The Instigator
Evan_Hermes
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tumeric
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

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 1 vote the winner is...
tumeric
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,074 times Debate No: 119021
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Evan_Hermes

Con

I believe that the minimum wage should be abolished.
tumeric

Pro

It shouldn't be
Debate Round No. 1
Evan_Hermes

Con

Lets hear why not. By having a minimum wage, The government is quite literally forcing companies at gunpoint to pay their employees a certain amount. This makes it harder for more businesses to grow, Since they have to pay employees a large amount of money. This doesn't help the economy at all.

My second point is by abolishing the minimum wage, It will create more jobs. If you don't force companies to pay their employees a certain amount of money, The companies will have enough money to hire more people, Which will help them grow, In return boosting the economy.

My final point is that by raising the minimum wage, Everything else will raise with it. Taxes, Rent, And everyday products and services. This will drive people out of the area, Causing the economy to fall. If minimum wage works, Why don't we just raise it to $100/hr? Wouldn't that make everyone rich? . . . . (hint: absolutely not)
tumeric

Pro

Forcing companies at gunpoint. . .
Yeah, It's a law. Are you arguing about minimum wage, Or the validity of laws?
Meanwhile, The rest of us are forced by threat of starvation and homelessness to work for businesses. That's life.

"makes it hard for businesses to grow"
And if every person in America owned a business you'd have a point.

"companies will have enough to hire more people"
This is not how the economy works. Businesses compete with each other to minimize costs. Therefore employees are hired because they are necessary -- not because businesses can afford more of them.

Also, The ability to hire more people doesn't mean anything because the whole point of a job is to make money, So you're giving with one hand and taking with the other. It just reduces the value of a job in the first place.

". . . Which will help them grow, In turn boosting the economy"
You've really got to explain this, Because this is a bogus assertion.
Business success improves the economy insofar as money is spread around, But you're arguing against one mechanism for doing that. Otherwise business success benefits a small class of owners, Which is what businesses exist to do and what jobs exist to support.

Also, Businesses grow when their increase in supply meets demand. By lowering wages, You are undercutting demand. But businesses are forced to do this anyway, Because they are responsible for their immediate profits and not for the health of the economy as a whole. Thus wage laws protect the economy.

"everything else will raise with it. . . Causing the economy to fall"
What has been going on in the last 30 years as workers have been paid less? Prices are always going up. CEO salaries are exploding. "Disruption" by tech companies are causing major companies to go bankrupt. But paying workers more will cause the economy to fall?
Capitalism evens everything out. It's the prerogative of society to set the parameters under which our economy will operate.
Debate Round No. 2
Evan_Hermes

Con

Before I get into the debate, I just want to say you should still critique my points, But you should also present an argument for why the minimum wage is good, Which is what this whole debate is about.

Regarding the first question you asked, Of course im arguing about minimum wage. I don't know why you thought I was arguing about the validity of laws, Because I thought it was obvious that I was saying I don't think it's right for companies to be forced to pay employees a certain amount. You also said "the rest of us are forced by threat of starvation and homelessness to work for businesses. " I don't see how that is relevant to what I said. It sounds like you are talking to a socialist, Which I am the exact opposite of.

When I saw it "makes it harder for businesses to grow", I have a point no matter who owns a business. Imagine if the minimum wage was $1000/hr. Would new businesses grow easier or would they have a hard time? I know that is an extreme hypothetical, But it proves my point that minimum wage makes it harder for businesses to grow.

The next point you brought up was that business compete to minimize costs, Which isn't the whole story. At the end of the day, They compete to make more money. They don't care what their prices are as long as they are maximizing their profits. When I say "companies will have enough to hire more people", I mean the companies WILL hire more people if it means they are more efficient, Or if they can expand.

Businesses DO boost the economy on many levels. Locally, Businesses contribute to local economies by bringing growth and innovation to the community in which the business is established. Small businesses also help stimulate economic growth by providing employment opportunities to people who may not be employable by larger corporations. On a larger scale, Large corporations drive people to live in certain areas. For example, Amazon recently opened up a second HQ, And many, Many cities wanted the HQ to be in their town, Because they knew it would result in economic growth.

By allowing businesses to pay employees as little as they like isn't a bad thing. They realize that if their wages are too low, People won't work for them, Which I think you can agree isn't the best thing ever. They will raise their wages enough so that people will take their jobs, But not so high that it means they will lose money.

I hope your final point is a joke. It is ridiculous to say that workers have been paid less. In 1990, The median family income is nearly half of what it is today. I will link an article to these statistics down below. As I was saying in my previous argument, When you raise the minimum wage, Its going to raise the rent. When it raises the rent, You're going to have to build affordable housing, And when that happens you have to tax people to make it affordable, And when you tax people it will drive them out, Forcing the taxes to raise on the people remaining. It will keep spiraling downwards, And I think you know where it will go.

I legitimately want to you to answer this question. If minimum wage is a good thing, Why don't we just raise it to $100/hr? Wouldn't that completely abolish the poverty rates and lower class? Wouldn't everyone become rich? (hmm. . . )
tumeric

Pro

"argument for why minimum wage is good"
I did. I said that it protects the economy by holding up demand.

But my overall argument for what makes minimum wage good is that it aligns economic outcomes with social values. People believe that hard work should be rewarded, Which is fine. The problem is that markets don't. When people feel that the economic system offends their values, People make demands on the markets, Which is how we got minimum wage in the first place.

"don't know why you thought i was arguing about validity. Of laws. . "
The phrase "forces at gunpoint" is an attack on the rule of law. There's nothing unique to the mode of law enforcement applied to minimum wage. It's enforced the same as any other law. What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

"forced by starvation. . . Not relevant"
The idea that enforcing laws is inherently violent ("at gunpoint") comes from libertarianism. Libertarians are people who pretend to believe that the only source of coercion in this world is from government. What I'm saying is that this is not true. Most people don't choose to work, They do it to survive. Therefore what they earn from their work cannot be purely the choice of their employers, Because the balance of power is out of wack. You need a job to eat, But no employer has to give it to you. Its the job of government to offset that imbalance at least somewhat.

"I have a point no matter who owns a business"
If you argued that abolishing minimum wage would be good for business owners, I would agree with you.
But it would be bad for the economy overall, Because business owners are only part of the economy, And they are a minority in society. There are also management, Workers, And customers. So what's good for business owners is not necessarily good overall.

"They don't care what their prices are as long as they are maximizing their profits. "
Profit = Revenue minus expenses. If minimum wage is abolished, That would decrease expenses. But then you'd need a good reason to bring that number back up. Yes more expansion would occur, But the same countervailing impulse to limit hiring exists just the same. My next argument is also relevant here.

"companies will hire more people"
This is your worst point. The less jobs pay, The less value more jobs have. And the opposite is also true. The more jobs pay, The more workers can support their spouses and kids, So fewer jobs would be necessary. Decades ago, Many American families had one income-earner.

"growth and innovation"
. . . And entrepreneurship, Oh my!
These are the corporate buzzwords of today. Let's face it: if your pay is cut in half, And mine doubles, Then "economic growth" has occurred between the two of us. This is exactly what's happening in America as the base of the economy narrows to fewer key players. People who aren't paid enough no longer constitute demand and factor out of the economy. They are functionaries of the system but not players. One function of minimum wage laws is to keep the economic base from shrinking.

Likewise, Innovation may or may not mean better overall outcomes. Innovation is very visibly employed to reduce the number of jobs, Such as Kodak being replaced by Instagram, Or the emergence of AI. Whether or not innovation is a good thing overall is a very open question.

"People won't work for them"
This is only true insofar as workers have options. Abolishing minimum wage makes working people's options worse. Places and times without minimum wages aren't flush with better paid workers.

"ridiculous to say that workers have been paid less"
You have to adjust for inflation. Minimum wage has gone down over the last 50 years when adjusted for inflation.

"Its going to raise the rent"
This is happening anyway. The point of raising minimum wage is to keep up with rent.
Plus there's something cartoonish about this argument. I'm sure you know that landlords cannot peg their rates directly to their tenants income. Its not like taxes. Better-paid people have more options and landowners will attract as much of that pay to themselves as they can, Driving up quality.

". . . Affordable housing"
Since you love business owners so much, More affordable housing would be great for you. Affordable housing frees employers from the burden of keeping their workers alive and places the costs directly on the tax-payer. Thus affordable housing and food assistance are alternatives to living wages. Minimum wage puts the cost of sustaining a workforce back on the employer -- what a novel concept. It aligns the market cost of labor (what employers will pay) with the actual cost of labor.

And now for your big question about $100 minimum wage:
First, Its a stupid question. If a scoop of ice-cream is good after dinner, Why don't we have 100 scoops? That's not good, Therefore a scoop of ice-cream can't be good. This seems to be your logic.
But to answer the question anyway, I'd say that the purpose of government interference in the market is to align economic outcomes with social values. A $100 minimum wage violates social values and therefore defeats the purpose. There's no philosophy in the world that says everyone should be rich. No political party in the US promotes this either. So there's no basis for it. On the other hand, The American Dream and work ethic form the basis for minimum wage laws.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 weeks ago
omar2345
You both did not do the best in conduct but I found more for you that I deemed bad conduct then for him. Basically keep with the point in hand. Here is a pyramid. The highest one is what you should look for.

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement. Svg

Follow the top point and you will win any argument.

Sorry about not voting for you but I don't think either of you made a convincing argument.

Debate. Org is a buggy so there are spaces in my URL delete them so that it goes to the URL that I want it to.
Posted by omar2345 3 weeks ago
omar2345
@Evan_Hermes

Thank you but you can understand why I can't give you that vote because the debate was over when you gave evidence.
Posted by Evan_Hermes 3 weeks ago
Evan_Hermes
https://www. Statista. Com/statistics/236765/median-annual-family-income-in-the-united-states-from-1990/

here is the link anyways
Posted by Evan_Hermes 3 weeks ago
Evan_Hermes
@omar2345 oh sorry lol. Can u explain what I did wrong with my conduct and how i could get better? I'm really trying to get better at debate. Thank you!
Posted by omar2345 3 weeks ago
omar2345
@Evan_Hermes

Round 3 "I will link an article to these statistics down below. "

If you gave a link you would have been voted for the most reliable source vote. You did say you were going to link an article below but you didn't.
Posted by Evan_Hermes 3 weeks ago
Evan_Hermes
@omar2345 what link? Tumeric didn't provide on either.
Posted by omar2345 3 weeks ago
omar2345
You might think debating it just on conduct was unfair but it was the only thing I had to work with. The convincing arguments were not backed up by proof so I had to pick whether or not either of you said was true from my point of view which is not helpful for the other person to understand your claim if you do not provide facts to back up your claim.
Posted by omar2345 4 weeks ago
omar2345
@Evan_Hermes

You didn't provide a link and your conduct is bad.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 weeks ago
omar2345
Evan_HermestumericTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I am against the minimum wage but it did not affect my convincing arguments section because both did provide proof to their claims. It took Pro the 3rd Round to say why he is for the minimum wage whereas against had his side laid out in the 2nd Round. Poor conduct by tumeric but he still won the conduct point. The reason is "quite literally forcing companies at gunpoint" is not how the law works. Either they follow the law or they are arrested. If they do decide to carry on their activities without following the law then it can cause guns to be involved but I highly doubt it is a common occurrence. I guess against got that from Ben Shapiro. "I hope your final point is a joke" was not needed if against wanted his mind changed or wanted to have a thoughtful discussion. Pro did say "Its a stupid question" but what against said did not set the bar high in conduct and he did show more instances of poor conduct. If you think I am wrong post it into the comments.