The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Fluer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The minimum wage increases teenage and minority 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 1 vote the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,565 times Debate No: 19899
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

16kadams

Pro

First round acceptance only. To clarify this debate, my stance is the minimum wage destroys jobs (raising unemployment) mainly for teenagers and minorities. That is this is about. You say that it helps them.
Fluer

Con

You have so far proposed that minimum wages "destroy jobs" yet you have failed to give any reasons as to why it does so which I hope you can introduce in the next round so I will leave any rebuttal until such a point as I have something more substantial to rebut.
My points however will be that this increases competitiveness which is a good thing and then I will look at the state's duty.
So my first point then. What we see in society is that people actually need to fight to get a job which means those that want a job realise the importance things like good qualifications and gaining experience. This leads to a point where more people want these good qualifications and are more likely to get them because they are a necessity. Western society has become quite lax in that we don't have to work and we don't want to we are just going to live in an eternal playground. Not all people are like this and many in our society work very hard even with little qualifications but at least they know that they will get a wage that is deemed a liveable wage by their government and I will discuss this more in my second point. Those who are working hard already will still work hard in the future I don't think the minimum wage changes that at all it just gives them a suitable earning for the hard work they are doing. It also will not mean that those who are not working quite so hard at the moment will just be put off because of the competition. They are more likely to want to try for these jobs because they see how much of a necessity the job is and they know they will have the support of a minimum wage meaning if they get a job it will not be deemed completely pointless because they are unable to support themselves.
On to my second point where I will discuss in more detail how this specifically affects teenagers and minorities in particular. The state has a duty of care towards it's citizens and it has a duty of care towards minorities and teens to make sure that the workplace is a place of equality whether that bee in terms of age, race, gender, sexual preference or disability. Minimum wage actually supports this because it creates a right, the right that people have to not be discriminated against through the wage that they earned. Even if there are some people out there that think "If these employers are going to have to pay us all equally they are going to want to ‘make the most of their money' so I won't apply" we see this as the lesser of two evils. The government either lets discrimination like this happen to the cost of the teens and minorities because they cannot support themselves on the pittance of a wage they get or they make sure that those who get a job are supported in that job even if it makes it harder to get a job which I have already shown can actually be a good thing. No system is perfect but taking away the minimum wage will just cause more harms than we already have.
So to sum up I think more competition for a job is actually a good thing and because it is better to have more people unemployed an make sure that those in a job are properly supported than taking away this support this motion should be opposed.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

Also this video talks about C1 and 2

Before refuting your arguments I will show my own. Also you broke the acceptance only rule.

C1: It increases teenage unemployment.



Notice the minimum wage goes up, and the unemploymet does too. Let me explain this better, to an employer a job is worth a certian amount, lets say 5$ an hour. So cleaning the restrooms benifits e employer 5$ an hour, but he has to hire someone for 8$ an hour. So he is losing 3$ an hour if he hires soeone, therefor he wont hire anyone because he is losing money. And on average teenagers skillsaren't worth 8$ an hour, and hiring them would be charity, which is good, but most employers aren't in a financial position to do so.

C2: It incrases minority unempoyment

It is explained in the video above. Also most minorities, aloneg with the teenagers, are not well educated. ANd on average minority skills arent worth 8$ an hour, therefore wont get hired. (not rasict I am a minority)

C3: Increases overall unemployment

Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers. [1]

So the raise in the was cost thouthands of jobs. Increasing unemployment.

The vast majority of economists believe the minimum wage law costs the economy thousands of jobs. The most fundamental principle of economics is 'supply and demand'. In the case of labor, this means that the supply of workers goes up as wage goes up, and the demand for workers by employers goes down as the wage goes up. For example, imagine a janitorial job was advertised for hire. If the wage is $100 per hour, thousands of people would want the job. If the wage was $1 per hour, you probably wouldn't find anyone to do it. Conversely, if the government forced the employer to pay at least $7 per hour, the employer might decide not to hire a janitor at all, instead opting to have other staff pick up the duties. Thus, a job would be lost because of the minimum wage. Another example is restaurant employment. A manager might have $10,000 in her monthly budget to hire bus persons. If the wage is set at $7 per hour, the manager may only be able to hire 10 bus people instead of 15. Setting a mandated wage limit disrupts market forces of supply and demand. Just because there is no minimum wage doesn't mean companies can pay whatever they want. Would you work a dishwashing job that paid 25 cents per hour? Would anyone? If they raised the wage to $4 per hour, they might be able to hire a high school student. Consider some highly skilled jobs such as accountant, lawyer, and engineer. Do these people make $5.15 an hour? Obviously, the answer is no. Market factors of supply and demand determine how many jobs are available and what each job would pay. In summary, as the minimum wage goes up, the number of people employed goes down. When the minimum wage goes down, the number of people employed goes up. Keep in mind: the minimum wage only applies if someone is employed. [2]

Same thing.

C4: The minimum wage out sources jobs


When you force American companies to pay a certain wage, you increase the likelihood that those companies will outsource jobs to foreign workers, where labor is much cheaper. There has been a lot of attention lately on the subject of job "outsourcing", where U.S. companies hire foreign workers instead of Americans. When businesses outsource American jobs, they're not doing it because they hate America; they're doing it because they're trying to cut costs. When you increase the price of labor in America, you create an additional incentive for businesses to hire Canadian, Mexican, or other foreign workers. The best way to stop outsourcing of jobs is to provide the best conditions for doing business in America. A minimum wage just makes things tougher for companies to do business in America. Remember that American companies may have no choice but to outsource with the high cost in the U.S.--they may go out of business entirely if they can't cut costs to a level that's competitive with foreign competitors. [2]

Well that was a simple answer

C5: Hurts small buisness in turn ncreasing unemployment for teens, minorities, and overall as small buissness create most of the jobs in this counry

The minimum wage can drive some small companies out of business. Many people believe businesses have endless supplies of cash and can easily withstand minimum wage increases or other cost increases. Unfortunately, that's simply not the case. Over 90 percent of businesses fold within the first few years. Every time there is a recession, thousands of businesses go under. Restaurants, which pay wages at or near the minimum wage level, have the highest rate of failure of any business type. Anytime you increase the costs of businesses, you push them closer to the edge. Let's take an example. Imagine a small neighborhood hardware store. This hardware store isn't going to have the logistics and economy of scale advantages of say, Wal-Mart; thus, it must charge more. It probably makes up the price difference with better service. When you raise the minimum wage, it increases the operating costs for that hardware store even more. Thus, it must raise it's prices to cover costs. Eventually, prices get so high that customers conclude that shopping there isn't worth the additional cost. Slowly, the local hardware store is driven out of business.

Rebuttals

"So my first point then. What we see in society is that people actually need to fight to get a job which means those that want a job realise the importance things like good qualifications and gaining experience."

We agree, but how are those people going to get jobs if the minimum wage increases unemployment, increases teen unemployment, hurts minority roups, and out sources jobs? Sure one could get a job, but it would er with a minimum wage. Also you make it sound like having a job is a right, false, it is a privalege, no law grants it as a right.

"It also will not mean that those who are not working quite so hard at the moment will just be put off because of the competition."

Well how does it make competition? If everyone is unemployed and their jobs are now in china then there is no competition in the american jobs.

"The state has a duty of care towards it's citizens and it has a duty of care towards minorities and teens to make sure that the workplace is a place of equality whether that bee in terms of age, race, gender, sexual preference or disability. "


You fell into my trap. There is no law that says the govermet should care for its people. In no law whatsoever. The government is not obligated to take care of its citizens, as citizens have a responsibility to take care of themselves.

The government has some basic obligations to its citizens. These include protection from foreign enemies, providing justice, and maintaining certain services. It is not, however, obligated to fully take care of its citizens. Citizens are ultimately responsible for themselves. We do not live in a nanny state, and I doubt anyone would wish to do so.

I am running out of space, I will add on next round.


sources:

http://www.house.gov... [1]

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




Fluer

Con

Apologies about the acceptance rule and for my reply taking so long.
I want to start with a few points of rebuttal.
On your first point about teenage unemployment the employer will still hire someone because he needs someone to complete the work. What happens with the minimum wage means that he will now hire someone whose skills are at the level that the minimum wage requires. This brings back in my point about competition and why it is such a good thing because these teens see that they are only going to be employed if their skills are at that standard then they are either going to just not bother because they think they can get money easier else where in which case it is not the minimum wage doing the damage it is an underlying problem in society or they will work harder to improve their skills and get the job. This is good for two reasons the first one being the employers themselves are now almost guaranteed to have a reasonable standard in their work force which can only benefit an employer and the teens that put in the extra effort in order to get the job are rewarded accordingly.
On your second point about minority unemployment I see a flaw in this argument.
Let us take a look at who falls under the category of "minority". Their are women, homosexuals, disabled people and basically anyone who is not a straight white male with no health problems. That is a lot of people. Yes their will be many of those people whose skills are not worth the minimum wage but their will also be many straight white males whose skills are not worth the minimum wage. Let's now look at some of the problems I think you would have with these minorities. Firstly let me take anyone who is of a different sexuality to heterosexual out because no matter what anyone else says this is not something that would limit your physical or mental abilities making them no different to the "majority". The biggest "minority" are women and I agree being a woman that I am perhaps not as strong as my male counterparts and even without the minimum wage I would not be hired for certain jobs which is why we get jobs that are strongly linked with one or the other sex. However if I was to manage to get one of these jobs I would be looked on as cheap labour and even if I was able to complete the job as well as my male colleagues I would not be paid as much because I am discriminated against by stigma. The minimum wage means that there is more of a focus on potential employees skills rather than who they are reducing this stigma and leveling the playing field for men and women. It also brings in the point I made earlier about protecting those minorities in work where they would usually be discriminated against in their pay. The next minority I want to look at is disabled people. This breaks done in to many categories but I will just look at a few. Those who so mentally disabled that they are physically unable to work to any standard I will discount because I don't think the minimum wage will affect this group of people that much but I will say that this also brings in the point that any figures produced in a study of disability unemployment will be affected by this group not being discounted from the study making these figures tedious in this debate as they are not affected by a minimum wage. On to those who are only affected mentally to the extent that they can do some work who are very much affected by the minimum wage. They are affected by it so much for the simple reason that the jobs that they are able to do are usually not jobs that require that much mental activity but are still necessary to employers. This is where it becomes so important for these people to have a minimum wage due to this tendency for these vulnerable people to be used as cheap labour which is more damaging for these minorities because it sends out a message that minorities are not worth an equal pay even if the individual can carry out the work to the same level as any other colleague. This adds to a stigma within society that marginalizes people and puts a focus on what you cannot do not what you can do. For those who suffer a physical disability that means they cannot do certain physical activities say if they are in a wheelchair they are not likely to work in a warehouse but this does not mean that they cannot work in another profession like teaching. It may not seem like the best example to use however it shows the strength of a stigma and the effects it can have on people. If there was no minimum wage in place to protect show that people with disabilities have to be treated equally makes us realise as a society that we cannot discriminate against anyone in there pay because in today's society it is immoral do this. This means that the person in the wheelchair who wants be a teacher is more likely going to be considered because society sees that even though they are not able to walk they still have the same capabilities where their brains are concerned. It is dangerous to only consider minorities in one category as so many people fit into the category of minority and they have very individual "problems".
Being a teenager in University my personal experience is that it is harder to find a job with minimum wage but when your rights to a fair wage are protected then when you do get a job it is worth while loosing valuable revision time if you are getting paid a fair amount. What we tend to see with the types of jobs that students and teens apply for is that there is a very high turnover because generally people at this point are not looking for a career they are looking for a bit of extra cash. So the jobs that are typically for teens tend to be in be constantly seeking out new workers meaning that there is always demand for workers.
Outsourcing jobs may be a problem but it highlights the problem that minimum wage solves. They cannot find cheap labour in their own country because the government has deemed it immoral to pay people practically nothing when large companies (because it is large companies that will outsource) can usually afford to pay people an honest wage but would chose not to so that those at the top of the food chain can line their pockets even more and it is this unethical behaviour that I believe that government has a duty to protect it's people from and minimum wage is they way to do this.
Not every company and employer is going to outsource to other countries like China therefore not every single job will be lost like you seem to think.
On your points of rebuttal I don't think that a job is a right rather people have a right to be protected from discrimination in that job.
On your last point of rebuttal let me explain something for you. The state's duty of care is not a law, and never once did I say it was, it is simply the definition of a state which claims to be in a democracy. This is called the role of the state. As humans we have the right not to be killed that is why the state protects us from harms either from home or abroad. As humans we also have the right not to be discriminated against which is why we have the minimum wage. The role of the state is not a law it is the definition of fundamental principles and therefore very important in this debate so please to not dismiss it in such a fashion. Citizens are responsible for upholding their side of the social contract which if you are a human you are born into. This social contract is what gives us these positive and negative rights which the state is put in place to enforce. It is not a "nanny state" it is a democracy.

I know that I am lacking in substantial evidence however I feel it is more important to make my points clear and then back them up with evidence rather than make the evidence my point so I will be adding evidence in the next rounds.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

Instead of rebutting your already rebutes statements I will just add onto my case.

C1: teenage unemployment rises due to minimum wage:


http://www.americanthinker.com...

min wage=blue

red=teen unemployment

I love how when the minimum wage increases unemployment begins to rise. this explains itself. I will show more graphs



This goes with my second contention, minimum wage increases, teen unemployment has a slight rise, and so does the minority kids. Also these are both from goverment sources ie the first one is nancy pelosi. The both show hikes in unemployment.


C2: raises minority unemployment

graph above

Minimum wage workers are not well educated. About 40% don't have a high school diploma, and a third have only a high school education. Just 3% of those working at the minimum wage have graduated from college. [1]

About a fourth of those working at the minimum wage are married, and 80% of them are women. It's reasonable to assume that most have working husbands, so their earnings probably don't affect the family's standard of living very much. [1]

ALso the first source shows that if you raise it buisness lay of teenagers and minorities forst.


http://www.forbes.com...;[1]
Fluer

Con

Since there is not a lot in your last argument I won't take as long on rebuttal.

Taking your graphs, they do appear to show that teenage unemployment rises with increases in the minimum wage but I see two problems with this. Firstly that you seen to have forgotten that the financial world was brought to it's knees around the time where both the minimum wage and unemployment figures went up. It was not solely due to an increase in the minimum wage and all unemployment figures sky rocketed around that time and I think it is an important fact to remember. The second thing I see wrong with using this graph in this debate is that we are not debating whether a rise in the minimum wage increases teenage unemployment we are debating whether having a minimum wage is better for teens and minorities or not. There are limits to what price this will be effective but at the times in the graph you deem important the world was on it's knees and I don't find this a valid case for this debate.
The part of the graph that I do find interesting however is the information prior to January 2007 where the minimum wage was held constant (but there was still a minimum wage in place) and the unemployment figures actually decreased. I will look into this more in my substantive.
I also have a few problems with your next point. But before I discuss it I would like to ask you for clarification on your sentence : "ALso the first source shows that if you raise it buisness lay of teenagers and minorities forst." I'm having trouble following what you mean.
I also believe that your point, "their earnings probably don't affect the family's standard of living very much" actually supports my argument as you have failed to realise that most women who are working at the minimum wage will not be married to someone who is in a much greater financial situation to themselves therefore the family's standard of living is very much reliant on both incomes. Also if we assume that you are somehow suggesting that we take the view that simply because a women is married then her husband can support her you are actually damaging the minorities case. As I have said before minorities are at risk of being used as cheap labour and this statement makes it sound like you think this is something that is acceptable. I shall explain. The minimum wage is not in place and a married women applies for a job, if we are to assume that this women is being financially supported in a sufficient manner by her husband then they company looking to save a few dollars decides to hire her for a ridiculously low wage (being British I am not sure how many dollars this would be but in Britain I would say �3 an hour) instead of what the skills and labour of the job actually requires, �7 an hour. Since we do not have a minimum wage in place there is no stopping this from happening and the women is discriminated against in her pay which the state does have a duty to stop as this is the role of the state.

On to my substantive now. I will discuss in more detail reducing stigma and will then discuss minority education.

Going back to the graph, there are a few reasons that can explain this decrease in unemployment which shows how important the minimum wage is. The first one is stigma. teenagers are seen in society as having less experience therefore being less able to work (I am discussing from a personal view). When this happens teenagers are generalised and paid less simply for being of a certain age even though you have the skills required for a higher wage. Teenagers are then more likely to think a job isn't worth it because they are not going to be paid according to their skills and they pay they do receive is mostly likely to be unworthy of the time they sacrifice for the job. In this case less teens are going to have the incentive to go out and get a job. When a minimum wage is introduced teenagers have to be paid a reasonable wage (though still less than adults in Britain accounting for lack of experience due to age) and so a job therefore becomes worth it. When more teens apply for jobs they become a bigger available work source for employers meaning they will more likely look to teenagers for work in specific areas. Stigma is also combated here as teens are now a valued work force not just kids looking for more pocket money. Combating stigma for minorities also works in a similar way.

For my second point about minority education I would like to clarify that I think this applies mostly to ethnic minorities so that is how I am classifying "minority" for this point. Especially in American we tend to see many poorer areas dominated by minorities. These areas do not have the best services and tend to have higher crime rates. This means that it is very difficult for people living in these areas to get a good job and break out of this life of near poverty. For those minorities that are trying to break away they have to have the same chance as anyone else at getting a job and starting a career. A minimum wage does not guarantee a job or a career but it levels the playing field by ensuring that minorities are treated equally. The problems you discussed about the lack of education stem from many of these minorities living in poor areas because of the way they bad were treated and are sometimes still treated today. This rises from stigma and racial hatred which the minimum wage can do some good in combating. It also arises because many of these minorities have immigrated in search of a better future. Those initial immigrants were not given the best chance of a new future but that can be changed now for their children and grandchildren because the minimum wage is the governments way of saying that everyone has the right to be treated fairly and not be discriminated against.

To recap, because the minimum wage helps combat stigma in society and gives everyone a level playing field in their work then it helps teens and minorities more than it hinders them.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro


sorry for the short argument last time my internet kept fritzing.

"Taking your graphs, they do appear to show that teenage unemployment rises with increases in the minimum wage but I see two problems with this. Firstly that you seen to have forgotten that the financial world was brought to it's knees around the time where both the minimum wage and unemployment figures went up."

True, but 06 was when things began to fallout. Notice the minimum wage still flat lined in that period and the unemployment was fairly the same. But when it rose it shot up. Also is says it rose mid 07, so before then it was flat line. It goes up ONLY when the minimum wage increases.

Unemployment rate in December 2006 (last month of Republicans controlling both houses of Congress): 4.4%.

Unemployment in October 2009 (after 34 months of Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, and three minimum wage increases in those 33 months): 10.2%. [1]

this isn't a democrat political bashing, but that's when the min wage rose.

"he part of the graph that I do find interesting however is the information prior to January 2007 where the minimum wage was held constant (but there was still a minimum wage in place) and the unemployment figures actually decreased."

when it was still slat line it was going up above the line and below it. 03-06 it was above, then it fel mid 06 and 07. then rose slightly above the line just barely before the increase. So when it flat lined it fluctuated from about 4-6% according to the source. And after the wage it hit about 10% and kept rising. So it had a consistent up and down. but still fairly similar. We see this on all economic graphs, it goes up down (slightly) then rises when the suspected cause moves.

"Also the first source shows that if you raise it business lay of teenagers and minorities first." I'm having trouble following what you mean."

I mean that the least skilled get laid off first.

"Going back to the graph, there are a few reasons that can explain this decrease in unemployment which shows how important the minimum wage is. The first one is stigma. teenagers are seen in society as having less experience therefore being less able to work (I am discussing from a personal view)."

That is my point, the least skilled get layed off first and are less likely to get hired. Teenagers and uneducated minorities get hurt first. And will be affected as they do not get hired. Thank you for that post.

"A minimum wage does not guarantee a job or a career but it levels the playing field by ensuring that minorities are treated equally. "

1. how does it level it because I have proved that it hurts them?

2. Sure it sounds great but they will be less likely to get a job with a minimum wage. So get paid 0 because the minimum wage makes it impossible to get a job or get paid 4$ an hour cause they can get a job because the minimum wage was lowered or destroyed. So under my proposal they are more likely to get hired, and have their payment risen from 0 (unemployed) to example 4$. 400% increase.

"To recap, because the minimum wage helps combat stigma in society and gives everyone a level playing field in their work then it helps teens and minorities more than it hinders them."

How does it combat stigma? If your unemployed for a while sometimes you gve up. It has happened recently in america, 200,000 people have given up. So it increases stigma. It doesn't even it out because they don't get hired, it does the opposite. I will explain shortly.

C1: Increases teenage unemployment.

I have proven this, but i will explain how it makes the playing feild more uneven.

Most labor economists will tell you that minimum wage increases lead to decreased employment among workers with the least skills. A survey of more than 100 studies on the subject by Drs. David Neumark and William Wascher confirms this fact: A sizable majority, including 85% of the studies the authors identify as providing the best evidence, show disemployment effects following a mandated wage increase.

Our research adds to this literature while uncovering additional information. Using Current Population Survey data from the last two decades, we focused on males between the age of 16 and 24 without a high school degree — a vulnerable group more likely to be displaced as a consequence of rising labor costs.

With a dataset of more than 600,000 observations, we were able to examine in-depth the employment histories of white, black and Hispanic males. We discovered that not every race and ethnicity was affected equally by minimum wage increases at the state and federal level: Each 10% increase in the minimum wage was accompanied by a decrease in employment of 1.2% for Hispanic males, 2.5% for white males and 6.5% for black males. [2]

So since they are unemployable they cannot be even due to the faact that they will hav harder times looking for a job. SO once again, it unemployment or 4$ n hour better?

Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs. Sure enough, the mandated increase to $7.25 took effect in July, and right on cue the August and September jobless numbers confirm the rapid disappearance of jobs for teenagers. [3]

So it raises unemployment, especially for teens.

The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. Congress began raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in July 2007, and there are now 691,000 fewer teens working. [3]

So the economy has is a factor, but the minimum wage is too.

SO yeah I have basicallyproved this with facts...SO now ot the minority.

C2: raises minority unemployment

for 3 reasons:

1. The minimum wage harms the least productive most [4]

2. The minimum wage harms poor areas over rich areas [4]

3. The minimum wage makes discrimination less costly, therefore easier to discriminate [4]

2. is obiously right so lets focus on 1 and 3.

1. The minimum wage harms the least productive most

What politicians won’t tell you but what ALL economists know is that the people who are most likely to lose their job due to an increase in the minimum wage are the least educated, the ones with the least skills, and the ones that are likely to keep their jobs are the more educated, the ones with the most skills. [4]

this isn't meant to be rascist but on average minorities have the disavantages above.

So being that minorities are the ones that tend to be less educated either because of a poor public school system, or the lack of english speaking parents at home, it is primarily poor minorities that feel the brunt of the minimum wage - while middle class white students reap most of the rewards. [4]

3. Discrimnation

you claim it helps them, false I will prove it discriminates.

Lets say that I was a racist and I wanted to open up a restaurant but I hated Mexicans so much that I refused to hire any in my shop. [4]

So okay, I am a stubborn racist and decide to do it anyway - problem is, to get the same quality of workers I have to now pay them more per hour, say $8, or $10/hour. That is the beauty of the market system, I now have to pay for my racism. [4]

Now, factor in the minimum wage and what happens? Well you have just made it easier for me to be racist. [4]

you have reduced and spread out the costs I previously had to incur to follow my racist beliefs [4]

go to my 4 source for more info.

sources:

http://www.americanthinker.com... [1]

http://www.freerepublic.com... [2]

http://online.wsj.com... [3]

http://hispanicpundit.com... [4]

Fluer

Con

Fluer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
16kadams

Pro

my opponent has FF'd, I deserve conduct. VOTE PRO as I had evidence.
Fluer

Con

In light of my previous round I doubt there is much point in putting in a summation now.
Relatively enjoyable debate though.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
what was wrong with my format
Posted by janus 5 years ago
janus
The demand for labor is capped at a certain point, so the presence of minimum wage or the elimination of it will only increase or decrease unemployment within the boundary of the available number of jobs. Simply put, with minimum wage: more people work but get paid less; without minimum wage: less people work but get paid more. If more people work but get paid less, it appears to me to be a redistribution of wealth and hence utility. So, net utility of all people affected by the minimum wage in the labor force remains the same with or without this floor.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
it wont let me post my argument O.o
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
the rules differ depending on the instigator, mine said acceptance only. But it's ok :)
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
its fine
Posted by Fluer 5 years ago
Fluer
one of my first i mean
Posted by Fluer 5 years ago
Fluer
what do you mean?
This is my first debate on here so I don't know all the rules yet
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
you broke a rule already, first round acceptance
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
:( no one has accepted, by tommorow
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
yay
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
16kadamsFluerTied
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: Conduct Pro. Sources Pro. Argument Pro. Overall, Pro's argument was not only backed up by facts but also with many sources. Although Pro's formatting really does suck.