The Instigator
Beverlee
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points
The Contender
GarretKadeDupre
Con (against)
Losing
43 Points

The Case For the Minimum Wage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 23 votes the winner is...
Beverlee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,111 times Debate No: 42647
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (135)
Votes (23)

 

Beverlee

Pro

The Case For The Minimum Wage

This Debate will cover the minimum wage laws in the United States. I will try and make the case in support of the concept of minimum pay requirements, and Garret Kade Dupre will oppose.

The Burden of Proof will lie on Con, since he will argue against estalished precedent.

The first round is for acceptance, so that we both have the same number of rounds to argue.
GarretKadeDupre

Con

I accept!
Debate Round No. 1
Beverlee

Pro


http://www.debate.org...



Capitalism Demands Minimum Wages


A guiding principle of capitalism states that every sector of the economy requires consumers who are willing and able to pay for goods and services. Businesses need money. And this means that they need customers. More specifically, they need customers with money.

The dilemma for entrepreneurs is this: are employees an asset to the company that should be invested in and advanced? Or are they a liability and a risk that needs to be minimized? It is important to keep labor and overhead costs down, but these considerations are far, far less important in the long run than attracting a strong and spending customer base. An empowered and involved workforce is perhaps the single most important way for business to attract customers, and to build a sound business model.

Simply put: businesses cannot survive long if most employers are underpaying their workers. Too many workers with inadequate wages create a death spiral of collapsing demand that will eventually crash every business that needs customers in order to survive.

http://www.debate.org...

Businesses need customers with purchasing power more than they need to reduce labor costs. The minimum wage sets up a system that removes the risk of one or two companies contaminating everyone else’s consumer base by impoverishing their workers. It sets a “Floor Price” for purchasing or selling labor and helps to ensure that most workers are also good customers.


Does the Minimum Wage Cause Job Losses?


No. The minimum wage has existed for 60 years, in many different countries and many different economic climates. [1] With the vast amount of data available, we can conclude that minimum wages help to increase employment, and to decrease joblessness. [2] By helping to prevent capital restriction, the minimum wage (and equivalent laws, such as collective bargaining rights in Germany) keeps money circulating into the hands of masses of potential new customers who then support expanded entrepreneurism. By transforming low wage workers into active members of the national consumer base, the minimum wage adds millions of new potential customers to the economy, thus creating new jobs to meet the rising demand.

For example, the nations with higher minimum wages tend to have low unemployment rates, even in this poor global economy. Australia, for example, enjoys a high minimum wage at over $15 an hour, and a low unemployment rate, at 5.7%. [1] This is a common trend among nations that set a floor price on the buying and selling of labor. These policies create customers, which create jobs.

Importantly, most minimum wage jobs are in the service and hospitality sectors, [3] which are impossible to ship overseas or outsource. Only a minority of employers are impacted with slightly higher labor costs as a result of the minimum wage. [4]

The data that demonstrates this has been collected for generations. The chart below shows the unemployment rates for young workers (green line) All Workers (blue line) and the Minimum Wage (red line.) We see that there is no indication, over 50 years, that the slight rises in labor costs have caused mass unemployment.

http://www.debate.org...

Society Demands a Minimum Wage

Every society has a certain minimum level of economic strength that each member must achieve in order to remain an asset to that society, and not become a burden.

In the United States, for example, that minimum level of economic achievement (for workers in most regions) is around $15/hour. [6] Those who earn less than $15/hour are unable to obtain adequate levels of food, housing, and other needs in our society. That means that society has to come to decision about what to do with these people.

It is in the best interest of the public to require that these minimum economic needs are met somehow - and asking that employers pay a fair price for the labor that they purchase is one important part of how a society can ensure that those who work can avoid poverty. The minimum wage helps to make work pay better than welfare.


The public is going to pay tax money to prevent mass poverty. Therefore, society has the right to ask employers to pay their workers fairly if taxpayers are required to maintain the welfare system that could otherwise be relieved by fair wages.

If the public were to choose not to help alleviate poverty within its society, then the public will be forced to pay to remedy the many negative effects that deep poverty can cause. (High levels of crime, disease among those who cannot afford health care, wage slavery and worker subjugation are all very expensive societal ailments.) [7]

So taxpayers are left with the bill either way... unless employers are required to help out as well. Minimum wage laws are intended to ask employers to help create a society that has more members that are made self-sufficient through work, and not burdensome to the public, by paying a fair wage for the labor that they purchase from their workers.

An Obvious Conclusion

The minimum wage causes a slight rise in labor costs for a few businesses. However, it also expands the customer base to include millions of new workers, and reduces the burden on the social safety net system by making work more attractive when compared to welfare, begging and creating a parallel economy for the poor. There is also no credible reason to think that it causes any important negative impacts such as unemployment or reduced investment.



[1] http://www.abs.gov.au...

[2] http://www.epi.org...

[3] http://www.bls.gov...

[4]http://www.bls.gov...

[5]https://newscenter.berkeley.edu...

[6]http://billmoyers.com...

[7]http://www.americanprogress.org...

GarretKadeDupre

Con

The Case Against The Minimum Wage

The Minimum Wage helps some employees, but hurts many more.

It discourages hiring. A minimum wage reduces or removes incentive to hire entry-level workers.

It's incredibly arrogant. A wage limit is micromanaging the economy. Politicians cannot possibly know what is the best minimum wage for every business. Politicians are just that: politicians, not entrepreneurs or CEOs.

If a business manager is incompetent to the point that the wages he sets do not comply with the Laws of Supply & Demand, he will lose employees and his business will fail. My opponent agrees: “Simply put: businesses cannot survive long if most employers are underpaying their workers.” Businesses which don't pay their employees enough go out of business. Since Pro and I both acknowledge that a business which doesn't comply with the laws of Supply & Demand regarding minimum wages will fail, why do we need a law in the first place? We don't, and never did.

If a worker is dissatisfied with his wages, he can work somewhere where the pay is better. Or he would be able too, were it not for the minimum wage laws. Since the business is forced by law to pay him a certain amount, business often find it cheaper to avoid hiring at all.

Now, instead of working for less than the minimum wage, this man isn't even working at all. There are many people in the U.S. who are desperate for a job. Were there no minimum wage, they would likely be hired. Working for less than $7.25 per hour doesn't sound appealing, but it sure beats getting payed $0 per hour, don't you think?

Pro goes on to say that society demands a minimum wage, stating that the minimum level of economic achievement is at $15 per hour, but her source (#6) doesn't actually back this up. It has no mention of “economic achievement” or even the number 15! (Unless she's referring to the anonymous comments on the blog, which isn't a legitimate source) Anyways...

Most of the damage caused by minimum wage laws is hard to trace back to the source. The victims are the jobless, the unemployed who could have been working, but weren't hired, because a business couldn't afford to hire them.

15% of young adults in the U.S.A. are out of school and jobless. That's 6 million people! Unfortunately, business can't afford to hire them at the rates the minimum wage laws require, so they leave them jobless.1

Pro's supposed “obvious conclusion” says that there isn't any “credible reason to think that it causes any important negative impacts such as unemployment”. However, as I'm about to demonstrate with a visually appealing graph, there is compelling reason to believe that it causes unemployment:


In 1929, the unemployment rate in the USA was a mere 3.1%2. This was without the minimum wage law. Today, with the federal minimum wage law, the USA has a 7% unemployment. That's more than double the rate of unemployment! Pro's obvious conclusion doesn't seem so obvious anymore. The minimum wage is hurting our economy and needs to go.


1http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com...

2http://www.sjsu.edu...

3http://www.bls.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
Beverlee

Pro


http://www.debate.org...

For the past 60 years, Americans workers have been protected by a minimum wage that helps make economic participation possible through work, and that prevents poverty. And throughout that entire history, year after year, decade after decade, opponents of the minimum wage have warned that the policy would (eventually… any minute now…) cause catastrophic job losses.

Only it never did. Not in 60 years and counting.

Since its inception in 1938, critics of worker rights in America have claimed that minimum wage laws would reduce the incentive to hire and invest, bankrupt business, and destroy our economy. Many of them have produced convincing statistics and studies to prove that the minimum wage would destroy the ability of millions of American workers to find a job.

Only it never has.

Since 1938, the American economy has become the envy of the world, with high levels of worker productivity and historically high levels of GDP growth. America is unquestionably home to one of the most successful economies the planet has ever produced.

In this round, we will look at some of the criticisms that have been used against the minimum wage over the decades.

Argument: The economic system is self-correcting. Businesses that make poor decisions will not survive. So laws are not needed to make them do the right thing.

Society needs to ensure that they do not cause wider collateral damage as they suffer the consequences of their actions. It is often better, and cheaper, to prevent the damage from happening in the first place.

http://www.debate.org...

It is tempting to say “businesses that underpay their workers deserve to go bankrupt,” and dismiss the controls that are placed on their behavior as an example of society getting in the way of the entrepreneurial “cycle of life.” However, the public has good reasons to prevent economic collapse before it happens; it is a matter of simple self-defense.


Poverty is very expensive for taxpayers and for law abiding businesses that do treat their workers fairly. Higher crime rates require increased spending for police. Additional costs are also often required to prevent starvation. Urban blight can chase away investment and lower property values, which reduces tax collections. All of these conditions should be prevented if possible.


Employers will hire if they pay their workers a fair wage.
There are so many problems with this myth that it is hard to know where to start. Where are all the mass layoffs? They just never happened.

Consider the chart below. The minimum wage was implemented in 1938, in the midst of the Great Depression. The red bars show the levels of unemployment before 1938, and the blue bars show what happened after the first minimum wages were introduced.

Notice how unemployment immediately begins to drop? While energy crises, financial meltdowns, and war have caused normal economic fluctuations, the minimum wage cannot be shown to have caused any mass job losses.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics [1]http://www.debate.org...

Moreover, employers can afford to pay their workers fairly. Consider the three companies that account for the largest number of minimum wage workers in America. All of these multi-billion dollar companies have seen record profits, and all of them can easily afford fair pay for the women and men who made these companies successful.

http://www.debate.org...

The additional costs in wages only represent a small portion of total operating expenses, and can easily be passed on to consumers. For example, if Congress were to enact a raise in the minimum wage to $9.80/hour, and the entire additional labor costs were passed on to consumers, the increased cost would be barely noticeable. In many cases, it would amount to less than an extra dime a day for the customer.[2]

http://www.debate.org...



The minimum wage does not mostly benefit teenagers in entry-level jobs.

A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute shows that the vast majority, nearly two thirds of minimum wage workers are adults. A third of those are married, and over one quarter of them have children. [3]

http://www.debate.org...


Why doesn’t the minimum wage kill jobs?
In an important study conducted by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the minimum wage has “no discernable effect” on hiring. The report concluded,

“The weight of the evidence points to little or no employment response to modest increases in the minimum wage. The report reviews evidence on eleven possible adjustments to minimum-wage increases that may help to explain why the measured employment effects are so consistently small. The strongest evidence suggests that the most important channels of adjustment are: reductions in labor turnover; improvements in organizational efficiency; reductions in wages of higher earners ("wage compression"); and small price increases.

Given the relatively small cost to employers of modest increases in the minimum wage, these adjustment mechanisms appear to be more than sufficient to avoid employment losses, even for employers with a large share of low-wage workers.”
[4]


In over 70 years, the minimum wage has yet to cause the widespread joblessness that critics have promised. Instead, it has provided critical purchasing power to low income consumers that otherwise might be shut out of the economy.

[1] http://data.bls.gov...

[2] http://phys.org...

[3] http://www.epi.org...

[4] http://www.cepr.net...


GarretKadeDupre

Con

So Pro hasn't remarked on my attack of her dishonest sourcing from the last round, so I'll take that as a concession on that point.

Her point,

  • Why doesn't the Minimum Wage kill jobs?”

is also misleadingly sourced. She says that the Minimum Wage has no discernible effect on the economy. There are 2 problems with this statement:

First of all, her quote points out how a tiny raise in the minimum wage wouldn't hurt employers much. This is way different than saying that the Minimum Wage itself doesn't have a discernible economic effect.

Secondly, since my opponent suddenly argues that the Minimum Wage has no discernible effect on the economy, then why is she even having this debate? She argues at great length about the reasons that make the minimum wage beneficial, even necessary to the economy, but then closes the previous round by saying the Minimum Wage doesn't even do anything!

If the Minimum Wage doesn't do anything, then it is a pointless law, and there shouldn't be any opposition to doing away with a pointless law. So vote for me, because I agree that this law should have never been written.

  • However, the public has good reasons to prevent economic collapse before it happens; it is a matter of simple self-defense.

What do you mean by “the public”? The government? Because the government has an awful track record of meddling with the economy in the name of “preventing economic collapse”. Case in point: The Fed has already admitted to causing the Great Depression by meddling with the economy!4

  • The additional costs in wages only represent a small portion of total operating expenses, and can easily be passed on to consumers.”

Easily passed on? So forcing a company to raise it's prices isn't a big deal? Easy to say when you aren't the one trying to start a business in this already difficult economy.

  • For example, if Congress were to enact a raise in the minimum wage to $9.80/hour, and the entire additional labor costs were passed on to consumers, the increased cost would be barely noticeable.”

Of course, because the politicians know how to run the business of every single mom-and-pop store in America better than the managers themselves. Apparently the members of Congress, 80% of whom have studied neither business nor economics, should be given free reign over every private enterprise in the country!1

  • All of these multi-billion dollar companies have seen record profits, and all of them can easily afford fair pay for the women and men who made these companies successful.”

Yea, and they can easily afford to add Doge to Mount Rushmore alongside the Presidents.

Hmmmm...


Actually, let the record state that I strongly support the addition of Doge to the Mount Rushmore carvings.

Also, what is “fair pay,” exactly, and who determines what this amount is? In the last round you said it was $15 per hour, but you sourced a blog entry that said literally nothing to support your arbitrary preferred minimum wage. You've also made no comments yet in response to me pointing this out.

Allow me to pose another question (or two): Why shouldn't the Minimum Wage be set at $20 per hour? Why not $50, or even $100?

Even if you were to argue that an objective “fair pay” standard actually exists, it would be impossible to determine, given the constantly fluctuating value of the dollar. There is also the issue of differences in amount of labor performed per hour within different companies. Why should someone digging a ditch have the same minimum wage as someone sitting in an air-conditioned room testing video games? That is yet another huge problem with the Minimum Wage law.

  • Where are all the mass layoffs? They just never happened.”

The Bureau of Business Research begs to differ2; they reported that the increase in the Federal Minimum Wage in July of 2008 resulted in the lay off of 16O,OOO.OO workers! That's pretty massive, if you ask me. So much for “no discernible effect on the economy”.

The findings of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee also contradicts your statements. They did a paper reporting the results of 50 years of research on the Minimum Wage, and what did they conclude? Word for word, I quote:

The minimum wage reduces employment.3

(emphasis mine)

Have fun in this last round defending your economic fantasies against the Bureau of Business Research and the Congressional Join Economic Committee.

1http://www.politico.com...

2http://cms.bsu.edu...

3http://www.jec.senate.gov...

4http://www.federalreserve.gov... (last paragraph)

Debate Round No. 3
Beverlee

Pro

Many thanks to Con for the debate!

In the final round, it is customary to refrain from presenting new arguments, since there are no opportunities to rebut them. So I will simply recap, and use this space to ensure that I have answered all of Con's claims.

First, the Burden of Proof traditionally lies on the party that is making an affirmative case, or arguing against conventional wisdom or established precedent. Since some form of minimum wage laws exist in almost every industrialized nation on earth, and a floor price on the sale of labor has been firmly established as legitimate law in the US for over 70 years, Con's argument that no minimum wage should exist represents a radical concept that demands extensive justification. No such level of justification has occurred here.

In this debate, even though I was never required to justify the minimum wage (only to challenge Con's justifications for its abolition), I nevertheless have tried to show why the minimum wage is useful within our economic system, and why it is both fair and needed.

The minimum wage relieves pressure on an overburdened social safety net.

The minimum wage promotes consumer activity among low-wage earners, who might otherwise become economic non-participants, or economic burdens.

The minimum wage is affordable to businesses.

The minimum wage has never been shown to increase unemployment.

The minimum wage helps grow entrepreneurial activity by expanding and empowering a wider consumer base.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Challenges

Of these justifications, Con only challenged the premise that the minimum wage has never been shown to increase joblessness. All other arguments were conceded or dropped.


Con supported his challenge with the following argument:

"Two studies showed that the minimum wage increases unemployment.Therefore, the minimum wage increases unemployment."

My rebuttal to this argument was to ask where all the unemployment is. The United States has the most powerful economy on the planet. Simultaneously, we are also home to one of the longest-running minimum wage laws in human history. In order for the claim that this law has created economic havoc, mass unemployment, and destroyed small businesses, to be believable, it seems that we would need some evidence other than the astounding economic success of the United States since 1938.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Poor Predictions

For example, Con points to a 2008 paper that was written by the "Bureau of Business Research" which predicted that the effects of a proposed minimum wage hike in the state of California would result in widespread job losses.

These predictions were embarrassingly wrong.

The 2008 minimum wage hike was one of a series of minimum wage increases that California passed; the 2008 increase had been preceded in 2007 for a total minimum wage increase of $1.25 an hour for California workers. Despite suffering from a catastrophic meltdown in the state's construction industry, and a severe downturn in agriculture, [1] California has seen a steady decrease in unemployment since passing the new minimum wages. The unemployment figures in many California metro areas is so impressive, in fact, that many economists are puzzled by the success. [2]

Further evidence that the Bureau of Business Research's predictions of mass unemployment never came true is visible when we look at specifically minimum wage employment over the time period in question.

The Food Services sector is the largest single largest employer of minimum wage workers, and is a good bell-weather for the employment rate of minimum wage workers. Following some of the largest minimum wage hikes in the nation, California saw some of the largest job gains in this sector. In very hard economic times, there seemed to be no shortage of minimum wage occupations available. From a report by "California Industry Employment Projections:"

"Full-Service Restaurants and Limited-Service Eating Places account for more than 62 percent of the projected job growth in this sector. As the economy recovers, it is anticipated that consumer demand for goods and services will increase" [3]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Why not just make the minimum wage $1000 an hour?"

This may not have been a serious question, so I won't spend too much character space on it. All wages are paid by an employer from profits that have been obtained from consumers. The minimum wage is a reasonable floor price on labor sales, and is funded like any other wage would be - from profits, increased prices for consumers, or a combination of both. It is preposterous to think that businesses can pay for a $1000 an hour minimum wage, just as it strains credibility to suggest that employers cannot afford a modest floor price for labor. To demonstrate the absurdity of this question, we should consider it's reverse: If lower wages promote prosperity, then why not eliminate all wages altogether? Then everyone would have a job and we would all be working. The fallacy is obvious.

The purpose of the minimum wage is not to put employers out of business, as this question may suggest. The purpose of the minimum wage is to allow workers to become active participants in our economy through work.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Note:
Con mistakenly thought that I said that the minimum wage has no discernible "economic" effect. What I actually said was that it has little effect on "employment." He accidentally interchanged the words "economic" and "employment."

The minimum wage has helped to sustain the American middle class, expanded the tax base, provided a pathway out of poverty for millions, and allowed businesses to market to entire sectors of the economy that might otherwise have never existed. It has been affordable to businesses, and has been implemented during times of great economic expansion and job creation, which proves that the fear-mongering from critics is overblown.


GarretKadeDupre

Con


Many thanks to Pro as well for this debate! In fact, I give her more thanks to her than she offered to me!



  • In the final round, it is customary to refrain from presenting new arguments”


Agreed.


Pro calls my case against the Minimum Wage “a radical concept that demands extensive justification”, but it doesn't appear to be very radical when you realize that there was no Minimum Wage during the economic prosperity of the Roaring 20s.



  • I nevertheless have tried to show why the minimum wage is useful within our economic system, and why it is both fair and needed.”


But you've failed, since the Minimum Wage obviously wasn't needed during the Roaring 20s, when the unemployment rate was lower than it is today!1



  • Con only challenged the premise that the minimum wage has never been shown to increase joblessness. All other arguments were conceded or dropped.”


Wrong. I also challenged the argument that the “minimum level of economic achievement (for workers in most regions) is around $15/hour”, pointing out your blatantly dishonest sourcing for this claim through the last 2 rounds, a problem that you've completely neglected to address.


Another argument which I challenged (and which Pro has incorrectly stated that I dropped) was the premise that “The minimum wage is affordable to businesses.” Allow me to quote myself from a previous round:


The victims are the jobless, the unemployed who could have been working, but weren't hired, because a business couldn't afford to hire them.


15% of young adults in the U.S.A. are out of school and jobless. That's 6 million people! Unfortunately, business can't afford to hire them at the rates the minimum wage laws require, so they leave them jobless.2 (added emphasis)


Pro has not addressed this.


Pro goes to say that I posed the following argument:



  • "Two studies showed that the minimum wage increases unemployment. Therefore, the minimum wage increases unemployment."


Let me point out that this is awful paraphrasing, and Pro hasn't even taken the courtesy to note that this is paraphrasing at all.


My argument on this point was also more elaborate than what my opponent tries to imply. I also provided a very clear graph that demonstrated how unemployment was lower without the Minimum Wage than it is with it.



  • My rebuttal to this argument was to ask where all the unemployment is.”


Where is the unemployment? Right here, in our home-country. According to the U.S. Department of Labor3, 11,OOO,OOO.OO people are unemployed as we speak. Almost half of these people have been jobless forover half a year!


In order for the claim that this law has created economic havoc[...] to be believable, it seems that we would need some evidence other than the astounding economic success of the United States since 1938.”


Astounding economic success of the United States since 1938? I guess you mean Black Monday in 1987.4 Or maybe it's the S&L Crisis that spanned two decades, during which time almost 1/3 of ALL savings and loaning associations in this country failed.5


But then again you may be referring to the Energy Crisis of 19797... or is it the Energy Crisis of the 2000s?6


There's also the Subprime Mortgage Crisis9 and Credit Crisis, complete with a recession in 2007.8


Pro says that the one of my sources, the Bureau of Business Research, made predictions that were “embarrassingly wrong.” This it totally irrelevant to this debate. I didn't reference their forecast for tomorrow; I cited their statistics on the past. Pro has said nothing to suggest that their hard numbers are even slightly off, and the fact remains: 16O,OOO.OO workers were laid off with the increase in the Minimum Wage in 2008.


I posed the question, “Why shouldn't the Minimum Wage be set at $20 per hour?” Pro responded with a rhetorical question of her own:



  • If lower wages promote prosperity, then why not eliminate all wages altogether?”


She then says that “The fallacy is obvious.” Well, I have to agree. It is obvious: she committed the strawman fallacy by misrepresenting my position. Throughout this entire debate, I have not once advocated for lower wages, nor claimed that they promote prosperity. I have only called for doing away with the legally imposed requirement on wages. Eliminating wages altogether would not sit with me either, since that too would require legally imposed requirements.


Regarding Pro's final note, yes, I admit that I mistook the word “economic” for “employment”; however, this was unintentional. I wish she would have found time to apologize somewhere in the last 2 rounds for citing a source that did absolutely nothing to back up her statement.


The Minimum Wage is not required for economic prosperity, and the success of the Roaring 20s is just one proof of this.


Abolish the Minimum Wage, let employers work with the Laws of Supply & Demand free from the interference of meddling, uneducated politicians, and vote for me!


1http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu...


2http://www.debate.org... (Round 2)


3http://www.bls.gov...


4http://online.wsj.com...


5http://www.gao.gov...


6http://www.usnews.com...


7http://www.time.com...


8http://www.uvu.edu...


9Lemke, Lins and Picard, Mortgage-Backed Securities, Chapter 3 (Thomson West, 2012).


10http://www.washingtonpost.com...


Debate Round No. 4
135 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
ok challenge me
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
"A right to life is a negative right--a right to preserving one's natural being without intervention by those who wish to harm one."

I will debate you on this.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Beverlee if you ever want to debate this with me PM me.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
I'm in another Minimum Wage debate. Am I doing better than this time?

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"Without life, there is no labor. Therefore, you guarantee the former to produce the latter."

Obviously, labor requires life. But a right to life is not the right to have other people work to sustain you. A right to life is a negative right--a right to preserving one's natural being without intervention by those who wish to harm one.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
"This is kind of why I am beginning to gravitate towards a stance that divorces welfare from work and from poverty. 'Welfare' should be a 'right', specifically the 'right to life'."

"The right to life is not a right to the fruits of another man's labor."

Without life, there is no labor. Therefore, you guarantee the former to produce the latter.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Perhaps this comment section should move to the forums? The debate ended awhile ago (future rematches aside).
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"This is kind of why I am beginning to gravitate towards a stance that divorces welfare from work and from poverty. 'Welfare' should be a 'right', specifically the 'right to life'."

The right to life is not a right to the fruits of another man's labor.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
"Wrich: Thanks! that is cool to hear from you, because I am starting to worry that you hated me!"

I will simply note that hate begets hate. If you are concerned with hate, then I would strongly suggest you use this word less often.

---

"pricing labor too low will price other labor sellers (workers) out of a job if they can't lower their prices as much as the other guy. That is one reason I support welfare, because it helps to subsidize American businesses who cannot afford to hire labor and still turn a profit. Min. Wages are part of easing poverty and supporting the customer base, which is why they have to be balanced; not too high, not too low. But they have to exist."

This is kind of why I am beginning to gravitate towards a stance that divorces welfare from work and from poverty. "Welfare" should be a "right", specifically the "right to life".
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"America also has no economic mobility, really, because everyone is pretty much a serf now."

During many of the golden years of American freedom, immigrants didn't flood here just so that they could live off of welfare checks and food stamps. They came here to work hard, climb up the socioeconomic ladder, and improve their own lives and give their children better lives than they had. People who were arguably ACTUAL SERFS--brought down by an artificial, state-prescribed hierarchy in their home countries--sought refuge in the United States to get the merit they deserve for their hard work.

If there is (or ever was) an American Dream, it was founded on socioeconomic mobility. Don't insult the generations of poor, illiterate immigrants and minorities who worked themselves to the bone in order to get the credit they deserved for their hard work. If they wanted your system of entitlements and so-called "equality," they would have simply stayed in the communist dictatorships that they had fled from.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
BeverleeGarretKadeDupreTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to a strong pre-existing bias on this issue (also known as being a university student, majoring in business), I shall refrain from awarding points to either side. ... Both got ugly on conduct and engaged in Straw Argument and other fallacies, which would balance closely enough. Both presented strong cases, con had some good humor wish such notable bits as Mount Rushmore, yet I remain surprised it was con who first mentioned the great depression, when much of his argument hinged on how awesome the 1920's were (the decade in which the great depression started). S&G would be tied since neither hid their arguments behind Jar Jar speak. Sources are not mere links, but evidence, to which pro comes ahead on thanks to carefully selected visual aids; plus con evened up the conduct a bit on jamming ten damned sources into his final round (harms conduct a little, not enough to tip it however. But gains him nothing on sources; nor do pro's 3 in that round.).
Vote Placed by zrg4848 3 years ago
zrg4848
BeverleeGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I think both sides made great arguments but pro had more believable arguments and I feel had better conduct. I started on their side and remained there easily. Both had good grammar but I think pros sources were much better.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 3 years ago
miketheman1200
BeverleeGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Right off the bat I awarded con points for his reliable sources and Con conduct because of Pros blatant straw man and trying to discredit Cons source on a totally different matter. Con gives the example of the roaring 20's to prove that minimum wages aren't necessary nor do they benefit unemployment. Pro destroys her argument in the first round when she says businesses wont survive when underpaying their workers. Exactly, and a business CEO should know this better than you and doesn't need, as con points out, politicians to tell them this. It is more beneficial to allow these low wage practices to be killed by unions or the death of the business. It is difficult to argue the case for minimum wage when literally businesses I have worked at have told me and others that wage increases will cause us to be let go. Not convinced by this argument Pro. Oh and great job to pro for making more points in the comments. Keeping it classy.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
BeverleeGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed how poverty is something that should be counteracted in a truly Capitalist system for true opportunity, while con's arguments were not very strong in showing the negative economic impacts of the minimum wage. Pro showed that whatever harm the minimum wage did, the good it did was better, thereby making it a good economic plan to enact.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
BeverleeGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
BeverleeGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: I read the whole debate. But I felt that the real point of contention was in the second round when pro failed to address how the Minimum Wage would help those six million unemployed Americans. For this, I gave the debate to Con for pointing out about the hiring process. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
BeverleeGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CONDUCT: Tied. Good manners on both sides; S&G: Tied. Clear arguments for both, spelling- and grammar-wise; ARGS: Pro fails to adequately refute Con's claims, and Con won the jackpot on his "Why not making the minimum wage $100,000?" question. Beverlee didn't take it seriously and ultimately failed to counter the challenge effectively, instead appealing to her arbitrary standard of "reasonableness." SOURCES: As Con argued, Pro misused sources that were supposed to back her claims, which is very ineffective. Con uses sources more effectively (and honestly) in this debate. (NOTE: I agree with Con's position in this debate, but I put all of my bias aside when judging it. My decision is only grounded in the arguments/refutations presented over the course of the debate.) Overall, it was a pleasure to read through this debate! Good job, guys!
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
BeverleeGarretKadeDupreTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent, high-quality debate! Ultimately, this came down to two points to me: poverty exists, poverty is bad. If poverty exists, then the Capitalist system is failing to ensure adequate wages. Insofar as that is bad, it should be corrected. Hence, minimum wage laws are necessary. I thought both sides made interesting points; however, I though both sides would have benefited from additional research and better integration of sources. Regardless, I Vote Pro.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
BeverleeGarretKadeDupreTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was good, though confounding at times due to a lack of discussion on certain issues. The two main issues that mattered in the context of the debate is whether the minimum wage actually benefits the overall economy and whether it affects unemployment. Pro does a good job of backing up the former, though it could be countered by the latter. This is where Pro makes the decision difficult. By not responding directly to Con's 160,000 number with anything about alternate causality, and by basically ignoring the point about how more people earning less than minimum wage would be hired, I find myself not fully convinced by her argument here. There does appear to be some effect, though she doesn't weigh against it within the round. So now I'm at an impasse, trying to decide between feasible long term impacts to the economy and likely harms to employment. As no weight is given on either side, it's left to me, and I find the impacts higher and slightly more believable for Pro.
Vote Placed by ModerateLiberalism 3 years ago
ModerateLiberalism
BeverleeGarretKadeDupreTied
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: I'm sorry, but from an economics standpoint, the argument that businesses should be paying more and shouldn't have to cut jobs just doesn't do it for me. It's all about what the businesses will actually do, not about what they ought to do. Con did a good job analyzing self-adjusting wages in a free market. And I would presume that raising the wage even with inflation would have no effect on the economy, considering the fact that their real wages would still remain stagnant, but that seems a bit irrelevant to me and didn't address the existence of the wage altogether.