minimum wage should exist
Debate Rounds (3)
we know the minimum wage accomplishes its objective... because people are paid the wage. every time there's a minimum, that is what employers would pay. and, when the wage is set, it affects not jsut those at the minimum,but those closer to it, especially those who start out there and increase.
we shouldn't worry about inflation too much. if the relative few who get minimum cause some inflation... it will only be partial inflation, not full true inflation. full true inflation is where you increase everyone's wages and everything cost wise goes up etc... a pointless endeavor. but here with teh wage, those few will cause only some overall inflation and their benefit will not be fully or significantly offset by costs etc elsewhere given those on the wage are relatively few.
we shoudl require the wage, because on balance it helps more than it hurts, wage earner wise. sure, some people will not be hired bcause Joe A couldn't pay him two dolloars an hour, what he was maximum willing to pay. but, we should't cater to that relatively rarer exception... and could even make some common sense exceptions for certain circumstances. on whole, we have the mcdonaldization of america, millions make the wage who wouldn't, compared to a few who aren't hired because of the wage. consider if we have 5% unemployment... a lower wage if we're lucky might drop it a point or two, as the rest aren't employable at all.... but we'd have many many times that being paid less than what they should be, the minimum. on balance more benefit with the wage
there's some who argue against the wage as a matter of inherent liberty... but i simply disagree.
[side rant... also, the poor have a right to a certain stake of our resources... you can't deny a man from picking apples from a tree in the natural world... no one can claim a tree when they have millions of trees etc. perhaps we could find another way to provide for the poor, but as it exists now... this is the most direct and economical way... and asks from those who surely have, to share a portion, when they are trying to get even more resources etc. it's not like we're asking them to provide every gov benefit in the book. etc
The minimum wage is bad.
I began this round with a quote from the economist Henry Hazlitt:
"You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage you substitute unemployment. You do harm all around, with no comparable compensation."
Clearly, minimum wage causes unemployment. About this, another economist, Walter Williams, says regarding jobs that were cut back or eliminated due to minimum wage restrictions:
"None of these jobs paid much, but then I wasn’t worth much. But the real value of early work experiences is much more important than the little change a kid can earn. You learn how to keep a job. You learn how to be prompt, respect and obey superiors, and develop good work habits and attitudes that can pay off in the future. Additionally, there is the self-respect and pride that comes from being financially semi-independent."
Hardest hit by the minimum wage are the poor and children just entering the work force. Naturally having a minimum wage means the most menial jobs have to be cut, because you're not going to pay someone the minimum wage to just sweep a floor or something. That's why when you go into McDonalds, you see the cashiers making the food and sweeping the floor during off-peak hours.
The apple analogy, which I found while randomly googling this debate topic, puts this in the most logical way I can imagine. If the government mandates higher prices for apples, people who would have bought cheaper apples now buy no apples at all. The same with labor.
Some more economists, David Neumark and Olena Nizalova, found ironically that young workers in states with a lower minimum wage earned more money on average than workers in states with high minimum wages. Minimum wages aren't terribly helpful.
Also, the unemployment costs are higher than they originally appear. Inability to gain entry-level positions primarily for job experience make it difficult to apply for better paying jobs. Pretty much any time you want to apply to a job, you already need work experience, but you can't get it from anywhere because no one is willing to pay the minimum wage to an unreferenced and untested person. With fewer wages at stake, more businesses are willing to take the risk of hiring a new entry to the labor force.
Professor Joseph Sabia also studied the effects of the minimum wage on single mothers with high school diplomas only. He found in general that for every 10% increase in the minimum wage, they saw a 9% decrease in wages.
I don't really want to rebut my opponent too much in Round 1, but I notice that they wrote "a lower wage if we're lucky might drop it a point or two, as the rest aren't employable at all" and I cannot help but dispute that. The unemployment rate (as people ought to know by now because of the recent playing with statistics) is based on the people who are trying to find work but can't. No one who is actually trying to find work is honestly completely unemployable, but they are unemployable when you have to pay them a minimum of $7.25 to do even the most basic of tasks.
My opponent's side rant is also confusing to me. The minimum wage is well known for hurting the poor, so why does my opponent support it?
we both agree that the wage causes some unemployment. but that's simply the price we have to accept to ensure a broader range of people are paid decently. we can allow for two unemployed people if that means twenty are paid decent, for example. most people can eventually find minimum wage jobs... it might be a bit harder, but as far as i've ever seen, it can be done... especially in times that are not as bad as this current recession. that means the two unemployed will eventually be among the employed. anyone who can't ever find a job even in good economic times, probably is not worth hiring much at all, and even if they are worth two dollars an hour... it's the price we must pay to allow those twenty people to have a decent job and worth their way up the ladder.
Con is trying to make the norm where everyone makes 2 dollars an hour, and everyone closer to the wage will make that much too.. instead of finally making 9 at mcdonalds you'll finally make 4. the same people will be working their way up the ladder to the same positions, but they will simply find themselves making less and next to impossibly able to get by while getting there.
the norm works.... minimum wage ensures a standard, and works on a mass scale.
"Some more economists, David Neumark and Olena Nizalova, found ironically that young workers in states with a lower minimum wage earned more money on average than workers in states with high minimum wages. Minimum wages aren't terribly helpful."
a reasonable explanation for this is that those states don't have a minimum don't need it, cause their market is able to afford more without requiring more. also, i'm not arguing how much the wages should be, just that we should find a magic spot... too high would of course be bad, probably for everyone. even in those states that don't have them as high, the wage exists everywhere as that's required by federal law.
the minimum wage is not well known for hurting the poor.... it's well known for helping the poor. leave it to someone to throw out common sense, ie that we require certain standards in employment, and contort themselves to insist that the common sense standards are actually bad.
"Until the 1990s, economists generally agreed that raising the minimum wage reduced employment. This consensus was weakened when some well-publicized empirical studies showed the opposite, although others confirmed the original view. Today's consensus, if one exists, is that increasing the minimum wage has, at worst, minor negative effects"
"A Blunt Instrument; The Minimum Wage," The Economist, October 28, 2006.
"In 2006, the International Labour Organization (ILO) argued that the minimum wage could not be directly linked to unemployment in countries that have suffered job losses. In April 2010, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report arguing that countries could alleviate teen unemployment by "lowering the cost of employing low-skilled youth" through a sub-minimum training wage. A study of U.S. states showed that businesses' annual and average payrolls grow faster and employment grew at a faster rate in states with a minimum wage. The study showed a correlation, but did not claim to prove causation.
Although strongly opposed by both the business community and the Conservative Party when introduced in 1999, the minimum wage introduced in the UK is no longer controversial and the Conservatives reversed their opposition in 2000. A review of its effects found no discernible impact on employment levels."
I cannot even understand what my opponent is saying in the first paragraph. First of all, we obviously do not have infinite labor pools. That was pretty much all I could understand (my opponent's use of beans puzzles me) and I would appreciate it if my opponent could clarify this in Round 3.
I disagree with my opponent that the price is worth the result. After all, if you're one of the two people who end up unemployed so the twenty could be paid decently, you wouldn't be singing the praises of the minimum wage. It's better for more people to make less than for less people to make more, because that way more people are provided for to a degree. I don't know why my opponent is claiming that instead of making 9 at McDonald's you'd make 4. You can still get raises/promotions to bring you up from an entry level position. Just because there is no minimum wage doesn't mean people will just make less. My opponent has not responded to my claims about the minimum wage causing lasting damage by preventing people entering the job market which then hurts their ability to seek jobs in the future. I remind everyone that this entire segment is pretty much just conjecture, so my opponent cannot claim it is decisive proof of any sort.
My opponent concedes some states don't need a minimum wage. If not having one works for them, we can have it work for the country.
The minimum wage is known for hurting the poor through employment. If your skills cannot be marketed for minimum wage, you don't get a job. It's that simple. Without the minimum wage, people with less marketable skills could get jobs. Common sense shows the minimum wage harmful.
My opponent's own sourc agrees that the minimum wage has minor negative effects. I am confused how my opponent can therefore advocate for it.
I will now introduce the freedom argument against the minimum wage. As a nation of free people, it is not just to regulate the minimum amount of money we need to be paid. If we can't find a job for the minimum wage, we should be able to get a lesser job paying under the minimum wage, but we cannot. The minimum wage is against freedom.
I do not believe my opponent has conclusively proved minimum wage good, in fact at best I think my opponent has shown minimum wage to be slightly bad. I remind everyone that my opponent is Pro and Instigator, and therefore should have the Burden of Proof. If minimum wage is slightly negative, it should not exist.
dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
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.