The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Federal Minimum Wage Should be Increased to $10.10

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: 5/23/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,794 times Debate No: 55341
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)




Resolved: The Federal Minimum Wage should be increased to $10.10 per hour.

Pro will argue that the federal minimum wage should be increased to $10.10, whereas Con will argue that it should not be.

The criterion for this debate will be a preponderence of evidence as to whether an increase in the federal minimum wage will provide a net benefit or net loss to the welfare of society.




(1) Rules
(2) Opening Contentions
(3) Contentions/Rebuttals/Closing Statements


(1) Opening Contentions
(2) Contentions/Rebuttals/Closing Statements
(3) Shall only type "No Round as agreed upon"


1. In order to ensure that both debaters are given an equal number of arguments, Con must type "No Round as agreed upon" as his only Round 3 argument. This means that, if he or she types anything else, he or she will forfeit all 7 points.
2. You must source your definitions and contentions. Otherwise, they will be disregarded.
3. Please provide your sources in the form of footnotes.
4. Only the material within your arguments should be considered by the voters. This means that the comment section is off-limits for posting arguments and sources. Use of the comment section should result in a loss of conduct points.
5. No use of semantics or trolling.


I am ready to argue this resolution. First, I have two things to clarify.....

1. I am arguing that the wage should be increased to 10.86$

2. The OP was created by Mikal. Its evident by his debate structure, elo designed exactly to fit mine, and the common one day between arguments.

3. My opponent will seek to argue that since the criterion is tied to his debate, that I am forced to argue that in particular. This is fallacious for three reasons......

- His resolution states that the wage should be increased to 10.10 <---------------- This is all I should have to debate

- His criterion is extremely broken. He did not specify in the slightest who had to argue in favor of increased welfare correlating with increased wages. He expected me to know, and I still do not know.

- His resolution and criterion are two entirely different topics

- Therefore, his criterion is broken, misleading, and unspecific. It should be disregarded.

4. My opponent is the instigator. He will have the BOP.

5. To avoid a definitions war, I highly encourage Pro

Since that's out of the way, I want to clarify a few definitions.....

Definition of 'Inflation'
The rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising, and, subsequently, purchasing power is falling. Central banks attempt to stop severe inflation, along with severe deflation, in an attempt to keep the excessive growth of prices to a minimum. [1]

Definition of 'Deflation'

A general decline in prices, often caused by a reduction in the supply of money or credit. Deflation can be caused also by a decrease in government, personal or investment spending. The opposite of inflation, deflation has the side effect of increased unemployment since there is a lower level of demand in the economy, which can lead to an economic depression. Central banks attempt to stop severe deflation, along with severe inflation, in an attempt to keep the excessive drop in prices to a minimum. [2]

Definition of 'Minimum Wage'

The minimum amount of compensation an employee must receive for performing labor. Minimum wages are typically established by contract or legislation by the government. As such, it is illegal to pay an employee less than the minimum wage. [3]

Definition of 'Price Inflation'

An increase in the price of a standardized good/service or a basket of goods/services over a specific period of time (usually one year). Because the nominal amount of money available in an economy tends to grow larger every year relative to the supply of goods available for purchase, this overall demand pull tends to cause some degree of price inflation. [4]

Minimum Wage should be set by Inflation

Its hard to believe, but the liberal argument that the minimum wage should be raised to 10.10$, 15.00$, and 22.00$, is actually just as harmful, if not more, to the economy. Taking this from a basic macroeconomics course, one can assume that prices should automatically be tailored to inflation, right? So, why do liberals argue different intervals, and why do conservatives do the same?

The answer is simple. Neither side will meet middle ground. Lets examine the logic we have in setting wages....

P1: A wage above inflation rates, increase demand, which in turn, increases the price of a product

P2: A wage below inflation rates, causes demand to decrease, making the product cost less

C1: Increasing or Decreasing a wage past inflation, in a narrow sense, does nothing to increase or decrease consumption

Therefore, it is illogical to raise the wage above or below inflation rates. Now, for me to make my next definition, we need to review the following definition......

Definition of 'Wage Push Inflation'

A general increase in the cost of goods that is preceded by and results from an increase in wages. In order to maintain corporate profits after an increase in wages, employers must increase the prices they charge for the goods and services they provide. The overall increased cost of goods and services has a negative effect on the wage increase, and eventually, higher wages will be again needed to compensate for the increased prices for consumer goods. [5]

Which happened to be the base of my argument in contention 1. Which leads me to the following contention...........

P1: There is more than one factor controlling the USD value

P2: There are many results of a set minimum wage

P3: Changing a factor in the USD, can change the results of the set minimum wage

P4: Changing the set minimum wage, changes the value of the USD

P5: Eliminating either P3 or P4, makes the economy easier to control

C2: Setting the wage based on USD value, makes the economy easier to control

Now, I will admit, that setting the wage at 10.10$ is much closer to inflation rates than 7.50$, but at the end of the day, a 10.10$ wage is still controlling the economy.

Why 10.86$

Why its what the wage would be if you set it to inflation
. Remember Mitt Romney? Turns out he's a Keynesian, because he agrees 100%. Yes, the president that was almost elected, is a closet liberal ;). Actually, its more like showing common sense. Think of it this way. For pro, who has the BOP, he needs to disprove the following......

That setting the wage to inflation rates, make sure prices are always fitting to the consumers wallets. Think about it. If you set wages with the inflation rates, then the market entreprenuers will always know that the consumer has the right wallet for their prices. This leads to less forward planning, and more economic stability. [6]

Since my opponent (Mikal), has deactivated his account in result to my counter plan, I will not waste further time arguing this resolution. If he does not return, I trust my arguments will stand, without more evidence.







Debate Round No. 1


TomStanton forfeited this round.


Csareo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


TomStanton forfeited this round.


Csareo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


TomStanton forfeited this round.


Csareo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Csareo 7 years ago
Yes, I am 90% sure its Mikal. He also implied it on the forum about tom leaving
Posted by Kc1999 7 years ago
Looks Mikal like enuff. He could be using a proxy server if the IPs don't match.
Posted by Csareo 7 years ago
Ha, Mikal admitted it was him
Posted by Csareo 7 years ago
Obviously he has already been here before. Stanton, I may consider both arguing the resolution and criterion hand in hand if you choose not to leave
Posted by Romanii 7 years ago
Please don't leave the site!
You can still get this back on track by pointing out that quote first thing in your next argument.
Posted by Csareo 7 years ago
Stop war mongering in the comments. Trust the audience to believe you.
Posted by TomStanton 7 years ago
This is absolutely ridiculous and you are cheating in more ways than one.

I'm leaving the site. I cannot deal with cheaters who did not even bother to contact me beforehand, and then simply ignores every single rule I laid out.
Posted by Csareo 7 years ago
Your criterion was broken. That should of been your resolution. I'm sorry, but you screwed yourself over. Now If you'll let me post my argument please?
Posted by TomStanton 7 years ago
If you had a problem with my resolution or with my framing of the debate, you should have contacted me beforehand so we could have hashed it out. I will not accept your attempt at cheating.

At this point, the resolution stands. You must argue that an increase in the minimum wage will provide a net loss to the welfare to society, as the rules state, or you will forfeit this debate.
Posted by TomStanton 7 years ago
Can you not read? It says: "The criterion for this debate will be a preponderence of evidence as to whether an increase in the federal minimum wage will provide a net benefit or net loss to the welfare of society." This is DIRECTLY tied to the resolution.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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