The Instigator
longstreet01234
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Devnith
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Tips at restaurants should be done away with for minimum wage and employee benefits..

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...
longstreet01234
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 379 times Debate No: 92013
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

longstreet01234

Con

I don't believe that restaurants should be forced to pay their employees minimum wage or give them benefits such as healthcare or dental insurance, due to different reasons on both topics. The average gross revenue for small businesses is usually less than $50,000 a year. From any source I could find most restaurants make quite a bit more gross income than small businesses, so let's say double the amount and say that on average restaurants make a gross income of $100,000 per year. Strictly from the businesses perspective the cost of minimum wage would be catastrophic. According to Statista the average fast food restaurant has about 16 employees. If you were to divide that by 2 that would likely give room to tell how much small restaurants have. With them paying only the federal minimum wage, and their employees work 40 hours a week, it would cost the small business $111,360 a year to pay their employees. That alone would be enough to put the restaurant out of business and that doesn't even include other expenses. The reason other small businesses don't go out is because most of them don't require many employees and are usually run by 1 or 2 family members which is practically impossible for a restaurant. The second problem with paying them the minimum wage is it actually hurts the worker more. Most of the time the employee makes more money when getting tips because the employers give them about $4 in most cases and they usually get another $6 by tips in an hour meaning they get 10$ an hour easily. As for employee benefits, let's look at healthcare which for a single individual is usually at least $6,000 that is $48,000 for a restaurant with 8 employees for the base medical expenses. That leaves little room for any other expense and would prove to be quite harmful to most restaurants.
Devnith

Pro

Longstreet has completely lacked to state the sources for any factual evidence in his argument. Lets write a factual version of his argument. according to Jonas Mikka Luster a psychologist the average income is $250,000 The average minimum wage is $7.25 according to DOL (Department of Labor)
also according to OECD (Organisation for Economic and Co-operation and Development) the average working our for a minimum wage American is 1 789 annually, it would make the annual wage for a minimum wage American $13417.5. With Governmental healthcare and dental insurance, it would cost the business only $200 for all employees annually on a shared plan. We shall use 8 employees as well for our example. It would cost the business around $109340 or about %43 of their gross income and this is including insurance. This rebuttal paragraph has clearly proven the lies that my opponent has told you.

As I said in my rebuttal, only about %43 of the income of the restaurants are used to pay restaurant employees. This is no way detrimental to the business, as my opponent thinks. Insurance, in my opinion, should be essential! If, an employee is severally burned by a faulty stove etc. They can easily access the insurance for injuries. But if a company lacks insurance the employee most likely is going to sue the business. Now using the business is detrimental to the finances of it If the restaurant is sued it most likely will close due to the expensive high in legal fees. Which can also result in more people losing thier jobs.
Debate Round No. 1
longstreet01234

Con

I did state one of sources being Statista which used IBIS world. My other sources are businessknowhow.com which used the Bureau of Labor Statistics which I used as well and managingyourhr.com. Granted I don't have exact number of gross income yet with the little information I had, being that small businesses usually make less than $50,000 a year. But my opponent is gravely mistaken on one issue especially being the fact that the insurance and minimum wage combined would be higher than he has stated. The way I did my math on that was simple, I multiplied 7.25 to 8, then 40 to represent the 40 hour work week, then since on average there are four weeks in a month by four, then by 12 to give a good (though not perfect) idea of what a year of work would be under this for 8 people total. With that alone you would get $111,360. Then you add on basic medical insurance which according to http://www.managingyourhr.com... cost on average $6,881 per employee, though I was conservative with my numbers and went with 6,000. The combined total of that and minimum wage would be $159,360. Which is 63% of his sources profit and $50,000 more than what my opponent told you. He also seems to misunderstand what I mean for healthcare or insurance. I am meaning insurance from outside injuries. If it was an injury that was caused by the owner regardless of where or when it happened, the owner would be, by law, expected to pay for it. What I mean are expenses that are caused by the employees, without the employers interference. My opponent didn't even talk about the fact that people who are getting tips actually make more money than the minimum wage, which is supported by the Atlantic and Washington Post. Also since many tips are just simply not reported many end up not paying taxes on the tips. As for Jonas Mikka Luster stating $250,000 was the average, my statistics as I have stated come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, his came from a psychologist, someone who studies the mind, not business. (Could you also show me where exactly he said it, I was not able to find that.) Yet even if his source were correct, according to http://smallbusiness.chron.com... approximately 32% of income goes to food already, add that to the 63% from the $159,360 you have left the owner 5% , or $12,500 of his income to spend on better facilities, bills, any other expenses and themselves for an entire year.
Devnith

Pro

My opponents have false calculations he multiplied 7.25 by 40 when the average working hours is 35 which means his entire argument is completely inaccurate. He has not presented any new points and his rubbish rebuttal on my
" They can easily access the insurance for injuries. But if a company lacks insurance the employee most likely is going to sue the business. Now using the business is detrimental to the finances of it If the restaurant is sued it most likely will close due to the expensive high in legal fees. Which can also result in more people losing their jobs." is ". If it was an injury that was caused by the owner regardless of where or when it happened, the owner would be, by law, expected to pay for it. " This is literally him agreeing with my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
longstreet01234

Con

Yes, my calculations weren't based around the average, which I knew, rather the number many people like to use to debate with; though it doesn't change my argument much at all. The owner would still lose $145,000 or 58% of his income with food he would still only have 10%, or $25,000, to pay the rest of the expenses and live off of. I was not agreeing I was stating what you're talking about and is true which is reliability insurance which is meant to protect the employer not the employee. What I am talking about is where the restaurant is paying for any outside medical expenses. The fact that my opponent has not been able to grasp that simple idea has proven his inability to debate this subject. I did present a rebuttal against his, because his main rebuttal was that I didn't have sources, so I supplied them. I showed him why his figures and sources were inaccurate, he hasn't addressed it. All he has done stated that my rebuttal was rubbish, proven his ignorance in his lack of knowledge on healthcare, and only made one valid point which was a minor detail that was properly fixed. My opponent still hasn't even addressed the fact that the employee is benefiting from this as well. If he truly wants to rebut my position, he must tear down all of my arguments and build his own which he has not done this entire debate.
Devnith

Pro

In my opponents first sentence he claims that his calculations are not based on the average,which means his data and his calculations are inconsistent. He just still gives me statistics which are wrong. In his round 3 arguments, he just attacks me personally, which I do not really mind. He provided inaccurate data and yet he has the nerve to call my sources inaccurate. The employee is not benefiting at all which he claim's they are, in his 2nd argument. They would be better off with health/dental insurance over better wages. He also claims that I have a lack of knowledge on healthcare but fails to state why. His lack of knowledge and his minor anger has driven him to a "ramage-ish" argument over a good factual one
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Wylted 12 months ago
Wylted
I have been wanting to argue pro on this for a while. Challenge me in a weeknif you don't get a worthy opponent
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 12 months ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
longstreet01234DevnithTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that if we do away with tips it will hurt small businesses. Its a shame that Pro didn't lay out an actual case, as was his job. As pro, he has burden of proof. That means the only thing im evaluating this round on the harm on small businesses. Even if that harm wasn't real, even the risk of that harm possibly being real is enough to vote con, because there's no real benifit to voting pro anyways. why take the risk of any negative change. Next time pro should make his own unique arguments for why we SHOULD, not just refuting the negative arguments. and both sides should use more sourcing and put the sources in the debate. Con is the only one with a source in the pasted in the round and proved that pro's source was inferior due to it being by a psychologist