speed debate: minimum wage
Debate Rounds (3)
we're going to do three-hour rounds for the sake of simplicity.
BOP is on con because con will argue for the abolition of the minimum wage, or the opposite of the status quo. Therefore, Con will begin his arguments in the first round and pass the final round. If he fails to do either of these, he forfeits the debate.
In the case of the latter, I (Con) only need to prove that the status quo (i.e., minimum wage laws as currently constituted and implemented) is untenable. Pro must argue for the status quo (i.e., that minimum wage laws as currently constituted are advantageous). Notably, if Pro argues for raising the minimum wage this is against the status quo and would be tantamount to a concession (on that issue).
Given the clear failing of current minimum wage laws, and to make things fair(er) I propose structuring the debate as a two-part debate addressing both of the posed questions. Thus, on top of arguing both for and against the status quo we will also debate whether the minimum wage laws are fundamentally flawed and should be abolished (Con's position) or whether they can be salvaged (Pro's position). I.e., do we throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Arguments should be presented for each of the following discreet issues:
1) For and against the status quo (i.e., for or against the minimum wage laws as currently constituted and implemented); and
2) For and against trying to salvage versus scrapping minimum wage laws.
Winning on only one of the two points will constitute a draw, whereas winning on both points will constitute a win. BOP will remain with Con.
Con will argue first, with two rounds of arguments each (Con's first round of arguments are presented in this post). The first round of arguments will be for affirmative arguments only with both affirmative and rebuttal arguments allowed in the second round of arguments.
First Round Arguments:
Response to Issue 1: The Status Quo is Untenable:
Overwhelmingly the facts support that minimum wage laws are broken. Since 2009, the Federal mandated minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. While some states and municipalities have higher minimum wages than federally mandated, the highest state minimum wage is still only $9.32 per hour. Both of these figures are scandalously low and far less than a living wage in many locations. See, e.g., http://www.forbes.com.... Also, minimum wage has not kept up with inflation (which would put minimum wage at $10.88 per hour). Adjusting for economic growth (i.e., worker productivity or percentage of GDP) yields much more lop sided results (suggesting that minimum wage should be closer to $18-$23 per hour. See, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com.... In fact, in 35 out of 50 states, welfare pays more than minimum wage.
http://www.forbes.com.... Even a moderate increase in minimum wage would be insufficient to close the widening gap between minimum wage and a living wage. It is for this reason that only 3.3 million workers have wages at or below the minimum wage (1.0% of the population, 1.6% of the labor force, 2.5% of all workers, and 4.3% of hourly workers). See, e.g., http://www.bls.gov.... We have also fallen far behind the rest of the first world countries in terms of what how minimum wage compares to average income. See e.g., http://www.publicpolicy.ie....
Response to Issue 2: Minimum Wage Laws are Irreparably Broken:
The main points in this argument which I will expand upon later are 1) given political and social realities any patchwork repair of the minimum wage laws in unlikely to address the underlying issues contributing to poverty in the United States and 2) focusing on minimum wage detracts from the true issues at hand. I defer expanding on these arguments until the second round.
BobTurner forfeited this round.
BobTurner forfeited this round.
ebagofgold forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate