The US should institute Progressive Wage Laws.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Jifpop09
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 4/8/2014 | Category: | Economics | ||
| Updated: | 6 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 3,340 times | Debate No: | 51867 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (46)
Votes (1)
 Pro Alright, this is an entirely new proposal based off of several already proposed wage reforms to the minimum. With that said, I'll try my best to explain it this round. Basically, they are left wing laws, that decide the wage of a company based on their.... 1. Employees 2. Capital 3. Income 4. Benefits For example, a rich company with high income, will have to pay a higher wage, like Walmart. While a poorer company with less capital and income, with much more employees, would pay a lower wage. The core of progressive wage laws, is that companies will pay wages based on their ability to do so. This action, makes sure that the small buissness survives while the large one's pay a higher due. In addition, if a small buissness like Eddie's car wash decides to give vacation days, then the employees can take those in a omit of additional wages. The choice is up to the employee and employer. The filings over who will pay what will be handled by a seperate new beauracracy, or the IRS. Anyways, I've had 7 people already tell me this is a good idea, so please give feedback in the comments. First round is acceptance. You may not make arguments that the wage should stay the same. *Ask to accept in comments http://www.youtube.com...  Con A progressive wage scale would force employers to pay their workers based upon how much profit the company makes, it is essentially forced profit sharing... There are two ways the wage scale could be determined: * A flat percentage, so the dollar value would always be equally proportional to the size of the company, or * Exponentially, the larger the company gets the bigger percentage the workers get The entire wage could be determined this way or simply the base minimum. I will allow my opponent to make these distinctions, if they so decide. For now, I will argue against the broad concept. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S.A. is currently suffering from severe inequality, and an improvement in the redistribution of wealth is called for by many. A progressive minimum wage scale is one idea to help the middle-class reclaim their fair share of the wealth they have helped create, however this particular scheme is not compatible with the way the economy functions: The health of an economy is not measured by the GDP -- how good it is at devouring foreign economies -- but, rather, by the cash flow within it; the rate at which a dollar gets cycled around. Analogous to the way a blood cell cycles through a living organism. Cash flow is increased when people and companies spend their money at higher rates, typically because they feel like they will receive good value in exchange. When it comes to labor, good value is achieved when education/skill/experience are available at a competitive wage. Competition is increased as more competitors enter the game. Therefore, the health of the economy is related to the number of competitors in the marketplace. A progressive minimum wage scale ties the worker's financial reward, partially or in whole, directly to the performance of their employer as a whole. This creates a disincentive to these employees leaving their jobs and, potentially, becoming competitors, which is a good thing for their employers. However, this is actually a bad thing for the economy at large because it creates an incentive for people to band together under big companies, who will be diluting the job market with crappy, low wage jobs to compensate for their reduced freedom. People will have less money to spend, which means less tax revenue, which means less funding for education, which means less competition, which means higher prices/less value, which means people have less money to spend... ...America's downward spiral will continue. The cause of economic inequality is the injection of bias and discrimination into democracy and economics. As soon as the government is able to tell the difference between two citizens somebody is getting the short end of the stick. It doesn't matter if it is positive or negative discrimination, the act of telling people apart automatically biases things, and a progressive wage scale would be no different. It would be better to raise a SINGLE minimum wage at a value that would elevate any working person to the middle class and then allow the ebb and flow of the marketplace to take things from there. Such a marketplace would be more attractive to entrepreneurs, who would leave their jobs to become competitors, which increases value and lowers price, which entices people to spend more money, which increases tax revenue, which the gov can invest in education, which increases the level of skill/education/experience, which increases competition in the marketplace and on and on the cycle goes! |
 |
|
Pro Alright, this is an entirely new proposal based off of several already proposed wage reforms to the minimum. With that said, I'll try my best to explain it this round. Basically, they are left wing laws, that decide the wage of a company based on their.... 1. Employees 2. Capital 3. Income 4. Benefits For example, a rich company with high income, will have to pay a higher wage, like Walmart. While a poorer company with less capital and income, with much more employees, would pay a lower wage. The core of progressive wage laws, is that companies will pay wages based on their ability to do so. This action, makes sure that the small buissness survives while the large one's pay a higher due. In addition, if a small buissness like Eddie's car wash decides to give vacation days, then the employees can take those in a omit of additional wages. The choice is up to the employee and employer. The filings over who will pay what will be handled by a seperate new beauracracy, or the IRS. Anyways, I've had 7 people already tell me this is a good idea, so please give feedback in the comments. First round is acceptance. You may not make arguments that the wage should stay the same. *Ask to accept in comments http://www.youtube.com... Con |
 |
|
Pro I apologize for reposting my intro. DDO is wierd, and it will be near impossible recovering from this. A progressive minimum wage scale ties the worker's financial reward, partially or in whole, directly to the performance of their employer as a whole. So, what your saying is essentiality, is that the workers who made the company rich are not entitled to profit from their hard work? Its the employee's who made the corporation rich, so its fair and beneficial to incentivize them for their service. The workers are the instruments that make the company run, and the person who does the books shouldn't make five times the money as the guy who sweeps. Saying that the wage ties the employees with the employer is a good thing. It means that the harder they work, the higher they get paid. The more they get payed, the more incentivized they are to improve the company they work for. [1]  However, this is actually a bad thing for the economy at large because it creates an incentive for people to band together under big companies, who will be diluting the job market with crappy, low wage jobs to compensate for their reduced freedom I consulted a site economist on how to approach this question, and I was informed that quite the opposite will happen. Setting standards at this level, will establish a system where one may have mobility in looking for a job while still getting a suitable living wage. Your use of the word "crappy", shows a substantial bias. Your theory is hypocritical to at least half of the statements you made. The very first thing you argued, was that the more competion, the better the economy. The whole point of progressive wages are to fix this. By putting more spending money into the lower and middle class, we increase market stimulation, which in turn increases competition within the economy. Isn't this what you want? Basically what I gathered from you is this..... [2]  " Supress the lower class's incentive to work, so then they wont form unions and strike." I don't feel I need to address what's wrong with that statement. Let me put this into a simple organizer..... Base Organizer (1) If the worker higher wages, then he can pay higher tax's, producing larger government revenue . - Some companies can not afford to pay higher wages. * Companies with narrow margins, can not pay higher wages, and will lose their business. (2) By using Progressive Wage laws, we can assure that the company can afford to pay bigger wages - If a company can pay higher wages, then employees have more money. - Employees who do not have sufficient money, they don't pay their taxes. - If employees have more money, then they can..... * One, spend more money, which increases corporate and government wealth. * Two, pay higher taxes, which allows the government to provide more services. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...America's downward spiral will continue. Downward Spiral? You mean the downward spiral where the median wages are decreasing, and economic productivity flows upward to the 1%. Lets get real here, the 40 richest people in America are making more then the 150 million that make up half of the populous. That's a downward trend, and your defending the status quo by advocating for a flax wage rate. I offered a solution, which will vastly lower the deficit between rich and poor, with only a 4$ gap between the lower and middle class. You talk of income inequality, but your system addresses not one of the underlying problems. It beats around the bush, and the deficit and debt will only increase because of it. [3]  The cause of economic inequality is the injection of bias and discrimination into democracy and economics. As soon as the government is able to tell the difference between two citizens somebody is getting the short end of the stick. Audience, note his word choice of "injected" rather then "inherent". Basically, you had just admitted that someone placed that discrimination and bias there.The statement is baseless, and without data or evidence. In the fashion of economics, there is what is realistic and what is fair. Progressive wage laws can claim to be both. A flat wage cannot. Now refering to your apparent view on discrimination, I would say its the people who support the status quo who are discriminating. Remember the civil rights movement? When Republicans would use the slogan.... "Seperate but equal" When the protestors and reformers tried to push for equality, the GOP leaders said the exact same thing you are. "You should be treated equal, so there is no need to change the status quo". But it was the governments business. People are fighting for equality, but this time on economic grounds and not racial ones. By this logic, your saying that all races get a equal chance, but not everyone else? The government has discriminated us, but now its trying to help us. The GOP had consistently made more and more laws in favor of the rich rather then the poor. We are not fighting for the poor to be of a higher status then the rich, but for any status at all. Favoring the military budget over are own citizens welfare is no longer ok. It would take 175 b. to get us out of poverty. It doesn't matter if it is positive or negative discrimination, the act of telling people apart automatically biases things, and a progressive wage scale would be no different. Would you argue that the progressive income tax is unfair? Every major economist has confirmed that it would work, so the only arguments against it have been on ideology. Examining the logic of progressive wages.... - Jack gets more money. - Jack spends more money. - Corporation invests more money. - Jack contributes more money. - Government provides more services. Everyone wins under this system. The conservative argument on PIT being discriminating does not hold up anymore. What benefits everyone is not discriminatory. As I pointed out, the mom and pops shops will survive on 10.10$ a hour, while poor Walmart will have to pay 3$ extra. Sorry, but I'm not feeling any pity for the corporate giant. It would be better to raise a SINGLE minimum wage at a value that would elevate any working person to the middle class This is discriminatory. Large corporations get all the benefits of subsidies, breaks, and sheer scale. This leaves the pet shop on the corner paying 13$ and struggling, and Walmart continuing to thrive. This system in theory will not elevate anyone to the middle class, because all the jobs will shut down with the business's. And no, a 3$ increase will not uplift people from poverty. Such a marketplace would be more attractive to entrepreneurs, who would leave their jobs to become competitors, which increases value and lowers price, which entices people to spend more money, which increases tax revenue, which the gov can invest in education, which increases the level of skill/education/experience, which increases competition in the marketplace and on and on the cycle goes! Non Sequitor and already argued. Lowering wages DECREASES the amount of spending, which leads to less corporate growth, and less people who can pay taxes. You are under the assumption, that the poor, can afford to pay taxes. You are under the assumption, that the companies can survive without the poor. Which leaves me to wonder how you proposed competitive marketplace is even realistic. = = = = = = Using a Progressive Wage, we can increase the welfare of the poor. Allow the mom and pop shops to thrive, and the to big to fail corporations to invest further into the economy. It will put more people into the economy, while stimulating growth within are own markets. Taxes will flourish, and so will our nation. Thank you for debating me, and good luck. [1] http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com... [2] http://www.zerohedge.com... [3] http://depts.washington.edu... Con Z4RQUON forfeited this round. |
 |
Post a Comment
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by TN05 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Z4RQUON 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Z4RQUON 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Jifpop09 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Z4RQUON 7 years ago
Report this Comment
12345Next »
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 6 years ago
| Jifpop09 | Z4RQUON | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 5 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: ff
