There should be no minimum wage.
Debate Rounds (5)
3. Cross examination
4. Answer questions
I gladly accept this debate and I hope it will become a clean and friendly debate:)
I will be arguing that there SHOULD be a minimum wage everywhere, but specifically in the United States. I haven't tried a cross-examination round on here before, so I would like to try it and see how it turns out!
One fact I will be using a lot that everyone should agree with: Pay of an employee is not based on the difficulty of their job, but on how much wealth they produce for the company.
1. Eliminating minimum wage reduces poverty by creating new jobs
However much politicians drone on about the lower classes and low income citizens, the real problem with poverty in this country is the unemployed. While the lower class, averaging around 18000 dollars of income, have problems paying bills and may not have the best homes, they are a heck of a lot better off than those who bring in absolutely nothing. When their is a minimum wage, people who own companies can only hire employees who make more wealth then they cost. If they took away that limitation, then many more job opportunities could be opened. For example, the reason that they don't have someone standing at the door to greet you in fast food restaurants is that that person generates very little money for the company, but still costs 7.25 an hour. However, if you eliminated the minimum wage, you could pay that person very little, generating much needed income for a poor and probably uneducated person, while making the business a little money.
2. Having or raising a minimum wage kills off jobs
Right now, Obama is advocating for raising the minimum wage to about nine dollars. This would kill off many jobs and force businesses to make other cuts in vital areas. Say your average officer clerk generates 8.50$ in wealth in an hour. You, the business owner, of course have to pay the clerk at least 7.25$. So your making a buck off of them. But if you raise the minimum wage to 9.00$ an hour, you are now losing money on this employee. The reasonable thing to do if to fire them, which will hurt you in other areas, and will lead to the closing of businesses. Currently, about 2 million people in the US are payed exactly minimum wage, because they only generate so much wealth for the company. If the wage was raised, many of those would be fired, increasing poverty, and job opportunities would be lost, because the companies could not afford them at the new rate.
3. If there was no minimum wage, employers would not drop their pay.
Why not? Competition. The 2 million people on minimum in this country make up less than one percent of the population. The reason everyone isn't on minimum wage is because companies want the best employees, and will outbid another company for the person, driving the pay up. It shows in the fact that there are so few on minimum wage. The great fear is that employees will be payed a buck each an hour if there was no minimum wage, but that is just not the case.
Firstly, eliminating minimum wage creates more jobs with a lower pay. If there wasn't a minimum wage, business owners could pay as much money as they want. They could pay them $1.00 an hour so they wouldn't have to pay much money, but the workers wouldn't make enough money to pay for all of their needs. The reason minimum wage was made according to http://letjusticeroll.org...;, was to ensure workers received a fair rate of pay for their labor.
The reason there is a minimum wage is because the governments of nations that have them calculate the minimum income required to live a life that is just above what would be considered impoverished.
The minimum wage of a country is for human beings to ensure that the human being who is getting paid is not living in absolute poverty.
If you make $1 an hour you would nearly starve yourself, and not pay for rent. You wouldn't be able to pay for sports, clothing, taxes, shopping, and other activities that require more money.
The minimum wage that we have now would allow us to have enough money to pay for those needs.
3. Con's theory here is that if businesses can pay less, they will. I'm sure they'd like to, but that is not the way it works. As I said in the first round, about 2 million people in the United States are on minimum wage, less than one percent of the population. The reason there aren't more is competition. Businesses want employees, namely the best employees, to come to work at their place instead of a competitor, and they will attempt to do this by raising the pay. Competition drives prices upward.
The limit to how much an employee can be paid is how much wealth they produce. If a grape-picker is making their manager 8.00 and hour, but they cost 9.00, then your losing money, and it's not economical to keep that job. But if you eliminated the minimum wage, new jobs could open up for the unemployed, even if they payed a lot less.
For the next round, were posting our questions, and then in round four we answer them. Thanks!
1.Right now because of the high unemployment rate there has been downward pressure on wages and reducing the minimum wage would result in an instant decline in hourly pay for many Americans. There would be an immediate impact on consumer spending and the NYSE would start trending lower.If a decline in wages results in a decline in consumer spending you get a decline in jobs.
2.The minimum wage in countries that rank within the lowest 20% of the pay scale is less than $2 per day, or about $57 per month. If the US lowered its pay scale, do you think you could survive with the $57 a month??? Also, if the change really happened, then the US would have to lower its prices. We would have a greater debt!
3.A full-time worker who earns the current minimum wage makes only $15,080 a year. According to "Out of Reach," a report sponsored by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, in no state can an individual working full time at the minimum wage afford an apartment for his or her family. Walmart, the nation's largest private employer, whose pay levels are so low that many employees are eligible for food stamps! That's because the minimum wage needs to be raised. If the employees are eligible for food stamps, then if you LOWERED the wage, that means there would be an even greater number of people needing one, but also starving!
According to Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum wage hike to $9 would pump $21 billion into the economy.
"But if you eliminated the minimum wage, new jobs could open up for the unemployed, even if they payed a lot less."
That is not necessarily true! If you are getting payed a lot less you couldn't pay for needs, unless you were the upper class, so it wouldn't matter if there would be more jobs since the employer and worker would both be making little money at that rate. How? If the employer wasn't making much money because people couldn't make much money, the employer would have to lower its prices, or it would go out of business. If so, then the employer and workers would have to find a new paying job. Also, if they don't go out of business, the employer would make so little money based on sales, that the employer would be losing money IF he/she had more employees, like you claimed, to pay.
"Businesses want employees, namely the best employees, to come to work at their place instead of a competitor, and they will attempt to do this by raising the pay. Competition drives prices upward."
Yes, but name a few places that compete that way. Many Americans are unemployed right now, so they will take any job they will get. If a citizen wants to work for a higher paying job, but doesn't get it (which happens in a lot of cases), than they will have to stick with the lower paying job. If businesses were thrown an opportunity to pay less, they would. That means they wouln't lose as much money, and make even more. If their wasn't a minimum wage, there wouldn't be much competition left.
1. I am not quite following your logic here. Unemployment does not result in downward pressure on wages. Wages decline when the economy suffers as a whole. In fact, wages continue to go down even as the unemployment improves, meaning unemployed people are taking lower-paying jobs.
2. The minimum wage in those countries is two dollars because businesses there are so poor, they cannot afford higher pay. Imagine if the minimum wage there was like it was here. The businesses would not be able to afford to hire anyone, resulting in soaring unemployment and incredible poverty.
3. I think your missing the point. Raising the minimum wage:
A. Fails to solve unemployment, therefore poverty. If you can't buy an apartment with 15 grand a year, imagine what it's like with no income
B. Kills jobs. Remember, pay of employees is based of how much money they make for the business. If they have to be payed more than the wealth they are producing, the business is losing money, and they will be fired.
Here's an interesting question to think on: If nine dollars an hour is good, isn't ninety dollars an hour better?
I will number the quotes of mine you chose to respond to, for simplicities sake:
1. Here you start off on my point about the unemployed getting jobs by saying, "if you are getting payed a lot less you couldn't pay for needs". Well obviously it's better than not making any money. The point is it solves poverty. Also, you say, "If the employer wasn't making much money because people couldn't make much money, the employer would have to lower its prices". That is what would happen if you raised minimum wage. The business would start losing money, because the employees cost more than the wealth they produce for the company.
2. The concept behind eliminating the minimum wage is that it lowers unemployment by offering new jobs that might not have been available before due to the pay barrier. The unemployed would start with low paying jobs, helping them to scrape by, benefiting the business, and ending poverty in this country, while competition stops all pay from dropping. You, and others, seem fearful that employers will just drop their prices because they can. But again, less than one percent of the country is on minimum wage. Employers clearly do not pay the bare minimum they can get away with. Competition, and the refusal of Americans to work for little money, keeps pay up so high, and nothing changes just because the minimum wage they already don't pay their employees goes away.
Please make sure you read the whole thing, I think you missed some of my points last time. Thank you!
No, I did not miss your points. Your argument is basically that lowering the minimum wage decreases unemployment. However, it is truly based on an assumption that a business will create new jobs or more jobs all becasue they can pay employees less and their profits will remain the same. History demonstrates just the opposite. Go back to the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's. U.S. Steel received relief on corporate tax on profits only to not reinvest in their core business that produced the profits, steelmaking, but to buy marathon Oil. The tax cut savings went to buy a more profitable company for the shareholders, but saw increased layoffs and plant closings for the core business of US Steel.
So, trusting a business to protect a workers capability to earn is not the American way. There has to be a set minimum wage to ensure an employee has liveable income. Decreasing it will push individuals off the non farm payroll numbers, and decreases tax collection capability of local, state and federal income tax revenue.
As for your theory on competition, that is product focused, not employee focused. Yes, competion is good for producing quality items and encouraging investment in innovation, technology and the advancenent of goods and services. It is good for providing consumers alternatives to monopolistic practices and effects. It has nothing to do with whether a liveable wage should be set at at minimum level to ensure non exploitation of workers.
Let's address some of your other points:
"wages continue to go down even as unemployment improves:. Not true, let's look at recent trends. The spike in unemployment since 2008 has not seen a decline in wages even as more people do not get back on the employmnet rolls.
That is all I am going to say for this round. I only had 10 minutes to respond, so I am sorry that I didn't answer everything. Thanks!
Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
swimmergal forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jdog2016 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: I voted
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.