The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Necrophiliator
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Unemployment is a bigger problem to be dealt with than inflation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Necrophiliator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,416 times Debate No: 14957
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

socialpinko

Pro

My argument will be in favor of valuing solutions to unemployment over those to combat inflation. In a mixed economy like that of the U.S., it is impossible to erradicate either inflation or unemployment completely without causing the other to grow exponentially. Politicians regularly have to choose which is more important. Obviosly nothing is solved if inflation completely stops but unemployment soars through the roof and the same for the converse. I argue that unemployment affects a larger segment of the population so while it is also important to curb inflation, unemployment must at least take a slight precedent.

Unemployment is the state of an individual looking for a paying job but not having one. This is defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It refers to a person who has been actively seeking employment and has applied at least once in the last four weeks. This definition does not include people who are retired or those who are not actively seeking employment. I would also like to only use cyclic unemployment as seasonal and frictional unemployment are generally seen as impossible to curb.

Inflation: a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency ( opposed to deflation).

In introductory economics one learns that there is a tradeoff to trying to stop either inflation or unemployment. The general way to curb inflation is to limit spending which creates less demand and consequentially less jobs. This leads unemployment to grow. One also learns that the general way to curb unemployment is the exact opposite. Consumer and government spending. This is because more spending creates more demand which in turn creates more jobs. However this usually creates a surplus of products which makes supply large which reduces the value of the dollar.

I will argue that unemployment is worse for society then inflation while I will not deny that they are both issues to be dealt with.

I welcome any responder.

http://useconomy.about.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Necrophiliator

Con

I believe my opponent is referring to the Phillips Curve.
I, as Con, will be arguing that inflation is worse for society than unemployment.

Good luck to us both.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

Good luck to you.

To begin, if you wish please look at this study on public opinion on unemplyment versus inflation. It's just some food for thought.
http://www.businessweek.com...

I argue that with high unemplyment, more families are financially strapped. This is the logical conclusion. With families running low on money, they will spend or inject less money into the market through consumer spending. This can lead to surplus value which inevitably leads to inflation.

Now it is true that inflation affects everybody, usually mildly, however unemployment may affect less people but at a much higher cost. In families where members are unemployed all cash flow has ceised. When money becomes less valuable, at least you are still receiving an income. Unemployed families must rely on savings or the government. The current unemployment rate in the U.S. is around 9.8%. That is over 30million people.These people have no income. It is a much bigger problem than your income not being worth as much(I am not saying that inflation is not an important issue and something not to be combated). I live in Florida where the unemployment rate is almost 12%. That is approximately 1 and 1/2 million people. My main point is that rather then they're money being worth less(they still have money) they're entire mode of income is cut off.

While inflation affects more in a mild way, unemployment affects less in a severe way. And it is only less in cmparison to the whole country. These are several million people we're talking about.

http://www.census.gov...
http://www.google.com...
Necrophiliator

Con

===Condensed Suffering Vs. Dispersed Suffering===
"Now it is true that inflation affects everybody, usually mildly, however unemployment may affect less people but at a much higher cost. In families where members are unemployed all cash flow has ceised [Ceased]."

While I am no financial expert, from what I know of macroeconomics, this statement is false.

Pro is operating under the faulty assumption that unemployment and inflation have a linear correlation, when in reality, it's anything but linear. Especially when dealing with unemployment fluctuations underneath 10%, a slight reduction, say 1%, in unemployment equates to an over 5% increase in inflation. [1]

Moreover, inflation usually has the greatest impact on fixed income families, which make up the lower and middle class. This is because while CEO's and higher class businessmen (With variable incomes) can afford to raise the price on their goods and maintain profit, while people living on fixed incomes feel a steady crunch in their buying power.

Inflation is much more devastating on the middle and lower classes then the rich.

Additionally, it is really hard to say whether having a minority suffer for the greater good of the majority is a reasonable course of action or not. While my opponent seems to take it for granted that suffering should be dispersed amongst the people, he does not give any reasoning behind his beliefs, making them rather weightless assertions rather than actual arguments.

===Negative Consequences of Inflation Vs. Unemployment===

"I live in Florida where the unemployment rate is almost 12%. That is approximately 1 and 1/2 million people. My main point is that rather then they're money being worth less(they still have money) they're entire mode of income is cut off."

Inflation actually attacks a countries ability to compete on an international level. [2] Eventually, being unable to compete globally inevitably results in lost job opportunities, and the reinstatement of unemployment. This means that not only does prioritizing unemployment over inflation result in the eventual relapse of unemployment, you make your country's economy worse off then before.

Moreover, inflation is measured in percent increase per year. Allowing 12% inflation instead of twelve percent unemployment means that prices will double within approximately five years (Because of compounded increase). Just to put things into perspective, Pro is proposing to cripple the spending power of the ENTIRE lower-middle class to save a select amount of people.

===Mitigating the Negative Consequences of Unemployment===

Whereas we can use welfare and social security programs to mitigate the negative consequences of unemployment and reduce suffering amongst the unemployed, there is really little we can do to prevent inflation, other than slow down economic growth.

===Conclusion===

Pro bases his entire argument on the assumption that we should disperse suffering amongst the majority for the sake of a minority. However, as Pro does not give proper justification for this, ballot goes neg by default.

Thank you.

http://www.peoi.org...
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

socialpinko forfeited this round.
Necrophiliator

Con

Necrophiliator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkoNecrophiliatorTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Strong rebuttal from con, too bad of the double forfeit.