Unemployment is a bigger problem to be dealt with than inflation.
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
I, as Con, will be arguing that inflation is worse for society than unemployment.
Good luck to us both.
To begin, if you wish please look at this study on public opinion on unemplyment versus inflation. It's just some food for thought.
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.
"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. 
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.  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.
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.
socialpinko forfeited this round.
Necrophiliator forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 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: Strong rebuttal from con, too bad of the double forfeit.
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.