The Instigator
Cowboy0108
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
CommunistDog
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The best way to increase wages is to decrease unemployment.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Cowboy0108
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 75455
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Cowboy0108

Pro

I am arguing against price controls for labor and labor unions. Instead, I am arguing that the government should, instead of focusing on raising wages, should focus on decreasing unemployment.
My opponent can start in R1 or just accept. That is up to him/her.
CommunistDog

Con

Accepted.

I assume the debate will be:
R1 Acceptance
R2
State Argument
R3
Rebutals/ Closing Argument
Debate Round No. 1
Cowboy0108

Pro

Well, I will begin with the most basic of economic arguments: the supply and demand argument. If a business wants additional workers, the best way for them to do so is to raise their wage rates. This increases the supply of that good(in this case, labor). The trick is, we have to make businesses want more people working for them. In order to do that, we need to decrease the unemployment rate (however the gov't chooses to do that is not relevant for this debate). When we have 8% unemployment, the potential workers are scrambling to find jobs, and thus, are willing to work for less. However, if the supply curve for labor is shifted to the left (i.e. less supply of workers), the equilibrium price becomes higher because the unemployment rate is lower.
The second argument that I would like to raise is not really an argument. It is a fact. It is a widely accepted economic trend, and this trend is defined as the Wage Phillips Curve.
The curve shows a short term relationship between wage inflation and the unemployment rate. It says that as the unemployment rate increases, wage inflation decreases. Again, because the supply curve is shifted to the right, not the left. However, as the unemployment rate decreases, the wage inflation rate increases because companies are scrambling to find labor as opposed to labor scrambling to find jobs.

Well, these are my two arguments. Look forward to my opponent's response.
CommunistDog

Con

CommunistDog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Cowboy0108

Pro

Looks like Con has no arguments *another forfeit*.
Vote Pro
CommunistDog

Con

CommunistDog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by EmperorFresh 2 years ago
EmperorFresh
"the potential workers are scrambling to find jobs, and thus, are willing to work for less"

This isn't true, and is far from the actual statistics on the matter (if we're referring exclusively to the United States, that is). If this were the case, we'd see a downward trend in income or, at the very least, a decrease in wages during large period of unemployment. This is contrary to reality where it is clearly shown that wealth (for everyone) has only increased overtime, whereas the unemployment rate has remained fairly constant (around 5%-10%), regardless of industry, or how well the economy was doing at that particular period.

In addition, for this to be true, the United States wouldn't be leading the world in both disposable income AND gross average income per capita(as of 2012).

"It is a widely accepted economic trend, and this trend is defined as the Wage Phillips Curve."

Demonstrably not true though. What IS widely accepted is that it is short-sighted, too simplistic, and not a good indicator of economic growth due to how short its lifespan is. In fact, greater research as shown that it balances out after a few years, and is generally considered a trade-off, rather than a definitive fact. For that reason, this is a pretty shameless spin on the Phillips curve.

I have high hopes and good faith for Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
Cowboy0108CommunistDogTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
Cowboy0108CommunistDogTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits by Con, so conduct to Pro. Con never gave any arguments, whereas Pro gave the supply and demand argument, and the Wage Phillips argument. Con forfeited the rest of the debate, and these arguments stood unchallenged, so arguments to Pro as well.