The Instigator
WrickItRalph
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

30 hour work week and higher minimum wage

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 761 times Debate No: 120606
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

WrickItRalph

Pro

First round is for stating position.

I believe that people get overworked and that we can fix this problem by giving some of the hours to the unemployment rate and then adjusting the minimum wage to match.
Sonofcharl

Con

Job sharing is good in principle and job sharing works well in specific situations and job sharing is already fairly commonplace.

But is job sharing or the unemployment rate really the issue here?

Are we not referring more to modern demographics and modern socio-political systems?

Nonetheless:
We get up and we go to bed. Take out the time required for functional necessities and you're left with time in which to do something somewhere or nothing somewhere.

I would suggest that the notion of overwork, Especially in Western societies is based more on conceptual assumptions
and leisure aspirations rather than on physical output.

For example:
I would love to be able to spend as much time as is feasible, Cycling and hiking. Two pastimes that are far more physically demanding than my work.

And let's not forget that in Western societies, Quality of life and achievable aspirations are inextricably linked to financial income and financial security.

So; what does Pro wish to do with their available time?
Debate Round No. 1
WrickItRalph

Pro

So my argument is that a 40 hour work week makes life generally difficult for the average person. Sure, We as a society have somewhat adjusted to it, But the stress of work piles up greatly and if a person has kids and works 40 hours a week, Then they have no free time.

What I'm purposing is that we lower the work week to 30 hours and then raise the average minimum wage by 33% to directly compensate for this difference. 30 hour work weeks are much more manageable, Especially for people with kids. Now I'm not trying to give employers the short end of the stick here. I believe that, When done right, Employers can benefit from this arrangement as well.

Overtime.

With the minimum wage raise, The need for overtime pay will not be as important as it is now. We could take a number of different measures here. We could lower the amount of overtime pay that people receive so that employees who still want to work over 30 hours can do so. Another solution is to use "batter up" system where the employer is not allowed to offer more than 30 hours to any employee until they've attempted to use everyone who is under 30 hours. In this system, There would be no mandatory overtime and workers would be protected against being forced to work over 30 hours. Another option could be to classify jobs based on their labor and production and divide them into 30 hour jobs and 40 hour jobs. 40 hour jobs would be ones like factories that require a big labor force and already pay sufficiently. This would allow people to have the option to work 40 hours while allowing families to have options as well. Employers will benefit from this due to the fact that they will have bigger and more reliable staffs. Their employees will also have more financial stability which will reduce the need for the employer to provide certain benefits as incentives.

We have international examples of countries picking up policies similar to this one that are geared towards not overworking employees and it has been quite successful. I say we take some of that economic wisdom and apply it to the USA.
Sonofcharl

Con

Ok:
So Pro presents a plan. But is it a workable plan, And relative to a capitalist society of nearly 330million people.
As yet Pro has not presented any evidential or statistical back up.
Also: Pro as not addressed any of the issues that I raised in round 1. Preventing me from gaining a clearer understanding of their own personal agenda.

1) Does Pro really see a mood swing in the American public, Away from out and out capitalism to a more human centred socialist attitude.

2) Which other societies does Pro think are comparable to the U. S. A. In terms of both, Population size and social mindset.

3) Notwithstanding the ambiguity posed by the concept of an average minimum wage. Pro is seemingly advocating a system of more for less for more. More income for less work for more people. How is this system funded?

A simple mathematical analysis of Pro's proposed system would suggest a possible 30% increase in wage costs:

90 workers X 40 hrs X $9 min = $32. 000 weekly wage bill.
120workers X30hrs X $12 min = $43. 200 weekly wage bill

Is this sustainable?
Is Pro confident that productivity is likely to rise by 30% at the same time? Assuming that there is a market or need for a 30% increase in productivity.
This also does not take into account all the other cost implications associated with a 30% increase in workforce.

4) Overtime is more relative to the employer than the employee and overtime is not necessarily guaranteed. Therefore the overtime issue is quite variable and certainly not simplistic. Fluctuating productivity needs, Demand a flexible approach by both workforce and employer. Workforces cannot easily be increased ad hoc when increased productivity demands it.
Increasing minimum wage would not always be relevant to an existing skilled workforce, Who may be already paid at a rate commensurate or above the new level anyway.
This would therefore seem to imply that current overtime systems could not easily be adapted to suit Pro's demands.

5)And let's not forget that Pro's initial demands were "30 hour work week and higher minimum wage".
So why is Pro now backtracking? Suggesting that some people should work 40 hours and some people should only work for 30hrs. This has all the typical hallmarks of New Socialism rapidly crumbling back into the old time worn, Hierarchical realities.
As George Orwell implied. All people are equal but some people are more equal than others.

6) Or perhaps it's simply the case that certain sectors of U. S. Society are just getting too selfish, Overdemanding and lazy!
Debate Round No. 2
WrickItRalph

Pro

"Pro as not addressed any of the issues that I raised in round 1. Preventing me from gaining a clearer understanding of their own personal agenda. "

That's because you didn't mention any real issues. You built some straw man involving "job sharing" and said "are unemployment rates the issue? " Then you went on some line about free time without addressing a problem.

"1) Does Pro really see a mood swing in the American public, Away from out and out capitalism to a more human centred socialist attitude. "

Mood swing? I'm not sure what you're getting at? You're trying to make it sound like I'm arguing for socialism. I'm not. I'm arguing for a system that will provide more jobs and make up for wage disparities that are well known to exist. This isn't some fantasy problem that I made up. Wage disparities exist.

"Which other societies does Pro think are comparable to the U. S. A. In terms of both, Population size and social mindset"

This question is irrelevant, I'm not borrowing this idea from another country and the math can be tested beforehand. There is no need for another country to already be using this plan for it to be good. That's an ad populum argument

"Notwithstanding the ambiguity posed by the concept of an average minimum wage. Pro is seemingly advocating a system of more for less for more. More income for less work for more people. How is this system funded? "

The system doesn't need "funded" The jobs it creates lower the amount of public assistance required to sustain the population and it lowers the unemployment rate. The economy will break even in the short term and we should see growth in the long term.

"90 workers X 40 hrs X $9 min = $32. 000 weekly wage bill.
120workers X30hrs X $12 min = $43. 200 weekly wage bill"

Your math does not represent the whole situation. You have to factor in the unemployment rate and public assistance. You also have to consider that a higher employment rate makes more profits for companies. I never said that there needed to be a 30% increase in productivity. That's a strawman of my position. Not every plan purposed needs to be 100% beneficial to all parties involved. Sometimes the greater benefit in the future is more important. Your assessment of my plan is short sighted and I challenge you to find a part of this that harms any parties involved and I challenge you to show how this plan would not increase employment or income for the population.

" Overtime is more relative to the employer than the employee and overtime is not necessarily guaranteed. Therefore the overtime issue is quite variable and certainly not simplistic. Fluctuating productivity needs, Demand a flexible approach by both workforce and employer. Workforces cannot easily be increased ad hoc when increased productivity demands it.
Increasing minimum wage would not always be relevant to an existing skilled workforce, Who may be already paid at a rate commensurate or above the new level anyway.
This would therefore seem to imply that current overtime systems could not easily be adapted to suit Pro's demands"

The whole point of my overtime comments is to improve quality for the employer as well. The point is that, With a better system, Overtime could become less important, Which is good for employers. To your comment about a skilled workforce, The skill of the workforce and the productivity doesn't matter in this situation. This is a quality of life issue. People should not have to spend 50 years breaking their back just to BARELY retire and then have to work part time to stay afloat after the fact. Furthermore, If the workers are already being paid far above minimum wage, Then this plan wouldn't inflate their pay rate.

"So why is Pro now backtracking? Suggesting that some people should work 40 hours and some people should only work for 30hrs. This has all the typical hallmarks of New Socialism rapidly crumbling back into the old time worn, Hierarchical realities. "

Try to keep up please and stop calling me a socialist. If all you can do is strawman, Then you're just making my case for me, Lol. Anyway. I never backtracked. In our current system, 40 hours represents the hours that an employer can make you work without overtime and then any hours forced after this result in overtime. My system would implement 30 hours before overtime and no overtime can be forced. I never backpedaled, You just don't understand my position. Everything I mentioned fits just fine with capitalism, So please stop saying it's a socialists policy.

"Or perhaps it's simply the case that certain sectors of U. S. Society are just getting too selfish, Overdemanding and lazy! "
This is a common b. S. Conservative line. If you actually think that minimum wage workers are generally lazy, Then you're just blind. If you want to talk about "lazy sectors" lets talk about a person getting a middle class salary to do paper work at an office with sick days and other benefits and then look at a restaurant worker who gets paid half the money, No benefits, No sick days, No PTO, And spends their day lifting heavy objects and running around on their feet. Pfft, Lazy my rear. If you think that poor people are lazy, Then get your own service.

I'll finish up by saying that something has to be done about wage disparities. People don't like hearing this, But the fat cats are gonna have to get stuck with the bill no matter how we fix the problem. This is moral because the loss in money will not cause any actual harm to them, While the money taken will prevent a lot of harm. Those rich people get to benefit from capitalism and they shouldn't just get a free ride, They need to pay into the system that made them rich so it can make other people rich too. If anything ever ends humanity, It will most likely be greed.
Sonofcharl

Con

This is a typical I am right and you are wrong debate.

I get the impression that Pro is actually debating their own personal agenda rather than a greater U. S. Socio-political agenda.

In the spirit of debate I addressed all of Pro's issues.
Yet Pro still dismisses all of my very relevant argument.
Straw man is such a cheap cop out.

1) Unwittingly maybe, But Pro's proposition is anti-capitalist. Taking control of trade and Industry away from the private sector by the imposition of stricter state intervention on pay and conditions. Pro's own mindset, Therefore undeniably exhibits a socialist bias.

2) Pro clearly refers to "international examples". Therefore my questioning was not irrelevant.

3) My simple math exemplar was directly based on Pro's proposition. A 25% reduction in working hours coupled with a 30% increase in a minimum wage.
Will this work? Especially in manufacturing industries. But also in the public sector, Given the constraints of the public sector budget.

4) The whole point of my overtime comment was to suggest that Pro's approach to overtime is somewhat contrary to the actual needs and purposes of overtime.
I would also suggest that the skill of a workforce is of paramount importance in all work related situations. Suggesting otherwise is somewhat ridiculous.

5) Clearly in Round2. 30hours became 40 hours for some. This is undoubtedly backtracking and therefore contradictory. Pro implies that despite their initial objections to the contrary, They are nonetheless content with a situation where certain sectors of society have a greater work burden and a consequent lower quality of life.

6) Pro's angst at the middle class is once again indicative of something greater than a concern for the quality of life for all.
And my selfish, Overdemanding and lazy comment was clearly not directed at minimum wage workers or poor people. It simply was a general questioning of social attitudes in wealthy societies.

Pro has a plan that they wish to debate:
Therefore Pro's plan should be open to all scrutiny and Pro must be prepared to respond and answer to all scrutiny. Rather than dismiss everything that they do not wish to answer as "strawman".

Capitalism dictates hierarchy and hierarchy inevitably dictates social disparity. Though in most wealthy societies all are given equal access to educational opportunities. How an individual eventually fits into society is wholly relative to formative preparation. It would be too simplistic to say that where one ends up depends solely on educational choices, But the opportunities are nonetheless there.

Pro's plan sounds perfect in theory.
But when all the social, Monetary and fiscal considerations are taken into account is Pro's plan implementable?
Debate Round No. 3
WrickItRalph

Pro

"I get the impression that Pro is actually debating their own personal agenda rather than a greater U. S. Socio-political agenda. "

Nonsense. I'm not the first to bring this up.

"Straw man is such a cheap cop out. "

Nonsense. You misrepresented my position and that makes it a straw man. If you're not going to debate my ACTUAL position instead of my fake position that you made up, Then you're not being productive, Therefore, I'm justified to point it out and shrugging off a straw man in a debate is poor conduct honestly.

"Unwittingly maybe, But Pro's proposition is anti-capitalist"

Straw man. I made it very clear in my previous statements that I'm not arguing against capitalism. Putting a restriction on work is something that America does all time and America is a capitalist nation, Don't you agree? Stop telling me what my position is and debate the things I actually say please.

" Pro clearly refers to "international examples". Therefore my questioning was not irrelevant"

False. You asked me for examples that have analogous statistics to America. I never claimed such a thing, You moved the goal post to make it look like I had a perfect analogous example when I never said such things.

"My simple math exemplar was directly based on Pro's proposition"

False, You only provided some of the stats. You didn't address the lowered unemployment rate, The rise in consumerism, Or the rise in productivity from the increased consumerism which leads to more lowering of the unemployment rate. You only did math on two variables and then vacuously implied that your math told the whole stay. Just another straw man.

"Will this work? "

I've already showed sound logic that it will, Unless you can present evidence to the contrary,

"The whole point of my overtime comment was to suggest that Pro's approach to overtime is somewhat contrary to the actual needs and purposes of overtime.
I would also suggest that the skill of a workforce is of paramount importance in all work related situations. Suggesting otherwise is somewhat ridiculous. "

In my system, Overtime would barely even be an issue. The skill of a workforce only matters for higher paying jobs. When it comes to minimum wage work, Livable wages are actually the key issue, Since most minimum wage jobs use unskilled workers. I use the term unskilled loosely here because anyone who thinks that entry level employees are all unskilled in the absolute sense are sadly mistaken.

"Clearly in Round2. 30hours became 40 hours for some. This is undoubtedly backtracking and therefore contradictory. Pro implies that despite their initial objections to the contrary, They are nonetheless content with a situation where certain sectors of society have a greater work burden and a consequent lower quality of life. "

Another strawman. I never said that my goal was to prevent people from working passed 30 hours. My goal is to make it so that people aren't FORCED to work passed 30 hours. Big difference. Once again, Please stop telling me what my position is and argue my actual points please.

"Pro's angst at the middle class is once again indicative of something greater than a concern for the quality of life for all"

Strawman and an ad hominem attack. You keep trying to tell me what my position is. I'm assuming you're not a mind reader, So why do you think you get to tell me why I'm debating this and what I'm secretly thinking? Quality of life is my chief concern and you don't get to tell me that it's not. Quite frankly, I think you conduct is a little lacking.

"Therefore Pro's plan should be open to all scrutiny"

Oh it is. I simply can't defend a straw man because it's not actually my position. I debate other people who don't strawman me and I have no problem explaining my position to them. But when I have to sit here and correct all of your mischaracterizations without you brining up the real issue, There's really nothing I can do at that point.

"Though in most wealthy societies all are given equal access to educational opportunities. "

This is categorically false, Since wealthy people get access to superior private schools. But before we jump down that rabbit hole, Could you explain how this is relevant to the argument? I'm trying to see it. If this is getting into your comment about skilled workers, Then I already debunked that.

"Pro's plan sounds perfect in theory"

You either just conceded the debate, Or you don't know what theory means. If a plan is perfect in theory, Then it's perfect. I think you meant to say "perfect on paper". I'll grant you that because I don't straw man people.

I'll restate my position more clearly so con can attempt to actually understand it this time. 30 hours is the limit of work before overtime. Overtime cannot be forced. Raising in minimum wage directly compensates for loss of hours. Extra hours go to the unemployment rate. Any left over hours go to those who are willing to work overtime, Mostly in the manufacturing industry. More people have money, Causing a rise in consumerism. People have more free time, Causing a rise in consumerism. The rise in consumerism creates a higher demand for productivity. The demand is met by hiring more people. Productivity rises further while the unemployment rate falls further. Healthy economy achieved.

THAT is my position. If you claim anything that is not written by me, Then you're strawmanning again and I will call you out on it until you learn you lesson. If you want to have a productive debate. Then BE productive please.
Sonofcharl

Con

If all perceived social problems could be solved easily. We would already be living in a Socialist Utopia.
Similarly if all perceived social problems were self contained and money supply was uninhibited we would already have solved any perceived problems.
And everyone would be a millionaire.
And so who would be doing all the "back breaking" work then?

"That is my position":
And there was me thinking that Pro's position was a belief that people get overworked and that the solution to this perceived problem was as simple as imposing a 30 hour working week coupled with a 33% rise in minimum wage.

Why is it therefore "strawman" to question all aspects of Pro's reasoning.
Pro's argument is as much about their personal social philosophy as it is about their understanding of the practicalities of the labour market and monetarism.

Demand necessitates overtime but demand does not always necessitate overtime.
Continued demand might necessitate shift working or even expansion but these are separate considerations.
And forced overtime is a separate issue altogether, That can be addressed legislatively if needs be.

In a capitalist system the sustainability of Pro's plan is paramount:
I proffered a simple mathematical example of the possible consequences of Pro's plan. A greater workforce would be needed to meet existing production levels, Couple this with a 33% increase in minimum wage and productivity would have to be increased by a similar amount just to cover labour costs and that is assuming that there is a market for higher productivity.
Although inextricably connected there is nonetheless also a clear distinction to be made between private responsibility and fiscal responsibility. Therefore factoring unemployment and public assistance into the above equation is inappropriate.

In conclusion;
Nationally and globally money supply is both limited and restricted. This helps to ensure social stability.
Therefore throwing money at perceived social problems is never really an option.
Legislative implementation of Pro's plan would certainly lead to an overburdening financial responsibility on certain employers. Which would inevitably result in loss of jobs.

I would therefore suggest that Pro's plan would ultimately be counterproductive.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@PolicemanBob, Well, You ignored everything I said, So we're just talking past each other I guess. You keep talking about hours being lost, Hours aren't being "lost" they're going to other people. People aren't getting "free" jobs, They're getting jobs. I don't know how someone gets a "free" job since you go to a job to earn, Making it not free. I didn't contradict my point. I never said that people couldn't work more. The point is to create a standard that is more practical. Why do you think that free time is a bad thing?
Posted by PolicemanBob 3 years ago
PolicemanBob
You also said this complaining quote: "People should not have to spend 50 years breaking their back just to BARELY retire and then have to work part time to stay afloat after the fact. "

Well if you"re so worried about people"s work "breaking their back", Why allow some people who would benefit from two jobs (which you previously said in some other argument) when you think they are having to do to much? Doesn"t that contradict your point? Or are you assuming they will only work a couple hours per week for another job, Because you obviously are unreasonably concerned with "People exerting too much effort into work".

I think that you are creative to think of this hypothetical solution to a problem, Though I disagree with your points. Easier to say something will work without having to do it (do the math).
Posted by PolicemanBob 3 years ago
PolicemanBob
WrickitRalph your idea makes no literal sense for the United States. If you drop the average hours to 30 a week, And give the unemployment "free jobs", That still won"t make up for the 10 hours decrease for a person every week. The unemployment rate is around 4% in the United States, So let"s say 4/100 people go from 0 hours to 30 hours, But the 96 people lose 10 hours+, The overall worktime is way lower. With your plan, That"s 840 hours lost per 100 people, Which is a significant decrease in productivity. Funny that you claim this will work when the numbers would show the exact opposite: A significant drop (840 hours a week per 100 people) will decrease productivity.

I am not saying that you are lazy, But the idea you produce will give more laziness, As people will have more unnecessary free time. If you don"t think giving people less hours to work gets them more lazy, What can make you determine that.

I"ll give you a hypothetical example: 24 year old Jordan is working in a coffee shop. Your new ideology on hours per week passes through the federal government. Jordan, Who used to work 44 hours a week at the coffee shop for 15$ An hour. Now he gets 25$ for every hour. Jordan only has to work 30 hours now. Now, Instead of making $660, He makes $750 of work per week. Now the coffee shop, Because of its limited work time per employees, Has to higher more people, But people won"t need to hold a second job because of the increase in money they get, So the company will eventually lose money until they scrap their business. That"s what would happen with your radical idea, Through a mathematical than logical reasoning.

Why change the system of how many hours people work per day and give a higher minimum wage when I just proved it would put more leverage on the company, And your system would not allow companies to start a business, Or maintain it, Due to the high minimum wage.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@normaldude. Spoken like a true bigot
Posted by normaldude 3 years ago
normaldude
Why is a 40 hour week an issue now and was fine 10 years ago? Our nation has become so lazy and entitled that its scary
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Sorry typo, I meant to say: "decreases the unemployment rate further" not the employment rate.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@Policemenbob, It doesn't actually decrease productivity at all. The extra hours go into the unemployment rate and just boost employment. Productivity would remain the same. As for kids going to school, You're comparing them as if they're equal. Kids don't have to pay bills and they're learning life skills to enter the workforce, They have less responsibility and more free time to be at school. I'm not even saying that students are going the right amount of hours per week. That's a whole different topic that could be debated. You say 30 hours is ridiculous, But on what basis do you say that? It only seems like it's ridiculous because we're so accustomed to 40 hour work weeks and overtime. If 30 hours is enough to pay the bills, Then it doesn't seem so strange does it? It's not like people are being prevented from working. People could still pick up two jobs, Which would be much easier to do with 30 hour work weeks, But the beauty is that nobody has to pick up extra jobs. Furthermore, People having more free time allows them to increase consumerism, Which increases productivity, Which decreases the employment rate further. We need to focus less on paying people more, And more on paying more people. Because ultimately, That is what will make the workforce more healthy.
Posted by PolicemanBob 3 years ago
PolicemanBob
I first want to say that I think this is a good debate with two sides using some reasoning to prove their points, However, I would like to ask WrickitRalph on how the overall job will be completed if they only work 30 hours a week compared to the average in the U. S. Productivity will drop increasingly if people work less, And 30 hours is ridiculous. Schools average around 6-7 1/2 hours of school in the U. S, So you are proposing that students will be spending more time in school than their parents. That"s ridiculous, And kids only go to school five days a week, While most people work 5-6 days a week. This is a radical change that would change the overall life of people, And though it is a possibility, It seems unrealistic and lazy. I like the debate though, As even though I disagree with Pro, He is explaining parts of his arguments.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
good, Now let's spread the love, Lol.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
they have it in the netherands
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.