The Necessity of Minimum Wage
Debate Rounds (5)
First Round: Acceptance
Second Round: Opening arguments
Third Round and Fourth Round: Rebuttals to opposing arguments
Fifth Round: Closing arguments.
Foul language, trolling, bigotry, insults, attacks, threats or disrespect toward a debator will result in automatic forfeiture.
Upon acceptance to the debate, I will start the opening arguments.
Topic: the Necessity of Minimum Wage, specifically in the United States.
The first round is for acceptance. the second round is for opening statements. With that I will start.
The Resolution to this debate is: Is minimum wage necessary in a capitalistic economy? I say, yes it is. and I will pose my argument as such.
Capitalism is not guided by moral principles
Capitalism is not guided by moral principles, only what makes a profit. Though a good or service may be produced because of necessity and for the good of society, the means by which it is produced can be exploited to drive profit. We have seen this during the rise of industry, where laborers were working 12+ hours without breaks, and grossly underpaid. Working environments were also such that it endangered the lives those employed. Machines of iron and steel could maim an adult. And if the machines didn't get to you, the polluted air would. There was much against the working man during the 20th century.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 under FDR revolutionized labor rights starting with the enactment of a minimum wage. The wage was based on necessity and not solely on economic worth. It also addressed the morality of child labor, who were also exploited for profit. Ultimately, society must demand employers to run their business with consideration of their employees, and not just what drives profit.
If we are indeed and capitalist economy, then pay should be based on economic worth. Menial jobs, then should pay less than skilled jobs. There is a limitation to this premise, in that there is a point where pay shouldn't be solely on economic worth, but also necessity. A wage of $7.25/hr for unskilled work is insufficient if a wage of $9/hr is what is needed to meet basic necessities (shelter, clothing, food). But any wage increase from there can be based on economic worth gained by the employee (experience, new skill).
The minimum wage is merely taking away a man's freedom to engage in voluntary exchanges with his fellow man. I want to hire you and you want to work for me at a mutually agreeable wage, but the state says no. That leads to nothing but unemployment. And forced unemployment is immoral.
No, in a capitalist system, wages are not based on "economic worth", whatever that is, but supply and demand. Stop trying to tell you fellow man who he needs and what he does not. Fascism is un-American and immoral.
Now, tell us why you think statism, forced unemployment and inflation are good things?
Economic worth or value measures the benefit labor has on an economic good or service. One can have economic value by agreeing to work full time to an employer, for that worker benefits the employer by producing some good or service that can then be sold to make a profit. A worker willing to work full time for an employer has economic value. with time, experience and the acquisition of a skill increases that worker's economic value to the employer (and ultimately the consumer) that would merit a raise in pay, and as skill and specialization increases for the employee, that employee would be worth more, and could bargain for better wages. My argument is that an employee, by agreeing to work full time, exchanges their time and effort for a rate they can live off of, at the very least. For that is the whole reason one has to work, to sustain oneself and/or one's family. To pay someone to agree to work for you at a less rate, at minimum, to sustain the worker, is among other things, immoral. It is accepting that even if they agree to work for the employer to make a profit and support their wage, they're time and labor isn't worth a wage to survive. There are few times that an employee would find it mutual agreeable to work a wage they cannot live off of, and only agrees because there are no other options.
The influences of inflation are complex, but is more affected by taxation, tariffs, and the unnecessary printing of money than a minimum wage. Indeed, such forces may force the employer to offer a lower rate in wages. Even at the dawn of industry with oil, steel, and manufacturing, companies have exploited labor to push the gains to its farthest level. If it were not for the government to advocate for the laborers, these companies would have continued to abuse their employees to maximize their profits at the financial and health expense of their workers. This is due to the fact that capitalism is not guided by moral precepts and the abuse of individuals is acceptable as long as it makes the employer a profit.
It does not matter what MORE affects inflation, minimum wages cause inflation, which is evil.
And we have already dealt with the nonsense that capitalism is immoral.
"Stop being a busybody and mind you own business" <--- Is this not an argument. And your last reply did not, to any respectable degree, defend your premise. If you disagree with me, I ask that you provide convincing arguments that we can debate on. With that said, I will continue.
Capitalism itself can be immoral, only if the actions are immoral. To make a profit itself is not immoral, but then becomes immoral if the means to make that profit, such abuse and exploitation, causing a decrease in the moral agent's automony. A laborer who agrees work full time for an employer, is agreeing to work for a wage that will sustain themselves, at the very least. No worker agrees to work for less than a livable wage, unless there was no other option. Just because a laborer, who had no other choice, agrees to work for 25 cents/hr when cost of living is sustained by $4/hr, does not make it right. And if the producer feels their product is worth producing because it is in demand and good quality, then it would be better to increase the cost of their goods for the consumers to buy, rather than continuously decreasing the wage rate to an unlivable wage. If the product cannot sustain the business, or the laborer, then a new venture should be pursued, or a new model of operation applied that is less costly.
There is a need to have society demand moral, ethical practices in capitalism, since capitalism itself does not consider moral or ethical practices unless it benefits itself (safer working conditions to prevent continuous worker strikes). And the idea of having a livable wage can be better realized if other factors such as taxation and unnecessary printing of money can be minimized. And also that acceptance any person who agrees to work full time, does so to, at the very least, to sustain themselves (food, housing, clothing), and to offer a wage that is unlivable, knowing they have no other option, is coercion and immoral.
And it is impossible to abuse and exploit anyone in capitalism, for capitalism is only about voluntary exchanges. It is possible to abuse someone in the fascism system you like, such as forcing them into unemployment.
And no, one who agrees to work for another is agreeing to work for the wage offered, nothing else. It is not the employer's job to worry about what you do wish your earnings. He is to mind his own business.
And yes, his agreeing to the wage offered does make it right. It is called freedom, which is opposed to the slavery your propose.
And there is no direct relationship between the cost to produce a product and its end price.
And there is no need for society to demand moral practices in capitalism when those demands are immoral fascism.
Capalism is about voluntary exchanges. It is YOU who is proposing coercion. No thanks.
10au192 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.