes out clearly if we start from the other side and ask which properties create the moral reasons that are derived by moral substitutability. What gives me a moral reason to start the mower is the consequences of starting the mower. (...) This reason cannot derive from the same property as my moral reason to mow the lawn unless what gives me a moral reason to mow the lawn is its consequences. Thus, any non-consequentialist moral theory will have to posit two distinct kinds of moral reasons: one for starting the mower and another for mowing the grass. Once these kinds of reasons are separated, we need to understand the connection between them But this connection cannot be explained.
If we look at any reason besides the consequences, then there is no reason to act morally. And since ought implies what someone should do, we need a standard that guides action, implying util.
I defend raising the minimum wage to 10.10 an hour and adjusting for inflation from there.

Contention 1 is crime/recidivism. Visher et al.: (http://www.urban.org...)
Research by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows high recidivism rates among former prisoners in the first year after release: nearly half (44 percent) are rearrested, 22 percent reconvicted, and 10 percent returned to prison on a new sentence. (...) Through multivariate logistic regression, we assessed the effect of employment on recidivism while controlling for other factors related to criminal behavior. (...) the more wages earned two months after release, the lower a respondent"s likelihood of reincarceration. Predicted probabilities of reincarceration were 8 percent for those earning more than $10 per hour; 12 percent for those earning $7 to $10 per hour; and 16 percent for those earning less than $7 per hour. (...) former prisoners who are able to secure a job, ideally at higher than minimum wage, by two months out are more likely to successfully avoid recidivism.
By raising the wage to 10.10, everyone will fit into the 8% category, so rates of recidivism will drop by at least 20%. This is crucial to preventing problems. Ralphson: (http://www.wiu.edu...)
Rapidly expanding prison populations in the United States (...) has catapulted the U.S. to the title of most punitive nation in the world. (...) largely fueled by incapacitation heavy legislation. With high levels of imprisonment come high financial costs to imprison. The rate at which these costs have increased has reached a level of insustainability. The answer to America"s crime problems cannot be incapacitation centered anymore. There must be a shift to combating the high rates of recidivism if prison populations are to be reduced while maintaining public safety. (...) By reducing recidivism, crime is essentially being reduced. (...) if recidivism can be reduced, the overall number of crimes will decrease as well, netting an overall reduction in crime and an increase in public safety.
Since crime is obviously bad raising the wage is good for this reason.
Contention 2 is Poverty. Increasing the minimum wage reduces poverty. Konzcal: (https://www.washingtonpost.com...)
Dube uses the latest in minimum-wage statistics and finds a negative relationship between the minimum wage and poverty. Specifically, raising the minimum wage 10 percent (say from $7.25 to near $8) would reduce the number of people living in poverty 2.4 percent. (...) Using this as an estimate, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as many Democrats are proposing in 2014, would reduce the number of people living in poverty by 4.6 million. It would also boost the incomes of those at the 10th percentile by $1,700. That"s a significant increase in the quality of life for our worst off that doesn"t require the government to tax and spend a single additional dollar. And, given that this policy is self-enforcing with virtually no administrative costs while challenging the employer"s market power, it is a powerful complement to the rest of the policies the government uses to boost the living standards of the worst off, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Now, this is normally the part where we"d have to go through the counter-arguments, using different data and techniques from different economists, to argue that the minimum wage wouldn"t do this. But this is the fun part: Dube"s paper finds a remarkable consistency across studies here. For instance, in a 2011 paper by minimum-wage opponent David Neumark, raising the minimum wage 10 percent would reduce poverty 2.9 percent (an elasticity of -0.29) for 21-44-year-old family heads or individuals. (...) Of the 54 elasticities that Dube is able to observe in these 12 papers, 48 of them are negative. Only one study has a sizable positive one, a 2005 one by David Neumark, a study that stands out for odd methodology (...) (Indeed, it is nothing like Neumark"s standard 2011 study, mentioned above, which finds that the minimum wage reduces poverty.) (...) These previous studies also have issues which Dube"s new study examines. This paper uses data up through 2012, so there is much more substantial variations to examine between states" minimum wages compared to earlier studies.
As this evidence says, 4.6 million people will escape poverty because of the wage raise. Poverty is bad. Varela: (http://www.newrepublic.com...)
Chronic conditions (...) correlate with poverty. Not only does poverty prevent us from accessing the stuff of life that buffers us from poor health, it also creates hospitable environments for disease. People living at or near poverty have greater levels of stress hormones (...) stress has a direct effect on each of the ten leading causes of death (...) Poverty doesn"t only manifest internally. People struggling to make ends meet are more likely to be perpetrators of violence (...) The situation may get worse before it gets better. Research recently found that countries in recession and with growing income inequality experienced jumps in HIV incidence. (...) our other leaders would do well to focus on progressive fiscal policies such as a living wage, universal health care, and a basic income. These measures would lift Americans out of poverty, save money on health costs, and, most importantly, save lives.
And, this outweighs negligible unemployment effects. 10.10 finds a compromise, reducing poverty and making businesses happy. (http://www.forbes.com......):
For they are recommending that the minimum wage be raised to $15 an hour: a truly absurd notion. (...) this is simply an absurd demand. There would be very large unemployment effects from such a raise meaning that many people would simply lose their jobs. (...) It is absolutely true that modest increases in the minimum wage have small effects on employment. (...) But economics (...) the fact that a small change has small effects does not mean that a large change will still have small effects. So what we"d like to know is what is the level of a minimum wage where it starts to have large effects? (...) 45 to 50% of the average wage: go above that level and we"re harming low paid workers (...) the median hourly wage for the US is $16.71. The proposal for a $15 an hour minimum wage will make the minimum wage 90%(...) which point we know very well that we"ll be harming low income workers, not aiding them.
When you weigh this against other arguments, remember killing the economy comes above most other arguments since it will kill the economy, which eventually harms other things too. A 10.10 wage is 60%, but after taking the increased wages into account, it will be in the range. The aforementioned Konzcal concurs(https://www.washingtonpost.com...):
minimum wage always had to be recognized as having good income consequences".I thought in this instance those advantages outweighed the small loss of jobs.
Because raising the wages reduces crime, reduces poverty, and barely affects jobs, I urge you to vote pro.
Accelerator

Con

I stand by my view that the US government should not meddle in the payroll of businesses. In history the only thing government has shown it is good at is destroying perfectly good systems.

Contention 1 is expansion of economy (http://www.forbes.com...) Let us take for a moment that your views are correct and the minimum wage was increased to $10.10. Businesses are able to support these cost and the world is happy, right? Allow me to ask this; how is it that the business is able to support these new costs? Many would say, "from the revenue that the company makes," and that is right. The revenue that is used to help and expand the business is what is used. The company is not making more money now it is making the same amount of money but with heavier expenses which would make the economy stagnant. Would it not? However that is in a perfect world because these companies are run by humans. These humans do not like to lose money and therefore counter higher wages with higher prices which merely defeats the purpose of the increase of wages and would only result in inflation.

Contention 2 it raises the poverty among the unskilled and those new to the work force (http://americanactionforum.org...) while it would helped some people it would devastate a lot of people who actually need. the very system put into place to help the poor is the very one that will be their ends. this system only works theoretically much like evolution it can only work in theory. The reason it can only be a theory is because theories only have to be plausible and that is all this system is.

And this debate is not what you think the minimum wage should be, it is should the government raise the minimum wage. so all your points based off of $10.10 have no foundation in this debate. The government is run by humans and only a humans intention is what matters, based off of you off point about ethics and philosophy, it does not matter how high they raise the minimum rate, right? It only matters the intention and because the government only has our "best" interest they can do anything. that would led to higher and higher minimum with higher and higher inflation rates. eventually ending with inflation to rival Germany in 1923 where 4.2 trillion marks was worth one dollar.
Debate Round No. 2
soccerisfun

Pro

soccerisfun forfeited this round.
Accelerator

Con

Accelerator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
soccerisfun

Pro

soccerisfun forfeited this round.
Accelerator

Con

Accelerator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
soccerisfun

Pro

Ignore the double forfeit round
Once again, I apologize for forfeiting last round but DDO was down to fix the forfeit glitch so there was nothing I could do. My opponent, on the other hand, has not left his speech anywhere. So let me just go over the main reasons I'm winning this round. Here is my speech from last round btw: (http://hastebin.com...)
1. $10.10 All my opponent's evidence is arguing against a $15 wage but I acknowledge that a $15 wage is bad. However, I don't have to defend a raise to $15, only a raise, and if I prove raising it to $10.10 is good, then I prove the resolution true. Because the Konzcal evidence from my first speech supports $10.10 and my opponent never refutes $10.10, you can affirm off that.
2. Poverty outweighs any unemployment increases. Konzcal also covers this as does the Forbes evidence from Worstall.
3. Poverty is clearly bad and increasing the wage decreases poverty.
With these three points going cold conceded, this is an easy affirmative ballot. Thank you.
Accelerator

Con

Your personal opinion has nothing to do with this debate " Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage." Deals with what the politicians want to raise the minimum wage to not what you want it as. The government will not raise it to $10 they will raise it above that as I have argued. Even if they were to raise it to $10 it would still be bad.

take for example a business, this business pays it's employees livable wages and all is good. however if that minimum wage is raised then what is the point of paying someone $10 to bag food at the local convenience store, clean the halls of a building, or flip burgers. It is not economical nor is it logical; if I have to pay my employees more for average performance then I would fire the under performing one's that I could have afforded before and keep the more skilled hard working ones. then I would just replace the expandable labor with machines, because they would cost cheaper in the long run. But keep believing that business owners will just keep paying lazy people foe crap performance. You want to pay people at Walmart $10 an hour, be my guest, just don't expect there to be Walmart there or that it will help the economy with it's donations like it has been doing.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Accelerator 1 year ago
Accelerator
his argument wasn't there but now he does have one up.
Posted by soccerisfun 1 year ago
soccerisfun
What do you mean can't refute?
Posted by Accelerator 1 year ago
Accelerator
Do I just forfeit the round since I can't refute?
Posted by soccerisfun 1 year ago
soccerisfun
http://hastebin.com... here's my argument. Thank you for your understanding
Posted by soccerisfun 1 year ago
soccerisfun
https://gyazo.com...
This happened yesterday when I tried to post my argument. Please be reasonable and don't penalize me for this since it wasn't my fault. When I get home today I'll post my argument in the comments.
No votes have been placed for this debate.