The Instigator
dbox
Con (against)
The Contender
Overhead
Pro (for)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Overhead has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 896 times Debate No: 117852
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

dbox

Con

My position is that it is impermissible for the government to intervene in the business dealings between two capable and consenting parties.

I would like for both the economic and the moral implications to be highlighted throughout the debate.
Overhead

Pro

I accept, Good luck to Con.
Debate Round No. 1
dbox

Con

Pro, Thank you for your patience.

To begin I would like to highlight the economic detriment caused by the government mandating minimum wage laws. This manifests most exclusively, Notably and ironically in the adverse effect it has on the employment rate of low skilled workers (LSW henceforth), The proposed class of workers targeted by proponents of raising of a minimum wage (MW henceforth). I say ironically not with tongue in cheek, But to underscore the contradiction between the supposed good intentions of MW proponents and the actual effect of the laws on the LSW. Some of the effects seen are as follows:

1) Increased MW results in decreases in employment of LSW due to the cost of employment per employee
2) Increased MW results in decreases in Full-Time positions and increases in Part-Time positions to cover the cost
3) "MW results in increased cost of products and decrease in product quantity
4) "MW results in a decrease in customers
5) "MW results in closed businesses due to #4 (most notably in Seattle after the increase to a $15 MW)
6) "MW results in closed businesses leave the workers who benefited from the "MW unemployed
7) "MW dissuades future entrepreneurs from starting businesses in these areas, The areas in most need of jobs
8) "MW impacts net job growth and future employment

-In a survey of the 22 countries in the European Union from 2004 to 2012, The countries with no MW laws consistently stayed roughly 8% lower in their unemployment rates than their MW law counterparts.
-The Congressional Budget Office predicted that an increase in the minimum wage to $10. 10 would result in 900, 000 workers rising out of poverty in America. . . And 500, 000-1, 000, 000 becoming unemployed.

https://www. Investopedia. Com/articles/investing/080515/minimum-wages-can-raise-unemployment. Asp
https://www. Investopedia. Com/articles/personal-finance/013015/how-minimum-wage-impacts-unemployment. Asp
https://www. Cbo. Gov/publication/44995
https://economics. Mit. Edu/files/9497
http://www. Learnliberty. Org/blog/two-minimum-wage-charts-for-the-minimum-wage-supporter/
https://www. Nber. Org/papers/w23532. Pdf

Morally speaking, The primary issue arises when taking the general term "raising MW" and breaking it down into its constituent parts to see what is involved, Some of which was clear in the above economic analysis.

1) These laws will very likely preclude even the possibility to work for those who are deemed as too unskilled to merit $15 creating a near-permanent and cast-like underclass.
2) The government being enlisted as a "bully" to force an employer to pay more than what they decide the job is worth is immoral.

https://douglasgroothuis. Com/2015/08/27/the-moral-argument-against-the-minimum-wage/

I look forward to Pros response.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
According to the United States department of labor statistics, The GDP of the United States has increased from about four trillion dollars to nearly twenty trillion (when adjusted for inflation), However in that same span of time average wages have remained about the same when adjusted for the same inflation. So I ask you, If corporations were are altruistic as you presume, Then why have they not increased their employees" wages to at least somewhat match the increase in profits they"ve experienced. To simplify it, Why have employee wages only increase about 10% when GDP has increased 500%.

According to one of your own sources only 26% of economist believe that increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 would substantially reduce jobs for low skilled workers. Even more importantly in the conclusion of that same article you are quoting, The economist said "The flurry of recent empirical research on the impact of an increase in the minimum wage has shifted professional views on its effects. Although the issue remains controversial, Our reading of the research literature, And reviews by others, Indicate that negative employment effects are very small. This evidence suggests that current debates should pay more attention to the positive effects of an increase in the minimum wage on living standards, On health and educational outcomes, On reducing inequality and on poverty reduction among low-wage households, Rather than on employment effects. "

From my own research I can say that the majority of unemployment caused by wage increases is due to automation and typical turnover of underperforming employees, Which are not bad things. Automation keeps cost and prices low and turnover helps move people from one job they were not suited for to potentially one in which they are. Not to mention the fact that employees who are compensated at a level that keeps them financially secure, Tend to work harder and better than those that are not.
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
1) A large point of distinction is that the judgement of insufficient pay is based on single-parent households. . . "the rise of single-parent families (as reflected in high rates of divorce and nonmarital childbearing) is the primary cause of. . . Poverty, And welfare dependency in American society. " Married-8% in poverty/ cohabiting-16%/ single-27% (http://www. Pewsocialtrends. Org)

2) "The current minimum rate of $7. 25. . . Falls short of the poverty line for single individuals and for single parents. Single parents and their children would still be in poverty even if the adult worked 40 hours per week and 52 weeks per year. " Is something wrong with those hours? I know people who started with nothing, Myself included, Worked two jobs, 6 days a week, 52 weeks a year to provide for their family. Why limit the figures to these truthfully historically low aberrative numbers considering our overall wealth, And then say because these numbers, Now you pay more?

3)"More recent studies that account for these differences in employment trends across regions, Including a study co-authored by one of us, Have not found that minimum wage increases substantially reduced employment. However, All of these studies considered smaller minimum wage increases than would be involved in a $15 federal minimum wage. Credible data to study effects at $15 in today"s dollars are only beginning to become available. " This data was presented in my debate, And is supported by this statement,

4) " When hourly wages rose from $11 to $13 in 2016, Hours of work and earnings for low-wage workers were reduced by 9 percent for the first three calendar quarters, Resulting in 3. 5 million fewer hours worked for each calendar quarter. The number of jobs declined by 7 percent, With the result that 5, 000 jobs were lost. "

www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC4508674/
https://econofact. Org/do-minimum-wages-really-kill-jobs
https://economics21. Org/html/new-study-proves-seattle-punishes-poor-2416.
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
Block

The points which you are saying are "theory" were validated with quite a bit of extensive real-life non-theoretical evidence and if not that, With then by the report of organizations who have been reporting and studying the trends of the effects of these actions for decades. I have no issue with being proven wrong, But simply dismissing salient evidence is not the way to go about it. Also, By what standard did they underpay? And how did they force them to work the long hours? They presumably agreed to a price and either a standard of productivity or time before the worker entered into the contract. Also, Was this the state of all businesses or even a majority? And during what time period? And read over the unemployment numbers I presented, They were projected to possibly pass the numbers of beneficiaries.
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
That's true in theory, However as history has shown when a free market isn't regulated businesses will and has monopolized, Underpay employees, Force employees to work long hours in unsafe conditions, Heck there were even companies who used to force employees to live in camps owned by the company. So we know for sure that left up to their own devices companies will tend to worry about their profits and not their expendable work force. Now as far as the people losing their jobs, That number is trivial and unemployment reports show that raising the minimum wage does not cause a spike in unemployment. Since wages have not kept up with production, There is no fear of companies going bankrupt just because their labor expenses increase slightly. Sure they may lay off a few employees but the majority who get to keep their job will be less reliant on government aid and the increased expendable income will be pumped back into the economy.
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
I agree that most employees get a raise, But that still does not account for those who lose their jobs as a result, And those who do not have enough skill to enter after the raise. Any time centrally regulated means are taken, The economy suffers unless more means are implemented. Free market provides a natural and decision based flow of money. If the market is flourishing, People can leave their jobs, And the businesses who underpay suffer. Federal government is not a proper regulating force in this sense.
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
@ DBOX

Well if we look back through history we can see that companies have a tendency to do everything to keep their workforce from affecting their bottom line, Mostly by using a cheap labor force. This was good for the companies but not for the majority of Americans who struggled to get by, The government who was having trouble caring for its citizens, And the economy which was stacked against smaller companies. Sure the minimum wage isn't perfect, Even now at less than $8. However the fact that every time the fmw is raised most employees have an increase in their wages, Not just those making the minimum, Would indicate its benefit. I think that the federal government should force each state to emplimant a mandatory minimum wage that keeps up with inflation, State GDP, And the cost of living.
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
Block,

Based on what evidence do you say that the government mandated minimum wage is economically beneficial? And do you think the federal government should be making the minimum wage law, And should the law be set at a flat rate across the entire economic system (i. E. $12 everywhere)?

Respectfully,
Devon
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Block19
@ DBOX

You are right, A business is not responsible for the lives of the people, It's the government's. That is why we need a minimum wage, Because it is the governments job to ensure the well being of its citizens. A businesses main responsibility is to make as much profit as possible. That is especially true for publicly traded companies.
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
Hey, Just sending a friendly reminder that the round is almost at an end. I would like to see your perspective!

DBOX
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
It's not the businesses job to make sure the worker can live in a certain area. It's the workers job to work enough to do that. The employer offers a salary, The worker says yes or no, The life goes on.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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