The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

minimum wage should exist

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 4 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 512 times Debate No: 60710
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

linate

Pro

i am for a minimum wage. i am not arguing a specifc amount, just that it be a reasonable amount a single person can live off of reasonably. we're only debating whether it should exist or not, not how much. i am responding to common objection to the wage from the get go.

anywhere i look anyone can get a job for minimum wage if they have their bits together. the only people i know, from experience only which might not be accurate i concede, who can't get a job at minimum wage are the dim wit slacker type. so, no one is being denied a job because of the wage, really. maybe the low wits are being denied 3.50 jobs, i'm not sure, but i doubt we should worry about that too much.

i say 3.50 jobs, because that's what the wages would go to without the minimum. to prove this, all we need to do is look back to the 80s. back then, the minimum by law was 3.50. and you can bet people were being paid that much at mcdonald's too. what did increasing it do? it simply caused the people who were paid much less than they shold have to be paid more. so, i think the notion is empiraclly proven wrong that economics will cause the wage to increase, if only we'd ban the minimum, because it hangs around at the minimum, stopping it from going lower. if it were still 3.50 today, that's what people would be paid.
and yes, i agree, workers don't stay at exactly 3.50 for long but increase with experience, but they do stay in that low territory for long. so you can't argue it's only temporary.

they can work their way up to better jobs, sometimes but not always. whatever the case, they should get a fairer wage whether temporary or long lasting. most places like mcdonald's and other sterotypical places can afford it, and make enough to pay a fairer wage, so they should. also, i'd be open to allowing categorical exclusions or something for people who pick dandelions for others or somehting. they shouldn't be paid minimum wage. most jobs should though, mcdonald's etc.

if you can't afford to pay a decent wage, you sholdnt be in business. we're always denying someone the opportunity to hire for beans but that doesn't mean we should just ban the minimum wage.

it's like denying indians the right to land: as a practical matter we have to have laws that prevent them from land, but we should recognize how our laws infringe, and act accordingly. with indians, and here. or, imagine a primitive world where a man has all the land taken up by the laws of man, and using technology to claim it like in farming etc: a family wanting to branch off can't because of the law of man, the law of God says they can. it's not stealing, it's fixing the fact the family has the right to take what God has given everyone but laws prevent it and keep things civil. these analogies are happening today, as we prevent people access to the natural world, which is a right. we have to recognize how laws infringe and act accordingly, if not by ging land, then by something else, to be reasonable and not partition everything absurdly.

also, even if some places pay more than minimum doesn't mean we shouldn't have the minimum, as has been suggested. if it's not being used, hten great. if it is, then that's when it matters and the law should exist.

also, i agree a wage increases inflation, but it does not nullify having the wage. peple often argue increasing wage increases price of goods so teh wage increase is canelled out and they are doomed to minimum living. but this is not the case. true inflatino would be if everyone got their wages increased. if just the minimum gets it, inflation would increase, but not wholly, and so the incrase would be much less proportionally ot the increase in minimum.
Wylted

Con

THE MINIMUM WAGE IS INEFECTIVE

In order to know if we should keep the minimum wage or not, the first thing we need to ask is; Is it effective? In order to know what problem it's intended to solve. For that we can go back to what we found the original problem to be. The problem is poor people don't have enough money.

The minimum wage if effective should decrease poverty levels. However this has been shown to have a negative effect on poverty levels. According to The Emloyment Policies Institute;

"This study by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway shows convincingly that minimum wages, because of inefficient targeting of the poor and unintended adverse consequences on employment and earnings, are ineffective as an antipoverty device. The report relies on an impressive array of empirical evidence showing that, however one views the data, in the United States, state and federal minimum wages have not reduced poverty."[1]

On top of not doing anything for poverty it actually increases the unemployment rate. The Congressional Budget Office a non partisan government organization released a study showing that an increase in a minimum wage would result in at least half a million less jobs. [2]

We're not helping poor people. We're eliminating their jobs and creating more of them. On top of that, the policy is pretty racist it's self. Raising the minimum wage will affect blacks in a disproportionate way while having almost no effect on the white unemployment rate.[3]

Do politicians know it's going to hurt black people? Well, yes they do. They just don't care. These guys are smart enough to realize the negative affects of their policies and yet still pass them, because it helps them get reelected.

CONCLUSION

I'd like to ask my opponent this question. Since having a minimum wage causes higher unemployment, and does nothing to combat poverty, why do you want one?

Why would you want government to have a policy that hurts minorities?

Shouldn't we have policies that actually help the poor get jobs instead of losing them?

Shouldn't we have policies that help black people, instead of being racist and trying to hurt them?

Shouldn't we have policies that decrease unemployment, instead of increasing it?
sources
[1] http://www.epionline.org...
[2] http://cbo.gov...
[3] http://www.prnation.org...
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

"This study by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway shows convincingly that minimum wages, because of inefficient targeting of the poor and unintended adverse consequences on employment and earnings, are ineffective as an antipoverty device. The report relies on an impressive array of empirical evidence showing that, however one views the data, in the United States, state and federal minimum wages have not reduced poverty."[1]

you did not really state how poor people are still poor.
are people on the minimum wage still poor? yes, yes they are. we are keeping them from being even poorer though. that's the whole point.
does it cause the poverty? that study you cited doesn't indicate ether way, but at best we should conclude that it doesnt cause poverty, it just keepts people in poverty.... but it was poverty they were in already to begin with.

minimum wage might cause a slight increase in umemployment, but its worth it. if one in ten people dont get a job, but nine people have decent wages, the wage level is worth it. i'm not sure where your cut off it for where youd think itd be worth it, but surely we all have a cut off id think?
Wylted

Con

"minimum wage might cause a slight increase in umemployment, but its worth it. if one in ten people dont get a job, but nine people have decent wages, the wage level is worth it. i'm not sure where your cut off it for where youd think itd be worth it, but surely we all have a cut off id think?"

My opponent admits that increasing the minimum wage does nothing to bring people out of poverty but does succeed in increasing the unemployment rate.

He mistakenly thinks that people make more money as a result of increased minimum wage. This is entirely untrue. As you can see from a bunch of different economic theories such as efficient market theory or Adam Smith's Labor Theory of Value people essentially get paid what they're worth.[1]

They don't magically become worth more because the government puts a gun to both their head and their employers and forces them to make a different agreement. Businesses can only charge as much for their products as the market demands. The law of supply and demand has never been nor will ever be proven wrong or inaccurate.

In order for a business to keep their profit margin the same, they'll have to cut back on labor. This means there is going to be more people below the poverty line without jobs and unable to feed their family. There are more little kids having to go hungry right now, because the government is infringing on the right of 2 parties to come together to decide what they are willing to both pay and be paid for labor.

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

Minimum wage laws actually take away a lot of the poor's ability to escape the poverty trap. Good jobs require experience to get a lot of times. People will often work for free to get this experience, so that way they can end up later on getting a good job. This is known as an internship and is massively beneficial to a lot of people.

Poor people may be able to force themselves to survive on $2.00 an hour for 3 months to gain some experience for a well paid highly sought after job, but unfortunately since an employer is prevented from paying below minimum wage this poor person will continue to be poor their entire life.

So despite my opponent thinking it's okay that some poor people lost their jobs and can't feed their family, it's actually quite devastating not only to them, but to society for missing out on such a large amount of talent.

SMALL BUSINESS

Besides the massive amount of jobs opportunities missing from the market that would otherwise be there. We also have the minimum wage being used as an aggressive attack on small businesses (aka The middle class). The reason why big businesses support a minimum wage and several increases is because it kills the small businesses[2] that can't afford to hire people at a larger salary like they can.

What we have is a nation killing the middle class and small business as well as preventing poor people from feeding their family and being able to take on more opportunities through a higher paid type of internship.

sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.bizjournals.com...
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

first to clarify. minimum wage does keep people poor, cause all they are making is minimum wage. but it does lift some out of poverty, and it keeps them less poor than they would otherwise be. again, just look to the mcdonalds example. they have always paid the minimum wage. that means if it was still three dollars, that's what theyd be paying. the fact people are getting closer to eight dollars shows that it makes a difference.

con also says people don't make more money, then goes on to explain how it affects the employers due to the fact they make more money. he's contradicting himself.

again, just look at the history of mcdonalds to see they are paid more 'than they are worth', that is, they are paid the minimum wage instead of less.

also, for the most part, employers pay as little as they have to. that means they dont 'cut back on labor'. minimum wage causes unemployment cause for example i can't pay someone a dollar an hour to pick flowers for me, not because of cutting back on labor as much. for example, if you can pay someone eight dollars an hour to flip burgers, you could also pay them three dollars an hour to do it. they're not going to think 'gee i can hire twice as many people given it's half the cost'. no, they are going ot hire the minimum needed.
admittedly some employers may fall into that mindset and it might make some difference, but that's the exception not the rule.

con goes on to state some drawbacks of the wage. i don't dispute there are disadvantages. i just again state that it's better for nine people to be paid decent, out of ten with the tenth person not getting a job, than for two people to be paid decent and all ten having jobs.

also, for hte most part, poor people don't work and wouldn't work 'two dollars an hour for three months'. they work it for a significant amount of time. and, some people work it for their life. whether they do it for long or not though, it should be a decent wage no matter the time.

con says big business supports minimum wage. i would like to see some evidence of that. mcdonalds surely doesn't support the wage, and if they did, itd be a humanitarian decision, and not a bottomline business decision.
Wylted

Con

"first to clarify. minimum wage does keep people poor, cause all they are making is minimum wage. but it does lift some out of poverty, and it keeps them less poor than they would otherwise be.

This is completely unsubstantiated and doesn't address the contradictory findings of the peer reviewed study I cited.

". again, just look to the mcdonalds example. they have always paid the minimum wage. that means if it was still three dollars, that's what theyd be paying. the fact people are getting closer to eight dollars shows that it makes a difference."

Not only is this some unsubstantiated spit balling my opponent is doing, but it's also untrue. Only 13 percent of Mcdonalds workers make minimum wage. http://fivethirtyeight.com...

These made up statistics of my opponent also fail to take into account things such as inflation and also assumes the salary mcdonalds would pay if no minimum wage existed. This assumption is completely baseless.

"con also says people don't make more money, then goes on to explain how it affects the employers due to the fact they make more money. he's contradicting himself."

Nope, this is a strawman argument. I explained that small businesses are hurt by minimum wage laws because they can't afford to pay somebody above market value, and that this is very harmful to the middle class, and than I also explained how minimum wage laws cause increased unemployment, because employers won't pay somebody above their market value.

"con goes on to state some drawbacks of the wage. i don't dispute there are disadvantages. i just again state that it's better for nine people to be paid decent, out of ten with the tenth person not getting a job, than for two people to be paid decent and all ten having jobs."

I showed how the minimum wage has no affect on poverty so your example would be more accurately stated if you said

"It's better for 9 people to get a salary that keeps them below the poverty line and 1 guy to not get a salary and starve than it is for 10 people to get salaries below the poverty line and all 10 being able to feed themselves."

"con says big business supports minimum wage. i would like to see some evidence of that. mcdonalds surely doesn't support the wage, and if they did, itd be a humanitarian decision, and not a bottomline business decision."

Walmart supports it and so do many others. It's no secret that if they put small businesses out of business than they can increase their market share and make their investors even richer. http://www.heritage.org...

CONCLUSION

My opponent has failed to address my arguments that the minimum wage harms a disproportionate amount of black people. He has failed to address the missed opportunities poor people have to face due to low paid internships being illegal.

My opponent has made up facts, while I have used peer reviewed studies to make my case.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
To mature as an adult why would anyone want government to force someone to pay them more. I have been in business and would gladly pay someone more that produced more.I started out in 1966 at minimum wage. It was a learning experience. To learn to keep a schedule, and to take orders from those who know the job.That is what entry level jobs are for. Here is a novel idea. How about improving your skill level so an employer would be happy to pay you more.Just exactly how high on the skill level can you go if all you do is flip burgers on a grill.Why do you think you need government to powder your behind and send you out into the world to earn a living.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
That's retarded. How did pro get source points?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
@bladerunner, I agree those weren't the best possible arguments. I'd actually argue this from a more philosophical position with an opponent who was willing to put more work into his arguments.

As far as statistics go on this topic there is a ton of them on both sides of this issue. Every legitimate study has another one from the other side to butt heads with.

Since I'm attacking the status quo a battle consisting entirely on statistics would lose this for me. I was hoping for a more philosophical debate, but decided against it after seeing the opening argument.

I'd like to get out of the habit playing down to my opponent, but it won't be easy.
Posted by seraphobia 2 years ago
seraphobia
i agree.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
linateWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: linate had terrible spelling and failure to support arguments with any sources whatsoever
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
linateWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither gave reason to award or negate points. S&G - Con. Pro needs to utilize capitalization in text debates where Spelling is worth points. Arguments - Con. Pro dropped two arguments, and failed to properly address some with poor rebuttals based on basic misunderstandings on his part. The argumentation was carried by Con the entire time with no dropped arguments and rebuttals that truly harmed Pro's cases. For these reasons Con wins arguments. Sources - I do not understand how the previous judge awarded source points to Pro. Pro literally used no sources throughout this debate whereas Con did. Perhaps it was a simple error but those two points given to Pro are fully undeserved. As Con utilized sources to strengthen the validity of his arguments, he is awarded sources.
Vote Placed by ldow2000 2 years ago
ldow2000
linateWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was unable to refute Con's points. I'd like to mention to Linate that by not capitalizing words in your debates, you're losing a point.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
linateWyltedTied
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: While I don't think that Con's arguments were the strongest possible ones, they were certainly enough to counter Pro's case. Pro seemed to have trouble responding to Con's points except with unsupported assertions and, as Con pointed out, in some cases false statements. But overall, kudos to both sides. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.