Instigator / Con
2
1598
rating
20
debates
65.0%
won
Topic
#1493
The Minimum Wage is Beneficial to the Poor
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
2
0
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Athias
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1554
rating
15
debates
73.33%
won
Description
Round One: Opening Arguments
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: Rebuttals/Rejoinders
Round Four: Rebuttals/Rejoinders
Round Five: Closing Arguments
Stipulations:
1. Definitions:
Beneficial - producing good results or helpful effects (Merriam-Webster.)
2. Moral arguments (in addition to the Economic arguments) may be submitted since the topic solicits normative arguments.
3. The minimum wage itself, and not just juxtapositions of scale, will be included in the purview of this debate.
Round 1
Con
#1
Just to add a proviso, the poverty level will be defined as those who earn just about $18,000 or less per year. (This was derived from the Federal poverty level figures.)
Opening Argument:
The minimum wage is a statutory edict which designates a price
floor in the labor market--i.e. a minimum amount payable
to employees by employers. It should be noted that the minimum wage
does not guarantee employment. It requires only that employees legally hired be
paid at the minimum. Many notable and pubic proponents of the minimum wage while prone to allege its necessity to the poor neglect to mention the effects this price floor has on the labor market. One and perhaps the most prominent effect the minimum wage has is pricing out partitions of low-skilled/unskilled labor. A minimum wage of $7.25 (the federal minimum) for example makes it illegal to hire someone at $7.24 or less. From an employer's standpoint, this takes on a slightly different meaning. The minimum wage makes it illegal for an employer to hire labor whose marginal productivity generates $7.24 or less.
What do I mean by marginal productivity? It's the contribution a worker's individual output, usually described as a maximum, adds to overall production. I'll use an example that was taught to me when learning Economics: say for example that I'm a professor of a course and I need help erasing/cleaning an entire blackboard. I have just about four erasers, and I decide to enlist just two students to complete this task. Naturally, one assumes that with this assistance, the task will be completed much quicker than it would have had I done it on my own. If I were to enlist the help of four students, erasing the blackboard should be completed in no time. What if I were to enlist the help of 20 students? What is the addition to productivity the fifth to 20th student contributes? I have only four erasers, so employing the help of 20 students would add an unnecessary difficulty to the task. I suppose my students can use their shirts, but that adds to costs rather than diminish them (e.g. costs of laundry, soap, etc.) I can go out and purchase more erasers, but that adds to costs as well as subtracts time I could've spent erasing the board. And from this, we get the Law of Diminishing Marginal Productivity which delineates that the positive relationship between input and output will eventually reach its peak before it plateaus (and drops off.)
Now let's add compensation. Suppose I have $40 dollars to pay the students whom I enlist to help me with this task of erasing the blackboard. (It's a bit expensive considering the task, but I'm willing to go that high.) Now if I hire the two students I mentioned earlier, I could pay them each up to $20. But I want this done as quickly and efficiently as possible. So I've decided to hire the four students. There are four erasers; four sections of the blackboard; forty dollars; it works out quite nicely. Now the government steps in and enforces a regulation that states I must pay each of those students $13 to erase the blackboard. What does this do? It prices out the fourth student. Since I'm legally bound to pay them the minimum, I can hire only three students. While the three employed students can enjoy their bump in pay, the fourth student will enjoy no pay. Since the fourth student's marginal productivity ($10 he or she would have generated had I enlisted his or her help) is now legally unemployable, the student is legally unemployable. And the labor market itself loses $1 because I now pay $39 dollars for less efficient work.
What if I were to keep all four students. And I decide to pay the $52. That is $12 more than the work is worth so I have to find a way to redeem this loss. In order to keep the four students employed, I decide to bump up the price I charge for my course. Now depending on the price elasticity (the gauge of changes in demand with respect to changes in price) this may result in two things: the bump in price may discourage students from taking my course all together, or my students will incur an increased cost. And this too would depend on the nature of my course: elective (elastic) and requirement (inelastic.) What if Black & Decker releases an automated/robotic buffer exclusively for blackboards at the low price of $45.99. This buffer is advertised to the do the work of four men in half the time. I can forgo the employment of all four students because with the release of buffer, the opportunity costs of hiring the four students at the minimum increased.
My hypothetical, I trust you've acknowledged by now, is allegorical and microcosmic of the issues with the minimum wage. In essence, I've used economic reasoning in the context of a classroom setting to highlight:
The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.
The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.
And due to these effects and some yet to be elaborated, the minimum wage is not beneficial to the poor.
As this debate continues. I will further elaborate on the aforementioned points as well as supplement them with other considerations. At this point, I leave the floor to my opponent.
Pro
#2
Opening arguments:
We live in a developed, first world nation, where 3rd world salaries simply will not cut it. Most companies do not set a value to a task and then seek to give the full valuation to whoever gets chosen to complete it, they will seek the minimal possible compensation.
With unskilled workers being a massive chunk of the workforce, especially in areas of lower educational opportunities, this creates a large supply, reducing their ability to negotiate effectively. History has shown how masses without power will accept horrendous conditions, or found alternatives by any (often violent) means. Neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world. Just because a group of people accept conditions does not mean those people had a choice, nor does it make it fair, just, or benefitial.
The second industrial revolution showed us how appauling worker conditions can get under the influence of the so called "invisible hand." Sweat shops, child labor, uncompensated workplace injuries, workplaces prone to injuries, a whole population destined to live short lives in squalor, unable to ever afford or invest in any form of advancement, much less an american dream. I think we can all agree the result of the unregulated free market setup of that time was not benefitial to those workers. Despite a lack of any investment in benefits or conditions, and despite the MASSIVE profits of the goliaths of that era, worker wages were unlivable and deplorable. A lack of regulation helped only those who had money and power, a tiny minority.
Introduction of regulations, including minimum wage lead to a boom for the american economy and especially unskilled workers, whose assembly line monkey work (nob A into slot B all day every day), attained them a suburban house, 2 cars, and a comfortable life. Objectively a far better outcome then the lawless economic hellscape of the second industrial revolution.
In addition to the poor, a minimum wage is helpful to small local businesses, who although cannot afford to indivudally raise wages at the moment, would greatly benefit from the increased patronage they would get from an enriched public. One would be foolish to cut back on employment with a rush of customers at the door. Increased sales can balance out decreased margins, but increased demand will shoot our gdp through the roof, maintaining our greatest in the world title (that is currently increasingly contested).
Demand without supply = opportunity
Supply without demand = nothing
Our economy replies on consumers who can afford to demand. If the invisble hand demands otherwise, we will be 3rd world within a generation.
Note: it is my opinion that this debate structure is ineffective. Next round my opponent will respond to this, but i will be responding to his statement. The next round we switch. We will be having 2 simultaneous discussions rather then focusing on one.
As i am the one making the positive assertion, i should be making the sole assertion, with every following round being rebuttal/defense. At the least i should have been able to include some rebuttal rather then an independent opening argument. That would have unified our conversation. I suggest, but do not enforce, that my opponent drop his initial post and respond to me, leaving the BOP to me alone. This is just a suggestion that i will leave this to my opponents discretion. If he does not agree, no biggie, we will continue as layed out in the description.
Round 2
Con
#3
Rebuttal:
We live in a developed, first world nation, where 3rd world salaries simply will not cut it.
This is tautological.
Most companies do not set a value to a task and then seek to give the full valuation to whoever gets chosen to complete it, they will seek the minimal possible compensation.
The rational actor whether a seller or patron seeks to optimize his gain; this means that the seller will try to redeem a much higher value while the patron attempts to purchase at a much lower value. Since any transaction between the two embodies the subjective values of each party, an employer, in this case, using your words "will seek the minimal possible compensation [a prospective employee is willing to accept.]" And this distinction is important. Without the agreement of both parties, there's no labor contract. If coercion is involved, then it's a slave contract.
With unskilled workers being a massive chunk of the workforce, especially in areas of lower educational opportunities, this creates a large supply, reducing their ability to negotiate effectively.
Ambiguous reference. Large supply of what?
History has shown how masses without power will accept horrendous conditions, or found alternatives by any (often violent) means. Neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world. Just because a group of people accept conditions does not mean those people had a choice, nor does it make it fair, just, or benefitial.
This statement is riddled with contradiction and unsubstantiated assertions. If the masses were willing to accept what you allege are horrendous conditions, then it obviously would have been an "acceptable" outcome (contradiction.) And if these workers "accepted" but somehow did not have a "choice," are you alleging that these workers were placed under duress and coerced into taking/keeping their jobs?
The second industrial revolution showed us how appauling worker conditions can get under the influence of the so called "invisible hand." Sweat shops, child labor, uncompensated workplace injuries, workplaces prone to injuries, a whole population destined to live short lives in squalor, unable to ever afford or invest in any form of advancement, much less an american dream.
Please submit to this debate's purview references of worker conditions before, during, and after the industrial revolution.
I think we can all agree the result of the unregulated free market setup of that time was not benefitial to those workers.
Don't assume we agree. If you're going to allege that the free-market setup was not beneficial, substantiate your point through thorough reasoning or verifiable empirical data.
Despite a lack of any investment in benefits or conditions, and despite the MASSIVE profits of the goliaths of that era, worker wages were unlivable and deplorable.
Reference?
A lack of regulation helped only those who had money and power, a tiny minority.
Please elaborate on the relevance of their being a tiny minority; furthermore, provide reasons or empircal data to the effect of only those who had money and power being helped.
Introduction of regulations, including minimum wage lead to a boom for the american economy and especially unskilled workers, whose assembly line monkey work (nob A into slot B all day every day), attained them a suburban house, 2 cars, and a comfortable life. Objectively a far better outcome then the lawless economic hellscape of the second industrial revolution.
Reference and citation please.
In addition to the poor, a minimum wage is helpful to small local businesses, who although cannot afford to indivudally raise wages at the moment, would greatly benefit from the increased patronage they would get from an enriched public. One would be foolish to cut back on employment with a rush of customers at the door. Increased sales can balance out decreased margins, but increased demand will shoot our gdp through the roof, maintaining our greatest in the world title (that is currently increasingly contested).
Assuming that the "increased demand" borne from the income effect isn't offset by the decreased demand from price inflation (Law of Demand.) And if a minimum wage can enrich a public to an extent where GDP would shoot though the roof, then why hasn't it done so already, since the U.S. has a minimum wage?
Demand without supply = opportunitySupply without demand = nothingOur economy replies on consumers who can afford to demand. If the invisble hand demands otherwise, we will be 3rd world within a generation.
I don't understand your meaning in this statement. Can you elaborate?
Round 3
Pro
#6
Defense:
“This is tautological.”
I’m glad we agree. I am not debating welfare here. A living min wage assumes full time employment, not a one time round of erase the board. These are people reporting to work every day, trying to support a family… in the richest nation in the world. That considers itself the greatest.
“The rational actor whether a seller or patron seeks to optimize his gain; this means that the seller will try to redeem a much higher value while the patron attempts to purchase at a much lower value. Since any transaction between the two embodies the subjective values of each party, an employer, in this case, using your words "will seek the minimal possible compensation [a prospective employee is willing to accept.]" And this distinction is important. Without the agreement of both parties, there's no labor contract. If coercion is involved, then it's a slave contract.”
Indeed, and as history has shown, those without power have been “willing
to accept” some appalling things when given no choice. It is not called wage
slave for no reason, and during those “free” market times, it wasn’t an
exaggeration.
With unskilled workers being a massive chunk of the workforce, especially in areas of lower educational opportunities, this creates a large supply, reducing their ability to negotiate effectively.“Ambiguous reference. Large supply of what?”
The either subject nouns in that sentence work: unskilled
workers, workforce.
History has shown how masses without power will accept horrendous conditions, or found alternatives by any (often violent) means. Neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world. Just because a group of people accept conditions does not mean those people had a choice, nor does it make it fair, just, or benefitial.“This statement is riddled with contradiction and unsubstantiated assertions. If the masses were willing to accept what you allege are horrendous conditions, then it obviously would have been an "acceptable" outcome (contradiction.) And if these workers "accepted" but somehow did not have a "choice," are you alleging that these workers were placed under duress and coerced into taking/keeping their jobs?”
What is acceptable to those without choice, may not always be acceptable
to a society. Made clear by me saying “neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world.” They were not under duress, but they
also had no path to escape. Workers couldn’t even organize as employers didn’t
take them seriously and fired them all until the government stepped in to
equalize the power that even collectively workers did not have. “individual
responsibility” in this situation is a lie meant to enslave people. You can’t
be an individual vs an institution.
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wagner-act/
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wagner-act/
Please submit to this debate's purview references of worker conditions before, during, and after the industrial revolution.
Seriously? I need to reference the common knowledge of the
second industrial revolution? I’ll get the reference about the goliaths of that
era by simply stating names everyone should already know. Rockafellar,
Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, Ford, Carnegie. These people amassed fortunes that made
them legendary. How? Well lets look at the conditions under which they made
their wealth!
https://www.historycrunch.com/working-conditions-in-the-industrial-revolution.html#/
"The final aspect of the working conditions that people faced in the Industrial Revolution was the lack of rights. As previously stated, the political ideology of the time was classical liberalism. This was a highly individualistic ideology that was based on little or no government involvement. As a result, this meant that the government did little to protect workers from being exploited by the wealthy entrepreneurs of the time. For example, child labor was a common feature of life in the Industrial Revolution. Since there were no child labor laws at the start of the Industrial Revolution, factory and mine owners were free to hire children and employ them in incredibly dangerous situations. Furthermore, in modern society, governments are often responsible for establishing minimum wage laws in order to protect workers from being underpaid. However, during the Industrial Revolution, no such laws existed and as a result, industrial workers barely made enough to cover their cost of living. Another example of how workers lacked rights was in regards to how they were treated if they were injured while at work. As discussed in the previous paragraph, the workplaces of the Industrial Revolution were incredibly dangerous and workers often suffered from horrible injuries that made it impossible for them to keep working. Because the government practised laissez-faire capitalism, this meant that they did not have initiatives in place to force factories to protect workers or to compensate them when they became injured and could no longer work. "
"The final aspect of the working conditions that people faced in the Industrial Revolution was the lack of rights. As previously stated, the political ideology of the time was classical liberalism. This was a highly individualistic ideology that was based on little or no government involvement. As a result, this meant that the government did little to protect workers from being exploited by the wealthy entrepreneurs of the time. For example, child labor was a common feature of life in the Industrial Revolution. Since there were no child labor laws at the start of the Industrial Revolution, factory and mine owners were free to hire children and employ them in incredibly dangerous situations. Furthermore, in modern society, governments are often responsible for establishing minimum wage laws in order to protect workers from being underpaid. However, during the Industrial Revolution, no such laws existed and as a result, industrial workers barely made enough to cover their cost of living. Another example of how workers lacked rights was in regards to how they were treated if they were injured while at work. As discussed in the previous paragraph, the workplaces of the Industrial Revolution were incredibly dangerous and workers often suffered from horrible injuries that made it impossible for them to keep working. Because the government practised laissez-faire capitalism, this meant that they did not have initiatives in place to force factories to protect workers or to compensate them when they became injured and could no longer work. "
Introduction of regulations, including minimum wage lead to a boom for the american economy and especially unskilled workers, whose assembly line monkey work (nob A into slot B all day every day), attained them a suburban house, 2 cars, and a comfortable life. Objectively a far better outcome then the lawless economic hellscape of the second industrial revolution."Reference and citation please.""Please elaborate on the relevance of their being a tiny minority; furthermore, provide reasons or empircal data to the effect of only those who had money and power being helped."
https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
The first link is a chart showing adjusted minimum wage by year.
The second link shows growth in gdp by year, I will be focusing on column #4 “GDP growth rate”
Min Wage was created in 1938, which is the start of the min wage chart.
In link 2, 1939 starts a series of years of incredible growth.
Min wage rises sharply after 1949
1950 and the next 4 years again grow exceptional compared to previous years.
1956 starts min wages rise to its adjusted peak at 1968, apparently amidst a recession (according to column #5), growth follows the rising wages yet again.
After that min wage starts a steady decline until finding a balance during the late 1980s, where they remain. The economy was a mix of a max of 5.5% growth (vs 7%/8% routinely, or even double digit growth when min wage was first started), and often in the negatives.
At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.
The first link is a chart showing adjusted minimum wage by year.
The second link shows growth in gdp by year, I will be focusing on column #4 “GDP growth rate”
Min Wage was created in 1938, which is the start of the min wage chart.
In link 2, 1939 starts a series of years of incredible growth.
Min wage rises sharply after 1949
1950 and the next 4 years again grow exceptional compared to previous years.
1956 starts min wages rise to its adjusted peak at 1968, apparently amidst a recession (according to column #5), growth follows the rising wages yet again.
After that min wage starts a steady decline until finding a balance during the late 1980s, where they remain. The economy was a mix of a max of 5.5% growth (vs 7%/8% routinely, or even double digit growth when min wage was first started), and often in the negatives.
At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.
Assuming that the "increased demand" borne from the income effect isn't offset by the decreased demand from price inflation (Law of Demand.) And if a minimum wage can enrich a public to an extent where GDP would shoot though the roof, then why hasn't it done so already, since the U.S. has a minimum wage?
Min wage, adjusted for inflation has been stagnant. Costs have
been rising. Spending power of many has decreased. Thus our GDP growth becomes increasingly
limited. How low the margins of a business are is irrelevant if there are no
customers who can shop there. That’s an important concept for a mom and pop who
rely on their local consumer base. Not so much for Walmart that can lose shop and move easy, international if
necessary.
Demand without supply = opportunity
Supply without demand = nothing
Our economy replies on consumers who can afford to demand. If the invisble hand demands otherwise, we will be 3rd world within a generation.
I
have a biscuits for sale, but nobody wants biscuits. I have nothing but wasted
inventory.
This also goes with I have biscuits for sale, but nobody can afford biscuits. Giving them away for free is nice, but not exactly a business plan. Thus we have nothing.
If there is no demand, there is nothing.
If people have demand, then there is opportunity for an entrepreneur to make money.
Rebuttal:
This also goes with I have biscuits for sale, but nobody can afford biscuits. Giving them away for free is nice, but not exactly a business plan. Thus we have nothing.
If there is no demand, there is nothing.
If people have demand, then there is opportunity for an entrepreneur to make money.
“The minimum wage is a statutory edict which designates a price floor in the labor market--i.e. a minimum amount payable to employees by employers. It should be noted that the minimum wage does not guarantee employment. It requires only that employees legally hired be paid at the minimum. Many notable and pubic proponents of the minimum wage while prone to allege its necessity to the poor neglect to mention the effects this price floor has on the labor market. One and perhaps the most prominent effect the minimum wage has is pricing out partitions of low-skilled/unskilled labor. A minimum wage of $7.25 (the federal minimum) for example makes it illegal to hire someone at $7.24 or less. From an employer's standpoint, this takes on a slightly different meaning. The minimum wage makes it illegal for an employer to hire labor whose marginal productivity generates $7.24 or less.”
Yes. May I add that in a debate regarding the effect minimum wage has on the worker, much of my opponents arguments are concerned with the employer.
“My hypothetical, I trust you've acknowledged by now, is allegorical and microcosmic of the issues with the minimum wage. In essence, I've used economic reasoning in the context of a classroom setting to highlight:”
It certainly is a very gross oversimplification of all the
issues. We are not talking about students doing a one time task. You can hire
your local teenager to mow your lawn for a few bucks, nobody is coming after
you. These aren’t full time workers reporting for duty year round for an actual
business, trying to make an actual living. They’ll do it for free for a bit of
extra credit. This analogy falls flat.
“The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.”
It clearly hasn’t as we have record unemployment despite rising
wages in many of the major urban hubs, while going down nowhere.
“The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
It may, but not all prices will be effected. Real estate is not dependent on much labor, mostly inherent land value. It will not rise at all. It makes up almost 50% of the spending of most poor people. 30% is the suggest portion of your income for all people. Thats a sizeable exception to your rule.
Medicine is another major cost for people, almost none of the price of medicine comes from low wage labor.
Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.”
Automation is fractions penny’s on the dollar, its essentially
free labor after a certain initial investment. Eliminating the minimum wage
will not slow down the transition to tireless perfect machines by an iota. This
is a red herring.
“And due to these effects and some yet to be elaborated, the minimum wage is not beneficial to the poor.”
I look forward to it.
Round 4
Con
#7
I’m glad we agree. I am not debating welfare here. A living min wage assumes full time employment, not a one time round of erase the board. These are people reporting to work every day, trying to support a family… in the richest nation in the world. That considers itself the greatest.
We don't. My statement was intended to make your redundancy clear.
Indeed, and as history has shown, those without power have been “willing to accept” some appalling things when given no choice. It is not called wage slave for no reason, and during those “free” market times, it wasn’t an exaggeration.
"Wage-slavery" is a spurious term which describes no discernible legal, political, social, or economic effect. It's a false equivalence. To be a slave is to be de jure and/or de facto property of another. So, if it's all the same to you, let's dispose of its use. Furthermore, you suggest that they "had no choice" but concede below that they weren't placed under duress. So then they did have a choice. You can argue that their circumstances made taking the job a necessity, but ultimately they made the choice. Your mention of "having no choice" in this context is another false equivalence.
What is acceptable to those without choice, may not always be acceptable to a society. Made clear by me saying “neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world.” They were not under duress, but they also had no path to escape.
We are going to dispense with this as spurious. Until you can demonstrate how these people were being coerced, these false equivalences are not welcomed.
Workers couldn’t even organize as employers didn’t take them seriously and fired them all until the government stepped in to equalize the power that even collectively workers did not have.
That is not an "equalization of power." An employer's "power" is to hire or fire; a worker's "power" is to work or quit. Are the same provisos placed on a worker's power? No? Then there's no equalization.
Seriously? I need to reference the common knowledge of the second industrial revolution? I’ll get the reference about the goliaths of that era by simply stating names everyone should already know. Rockafellar, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, Ford, Carnegie. These people amassed fortunes that made them legendary. How? Well lets look at the conditions under which they made their wealth!"The final aspect of the working conditions that people faced in the Industrial Revolution was the lack of rights. As previously stated, the political ideology of the time was classical liberalism. This was a highly individualistic ideology that was based on little or no government involvement. As a result, this meant that the government did little to protect workers from being exploited by the wealthy entrepreneurs of the time. For example, child labor was a common feature of life in the Industrial Revolution. Since there were no child labor laws at the start of the Industrial Revolution, factory and mine owners were free to hire children and employ them in incredibly dangerous situations. Furthermore, in modern society, governments are often responsible for establishing minimum wage laws in order to protect workers from being underpaid. However, during the Industrial Revolution, no such laws existed and as a result, industrial workers barely made enough to cover their cost of living. Another example of how workers lacked rights was in regards to how they were treated if they were injured while at work. As discussed in the previous paragraph, the workplaces of the Industrial Revolution were incredibly dangerous and workers often suffered from horrible injuries that made it impossible for them to keep working. Because the government practised laissez-faire capitalism, this meant that they did not have initiatives in place to force factories to protect workers or to compensate them when they became injured and could no longer work. "
There's a specific reason I asked you to provide references of worker conditions before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. (You disregarded.) That is to control for your allegation that worker conditions in the Industrial Revolution were particularly harsh. You neglected to mention Pauperism (poor recipients of relief laws) and subsistence farming (farming for survival.) They left their farms in droves because factory work provided them a means to acquire income--something they didn't have before. And many of them continued to work because they'd rather risk injury than return to subsistence. As for the paupers, they were de facto serfs under the auspices of the government. When the "poor law" was passed, paupers stopped receiving handouts and instead went to "workhouses" sanctioned and subsidized by the government. And as a condition of their relief, paupers had to work, work condition notwithstanding. The children who worked were separated into two categories: free children and parish (pauper) children. The free children were only allowed to work under conditions to which their parents consented. The pauper children had to work regardless of condition less they risk losing their relief from the government. There's actually a famous novel--perhaps you know it--that informs the effect of which I speak: the semi-autobiographical "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens. Dickens himself was a pauper (parish boy) and uses his own experiences in a workhouse (his parents were in debtors prison) to inspire the novel. And if you take note, Twist wasn't abused by his parents, or private shop keepers, he was abused by the keepers of the workhouse, most notably the beadle, Mr. Bumble.
Furthermore, the State cannot by definition practice capitalism. It is a centralized public institution. Lastly, none of this has anything to do with the resolution of this debate. The resolution to this debate is centered on the question "Is the minimum-wage beneficial to the poor?" Even if your points about the industrial revolution weren't easily rebutted, and I were to concede that all of what you've said happened, you would still have not demonstrated how the minimum-wage was a remedy. The minimum-wage is a price floor. How would that have ended child labor (I am actually going to some effect this point?) How would the minimum wage have the work place safer? Or allowed workers to organize? No, what you argument does is create an uninformed dichotomy before and after the minimum wage.
The first link is a chart showing adjusted minimum wage by year.The second link shows growth in gdp by year, I will be focusing on column #4 “GDP growth rate”Min Wage was created in 1938, which is the start of the min wage chart.In link 2, 1939 starts a series of years of incredible growth.Min wage rises sharply after 19491950 and the next 4 years again grow exceptional compared to previous years.1956 starts min wages rise to its adjusted peak at 1968, apparently amidst a recession (according to column #5), growth follows the rising wages yet again.After that min wage starts a steady decline until finding a balance during the late 1980s, where they remain. The economy was a mix of a max of 5.5% growth (vs 7%/8% routinely, or even double digit growth when min wage was first started), and often in the negatives.At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You took two trends and put them together. One could do the same with trends in technology or capital flows. Your argument was that the minimum wage lead to an economic boom, not that it "seemed" to be consistent with economic growth. "Seem" is not an argument; "Seem" is your impression. Second, your argument isn't that minimum wage did not stifle growth (that would actually help my point.) Your position remember is that the minimum wage is beneficial, not neutral.
Min wage, adjusted for inflation has been stagnant. Costs have been rising. Spending power of many has decreased. Thus our GDP growth becomes increasingly limited. How low the margins of a business are is irrelevant if there are no customers who can shop there. That’s an important concept for a mom and pop who rely on their local consumer base. Not so much for Walmart that can lose shop and move easy, international if necessary.
Despite your error, you're still presenting contradictory arguments. The part I've emboldened contradicts this:
At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.
So can we take it from your own contradictions that you at least have yet to demonstrate how the minimum-wage itself has any benefit to productivity (GDP)?
I have a biscuits for sale, but nobody wants biscuits. I have nothing but wasted inventory.This also goes with I have biscuits for sale, but nobody can afford biscuits. Giving them away for free is nice, but not exactly a business plan. Thus we have nothing.If there is no demand, there is nothing.If people have demand, then there is opportunity for an entrepreneur to make money.
How is the minimum-wage shoring up demand (more than usual) if its pricing out low skilled labor? The minimum-wage only guarantees that those who have and keep their job get a bump in pay? What happens to demand if that bump in pay goes into savings? What does that do for the biscuit maker?
Yes. May I add that in a debate regarding the effect minimum wage has on the worker, much of my opponents arguments are concerned with the employer.
This is false. The employer is a constant as a source of employment. From my conclusions, tell me which concerns itself more with the employer?
- The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.
- The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
- Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.
It certainly is a very gross oversimplification of all the issues. We are not talking about students doing a one time task. You can hire your local teenager to mow your lawn for a few bucks, nobody is coming after you. These aren’t full time workers reporting for duty year round for an actual business, trying to make an actual living. They’ll do it for free for a bit of extra credit. This analogy falls flat.
The analogy doesn't fall flat. The purpose of any analogy is to convey a logic through different environments (contexts.) Stating that the environments aren't the same is redundant. It's the logic that matters. And the logic would apply and does apply with full-time workers.
It clearly hasn’t as we have record unemployment despite rising wages in many of the major urban hubs, while going down nowhere.
I don't know what you mean by this. What do you mean?
It may, but not all prices will be effected. Real estate is not dependent on much labor, mostly inherent land value. It will not rise at all. It makes up almost 50% of the spending of most poor people. 30% is the suggest portion of your income for all people. Thats a sizeable exception to your rule.Medicine is another major cost for people, almost none of the price of medicine comes from low wage labor.
That's redundant. I stated that it may. It depends on the price-elasticity of the good in question, as I illustrated in my earlier example.
Automation is fractions penny’s on the dollar, its essentially free labor after a certain initial investment. Eliminating the minimum wage will not slow down the transition to tireless perfect machines by an iota. This is a red herring.
All the more reason a "minimum-wage" makes no sense. If automation is inevitable, then why speed up the process by making low-skilled/unskilled labor that much more expensive?
My opponent stated earlier that a living minimum wage was required for workers to support a family. (The average family being started at age 25.) But most people working minimum wage jobs are teenagers.
Pro
#8
“We don't. My statement was intended to make your redundancy clear.”
Then you must have picked the wrong
statement. Calling something a tautology does dismiss the argument, but as
something obvious, not something wrong. I agree it is obvious, although you are
trying to argue against that obvious thing.
"Wage-slavery" is a spurious term which describes no discernible legal, political, social, or economic effect. It's a false equivalence. To be a slave is to be de jure and/or de facto property of another. So, if it's all the same to you, let's dispose of its use. Furthermore, you suggest that they "had no choice" but concede below that they weren't placed under duress. So then they did have a choice. You can argue that their circumstances made taking the job a necessity, but ultimately they made the choice. Your mention of "having no choice" in this context is another false equivalence.What is acceptable to those without choice, may not always be acceptable to a society. Made clear by me saying “neither of these are acceptable outcomes for the greatest nation in the world.” They were not under duress, but they also had no path to escape.“We are going to dispense with this as spurious. Until you can demonstrate how these people were being coerced, these false equivalences are not welcomed.”
I’m glad you no longer see any
contradiction between acceptable to those without choice, and acceptable to a
society that considers itself the greatest in the world. However if your
definition of acceptable is “not slavery” then your ideal society, far from
being the greatest, is horrendous. They certainly had a choice: work in shitty
conditions, or don’t work at all and starve…. What wonderful choice. Yes it isn’t
literal slavery, but its pretty damn close and should be just as unacceptable.
That is not an "equalization of power." An employer's "power" is to hire or fire; a worker's "power" is to work or quit. Are the same provisos placed on a worker's power? No? Then there's no equalization.”
All great in theory. I showed the
results of this ideal in practice, it didn't end pretty. Perhaps equal is not the term, balanced is.
If there is no balance in power, there are no negotiations. And if you remove
the possibility of negotiations, and the possibility of rule setting, then your
just damning these people. Quiting doesn’t work if your alternatives are all
just as bad.
“There's a specific reason I asked you to provide references of worker conditions before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution. (You disregarded.) That is to control for your allegation that worker conditions in the Industrial Revolution were particularly harsh. You neglected to mention Pauperism (poor recipients of relief laws) and subsistence farming (farming for survival.) They left their farms in droves because factory work provided them a means to acquire income--something they didn't have before. And many of them continued to work because they'd rather risk injury than return to subsistence. As for the paupers, they were de facto serfs under the auspices of the government. When the "poor law" was passed, paupers stopped receiving handouts and instead went to "workhouses" sanctioned and subsidized by the government. And as a condition of their relief, paupers had to work, work condition notwithstanding. The children who worked were separated into two categories: free children and parish (pauper) children. The free children were only allowed to work under conditions to which their parents consented. The pauper children had to work regardless of condition less they risk losing their relief from the government. There's actually a famous novel--perhaps you know it--that informs the effect of which I speak: the semi-autobiographical "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens. Dickens himself was a pauper (parish boy) and uses his own experiences in a workhouse (his parents were in debtors prison) to inspire the novel. And if you take note, Twist wasn't abused by his parents, or private shop keepers, he was abused by the keepers of the workhouse, most notably the beadle, Mr. Bumble. “Furthermore, the State cannot by definition practice capitalism. It is a centralized public institution. Lastly, none of this has anything to do with the resolution of this debate. The resolution to this debate is centered on the question "Is the minimum-wage beneficial to the poor?" Even if your points about the industrial revolution weren't easily rebutted, and I were to concede that all of what you've said happened, you would still have not demonstrated how the minimum-wage was a remedy. The minimum-wage is a price floor. How would that have ended child labor (I am actually going to some effect this point?) How would the minimum wage have the work place safer? Or allowed workers to organize? No, what you argument does is create an uninformed dichotomy before and after the minimum wage.
Citation please. Not to the novel,
but the real world laws that you claiming. If you demanded I cite common
knowledge of the second industrial revolution in general, why would you not provide citation for individual laws from that era?
I love how in the same post that you
demand I provide more citations regarding what I agree is a tangent, you shame
me for chasing this tangent that you demanded I provide citation for! Your
solution to minimum wage is elimination of all such government interference. I
referenced what happens without government interference, and cited it at your
request, and then you try to shame me for delivering on your own request! This is
poor conduct.
Minimum wage is just one form of
government regulation. It does not increase safety nor eliminate child labor,
however your vision of no government interference ensures that no laws are
passed regarding child labor or workplace safety. Minimum wage is of the same
theory that supports common sense rules for private industry. Government can certainly pass bad laws, it can also pass good ones. The question was what would happen if the government doesn't pass any rules, and that is clearly a horrible solution. I simply needed to show what the environment was like without/before government interference. I am claiming the government can do a lot of good, I am not claiming the government can do no wrong.
I do agree the state cannot, and should
not, practice capitalism. The government should primarily be a rule maker, not
a player in the markets. Those are completely different roles. By setting a
minimum wage you are not selling a product or competing with businesses, thus I
never implied the government should practice capitalism. The private sector is
an amazing tool of our economy, so long as it plays by common sense rules, just
like the rest of society. This counter argument is in response to something you
made up, and not something I said.
The first link is a chart showing adjusted minimum wage by year.The second link shows growth in gdp by year, I will be focusing on column #4 “GDP growth rate”Min Wage was created in 1938, which is the start of the min wage chart.In link 2, 1939 starts a series of years of incredible growth.Min wage rises sharply after 19491950 and the next 4 years again grow exceptional compared to previous years.1956 starts min wages rise to its adjusted peak at 1968, apparently amidst a recession (according to column #5), growth follows the rising wages yet again.After that min wage starts a steady decline until finding a balance during the late 1980s, where they remain. The economy was a mix of a max of 5.5% growth (vs 7%/8% routinely, or even double digit growth when min wage was first started), and often in the negatives.At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You took two trends and put them together. One could do the same with trends in technology or capital flows. Your argument was that the minimum wage lead to an economic boom, not that it "seemed" to be consistent with economic growth. "Seem" is not an argument; "Seem" is your impression. Second, your argument isn't that minimum wage did not stifle growth (that would actually help my point.) Your position remember is that the minimum wage is beneficial, not neutral.
These are not 2 arbitrary trends, they are both economic trends,
the 2 trends we are discussing and the 2 trends you asked me to show a
connection between. I took those two economic trends and showed perfect
correlation across numerous decades. Variable controlled experiments for macro
economics do not exist. Your asking for the impossible and that is a fallacy in
itself. A repeated correlation over a sufficient time span is strong evidence.
Min wage, adjusted for inflation has been stagnant. Costs have been rising. Spending power of many has decreased. Thus our GDP growth becomes increasingly limited.How low the margins of a business are is irrelevant if there are no customers who can shop there. That’s an important concept for a mom and pop who rely on their local consumer base. Not so much for Walmart that can lose shop and move easy, international if necessary.Despite your error, you're still presenting contradictory arguments. The part I've emboldened contradicts this:At the worst, min wage did not stifle growth, in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth.So can we take it from your own contradictions that you at least have yet to demonstrate how the minimum-wage itself has any benefit to productivity (GDP)?
Whats the contradiction? Rises in
minimum wage have been correlated with faster GDP growth every time. Letting wages
be stagnant is correlated with slower growth. I don’t see the contradiction,
and I have demonstrated how raising the min wage has lead to accelerated growth
in the follow years, while lowering it has lead to slower growth in my previous
argument. I extend that argument.
*in fact it seems consistently
correlated with accelerated growth*
I have a biscuits for sale, but nobody wants biscuits. I have nothing but wasted inventory.This also goes with I have biscuits for sale, but nobody can afford biscuits. Giving them away for free is nice, but not exactly a business plan. Thus we have nothing.If there is no demand, there is nothing.If people have demand, then there is opportunity for an entrepreneur to make money.How is the minimum-wage shoring up demand (more than usual) if its pricing out low skilled labor? The minimum-wage only guarantees that those who have and keep their job get a bump in pay? What happens to demand if that bump in pay goes into savings? What does that do for the biscuit maker?
Trickle down economics does not work
because it gives a boost to those who already have excess money and the gains
will go to savings. The poor certainly need savings, but they also have more
immediate concerns that demand their finances. Why would the poor save money
they badly need to spend? This is illogical.
If nobody can afford biscuits, the biscuit
seller will make zero profit no matter how big his margins are. By raising the
min wage, people are able to afford biscuits. That shores up demand and creates
an opportunity for the business to make profit by satisfying that demand, which
will be difficult if they are cutting back on staff.
May I add that in a debate regarding the effect minimum wage has on the worker, much of my opponents arguments are concerned with the employer.This is false. The employer is a constant as a source of employment. From my conclusions, tell me which concerns itself more with the employer?
- The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.
- The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
- Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.
1. This discussion is about the
employee, not the employer
2. I negated all 3 of those in the
previous round.
It certainly is a very gross oversimplification of all the issues. We are not talking about students doing a one time task. You can hire your local teenager to mow your lawn for a few bucks, nobody is coming after you. These aren’t full time workers reporting for duty year round for an actual business, trying to make an actual living. They’ll do it for free for a bit of extra credit. This analogy falls flat.The analogy doesn't fall flat. The purpose of any analogy is to convey a logic through different environments (contexts.) Stating that the environments aren't the same is redundant. It's the logic that matters. And the logic would apply and does apply with full-time workers.
I didn’t say the environments aren’t
the same, I said the environments are extremely different. So different that the
logic no longer applies and the analogy fails completely. I explained the vast differences in environment following that statement. Those differences were not addressed, I extend those points.
It clearly hasn’t as we have record unemployment despite rising wages in many of the major urban hubs, while going down nowhere.I don't know what you mean by this. What do you mean?
Wages are going up in the areas where
most jobs are.
Wages are going down nowhere.
Despite this, unemployment is at
record lows.
Minimum wage is not pricing out anyone.
The work is necessary, and the companies are plenty profitable. They just want to be more profitable, which is within their right, but not within our society's or economy's best long term interests. Nor is it in worker interests. Its simply corporate self interest, and not for existential reasons.
It may, but not all prices will be effected. Real estate is not dependent on much labor, mostly inherent land value. It will not rise at all. It makes up almost 50% of the spending of most poor people. 30% is the suggest portion of your income for all people. Thats a sizeable exception to your rule.Medicine is another major cost for people, almost none of the price of medicine comes from low wage labor.That's redundant. I stated that it may. It depends on the price-elasticity of the good in question, as I illustrated in my earlier example.
“I stated that it may”
Which means you also stated that it “may
not”. That makes for a weak argument.
They will get a raise on 100% of their
income. 30%-50% of which is spent on costs unaffected by labor costs. Thus
nearly 50% of their gains will not be offset by price adjustment, if such
adjustments even happen. I sustain my point.
Automation is fractions penny’s on the dollar, its essentially free labor after a certain initial investment. Eliminating the minimum wage will not slow down the transition to tireless perfect machines by an iota. This is a red herring.All the more reason a "minimum-wage" makes no sense. If automation is inevitable, then why speed up the process by making low-skilled/unskilled labor that much more expensive?
All the less reason.
My point is that the savings of
automation are so huge, and the investment for it is so huge, the substantial,
but relatively miniscule difference of min wage will not affect its future. Any
company that can afford to make that investment will and already has regardless
of wage costs.
Also because automation is good if
the wealth it generates is not hoarded by the few. Rather then a threat, it
should be viewed as a tool. And a tool is as good as how we choose to use it.
Can you imagine the effect of endless, tireless, perfect production on our
nation’s industry? Do you want to remain #1? Do not let yourself be limited by
fear so long as you take proactive actions to shape the future and not let it
be shaped for you.
“My opponent stated earlier that a living minimum wage was required for workers to support a family. (The average family being started at age 25.) But most people working minimum wage jobs are teenagers.
It is possible, but I do not recall bringing families into
this at all. Please quote me. A family unit often has 2 incomes (a tragedy for
our children), so whether a person is raising a family, or living on his own, a
minimum wage is necessary. The wage should be set relative to local costs, not
personal expenses.
Furthermore, your link only covers workers working for the federal minimum wage. Most min wage jobs are in cities that have much higher local minimum wages, all of those workers are not counted in your federal minimum number. Thus your link is missing the demographics for the vast majority of minimum wage workers, and its conclusion useless. Remember your position is not a juxtaposition of scale, so whether they are at a federal minimum or a local minimum wage, they are still minimum wage workers, and should all be counted.
I look forward to the next round.
Round 5
Con
#9
I ask that the audience, prospective voters, as well as my opponent, give me some leeway to provide a final rebuttal/rejoinder before closing arguments given especially that this debate was essentially deprived a round.
"Then you must have picked the wrong statement. Calling something a tautology does dismiss the argument, but as something obvious, not something wrong. I agree it is obvious, although you are trying to argue against that obvious thing."
You stated:
"We live in a developed, first world nation, where 3rd world salaries simply will not cut it."
"First-world" salaries are immediately embodied in the reference to a nation's status as "first world." Hence, for a nation to be considered "first world" it must reflect and be addressed by first world wages, which themselves reflect a first world's standard and cost of living (tautology.) Now, if the implication is that without a minimum wage, wages would reflect "third-world" rates, that would have to be substantiated. I would counter that by citing six "first-world" nations with no minimum wage:
Denmark
Iceland
Norway
Singapore (except for cleaners and security guards upon further research)
Sweden
Switzerland (where a majority voted against a national minimum wage.)
List of First World Countries (The data also cites these nations as doing better than the U.S. on the Human Development Index.)
Here's a list of countries and the percent of their population who make less than $1.90, $3.20, and $5.50 per day (Third world wages.)
Denmark (0.2%, 0.2%, 0.5% respectively in 2015)
Iceland (0.0%, 0.0%, 0.2% respectively in 2014)
Norway (0.2%, 0.2%, 0.2% respectively in 2015)
Singapore (Upon further research, these figures were unavailable because Singapore has neither adopted a poverty line nor participated in international poverty reports.)
Sweden (0.5%, 0.5%, 1.0% respectively in 2015)
Switzerland (0.0%, 0.0%, 0.0% respectively in 2015)
United States (1.2%, 1.5%, 2.0% respectively in 2016)
I argue that your point is not only tautological but also invalid.
"I’m glad you no longer see any contradiction between acceptable to those without choice, and acceptable to a society that considers itself the greatest in the world. However if your definition of acceptable is “not slavery” then your ideal society, far from being the greatest, is horrendous. They certainly had a choice: work in shitty conditions, or don’t work at all and starve…. What wonderful choice. Yes it isn’t literal slavery, but its pretty damn close and should be just as unacceptable."
No, the contradiction is still there; I'm rebuffing your sensationalism and demagoguery in your attempts to conflate wage-earning with slavery. You stated earlier that it was unacceptable, only to concede later that workers accepted employment in the absence of duress. Hence, the contradiction.
"All great in theory. I showed the results of this ideal in practice, it didn't end pretty."
You most certainly did not. You made mere statements.
"Perhaps equal is not the term"
Then you are conceding to my point.
"balanced is."
Inconsequential statement of lexical semantics.
"If there is no balance in power, there are no negotiations."
False. Negotiations can and still do occur. The "balance of power," as you put it, is contingent on the subjective values of each involved party. If the worker values the employment more than employer values his labor, then naturally the worker would have to give up more (lower his reservation wage) than his prospective employer to reach a mutual agreement; if the employer values labor more than the worker values employment than the employer would have to give up more (raise wages) in order to reach a mutual agreement. As it stands, there are no measures that give recompense for a worker quitting on whim. If anything, employers are afforded two weeks notice where they must assume the transaction costs themselves of searching for another employee. This "balance" of which you speak is not there.
"Citation please."
I did cite it
"When the "poor law" was passed, paupers stopped receiving handouts and instead went to "workhouses" sanctioned and subsidized by the government."
Specifically, The Poor Law of 1834.
"I love how in the same post that you demand I provide more citations regarding what I agree is a tangent, you shame me for chasing this tangent that you demanded I provide citation for!"
First, let's dispense with this sophistic statement that I've somehow "shamed you." You are responsible for how you feel, not I. There are no arguments that were levied against you personally. Second, I requested that you cite worker conditions before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution, you did not. (You only provided information for during.) As I've stated before, this was to control for your allegation that worker conditions were particularly harsh. Not only that, it would've demonstrated the role of the minimum wage had if any since there were none even before the Industrial Revolutions. Furthermore, you are the one who brought up the Industrial Revolution; it's your responsibility to argue its relevance, not mine. You decided to focus on worker conditions and how the "invisible hand" was responsible for child labor, uncompensated work injuries, and such, when your argument should've focused on the lack of a minimum wage during that time, and the effect it had on poverty once imposed. But you didn't. That's your liability.
"Your solution to minimum wage is elimination of all such government interference."
Quote me (from our discussion in this debate.)
"This is poor conduct."
Nice try. Forfeiting a round is poor conduct; engaging a tangent isn't.
"Minimum wage is just one form of government regulation. It does not increase safety nor eliminate child labor, however your vision of no government interference ensures that no laws are passed regarding child labor or workplace safety."
First, you cannot quote me stating that there should be no government interference or that no laws should be passed because I haven't stated as much in this debate. Second, if you argue minimum wage has no role in workplace safety or child labor, then your mention of these conditions, as well as much of your mention of the Industrial Revolution, would have no relevance to the topic at hand.
"The question was what would happen if the government doesn't pass any rules, and that is clearly a horrible solution."
No, the question is implicated by the topic: Is the minimum-wage beneficial to the poor? No one entertained the notion of the government not passing "any rules (laws/regulations.)
"This counter argument is in response to something you made up, and not something I said."
It's neither something I "made-up" nor is it something you said. It was stated in your reference:
"Because the government practised laissez-faire capitalism, this meant that they did not have initiatives in place to force factories to protect workers or to compensate them when they became injured and could no longer work. "
But you however are responsible for these statements/arguments since you referenced them.
"These are not 2 arbitrary trends, they are both economic trends, the 2 trends we are discussing and the 2 trends you asked me to show a connection between. I took those two economic trends and showed perfect correlation across numerous decades. Variable controlled experiments for macro economics do not exist. Your asking for the impossible and that is a fallacy in itself."
You took two trends and said that they're related. You have provided no argument that demonstrates how these variables are related or how they vary with each other. You've demonstrated no "perfect correlation." If I took my grandfather's yearly raises in income before he retired, and put them next to the increases of minimum-wage it would demonstrate a positive trend as well. Except it was my grandfather's investment in himself (human capital) that explained his raises in income, as he earned far above the minimum.
Furthermore, asking for the "impossible" is not a fallacy, which I haven't done. I requested that you substantiate your claims that the minimum wage led to a boom in the economy. By presenting the data as you have, I could just as well make the argument that increases in the minimum wage were a result of increases in GDP rather than the other way around especially given that the minimum-wage is a policy measure. If you cannot define these trends and argue to how they're specifically related especially as it suits the context of your argument, then don't make the argument.
The only fallacy argued here was your cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument.
I will submit this for further consideration:
"In studies of OECD countries, the literature provides relatively little evidence that increases in minimum wages raise aggregate GDP. Rather, the results are more consistent with redistributive effects of the minimum wage across industries. A recent study of the US finds that a 10% increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 1−2% decrease in GDP generated by lower-skilled industries relative to higher-skilled industries [1]. The mechanism at work seems to be greater substitution of low- for high-skilled labor, rather than through inducing greater skill acquisition among low-skilled workers. Finally, the results suggest that the adverse labor demand effects of minimum wages among low-skilled workers may be greater during troughs as compared to peaks in the business cycle. There is very little evidence that minimum wage increases reduce poverty among low-skilled workers during economic recessions.
"Rises in minimum wage have been correlated with faster GDP growth every time. Letting wages be stagnant is correlated with slower growth. I don’t see the contradiction, and I have demonstrated how raising the min wage has lead to accelerated growth in the follow years, while lowering it has lead to slower growth in my previous argument. I extend that argument.
*in fact it seems consistently correlated with accelerated growth*"
You haven't demonstrated any of your claims. Once again, you merely took two trends and put them together. I extend that argument.
"If nobody can afford biscuits, the biscuit seller will make zero profit no matter how big his margins are. By raising the min wage, people are able to afford biscuits. That shores up demand and creates an opportunity for the business to make profit by satisfying that demand, which will be difficult if they are cutting back on staff."
If the biscuit maker is compelled to incur increased labor costs then this may result in one of three things:
The biscuit maker will have to either disemploy or undermploy his employees to cover the costs (biscuits are price-elastic.)
The biscuit maker will have to extend the increased costs of labor to the price of his biscuits, making them more expensive (assuming they are price-inelastic, which they aren't.)
The biscuit maker will incur the loss and eventually lose out to a competing bakery/biscuit maker.
None of that which you state is supported by economic reasoning. You're assuming "more money, more demand." But that money comes at a cost, as prospect you have failed to address. And if you look at the above reference, it's demonstrable that the minimum-wage creates a substitution for low-skilled labor with high-skilled labor (pricing-out low skilled labor.) Who buys the biscuits if the consumers either have no job or work too few hours to afford them? Your claim of the minimum wage shoring up demand is not supported by sound economic reasoning (considering all variables, rather than just one.)
"1. This discussion is about the employee, not the employer "
You haven't answered my question. None of those statements are about the effects on the employer per se, but the effects on the employee through the employer.
"2. I negated all 3 of those in the previous round. "
Tautology: negation is not the same as refutation.
"So different that the logic no longer applies and the analogy fails completely."
You have neither demonstrated nor substantiated this at all.
"Wages are going up in the areas where most jobs are.
Wages are going down nowhere.
Despite this, unemployment is at record lows.
Minimum wage is not pricing out anyone.
The work is necessary, and the companies are plenty profitable.
They just want to be more profitable, which is within their right, but not within our society's or economy's best long term interests.
Nor is it in worker interests. Its simply corporate self interest, and not for existential reasons."
The current unemployment rate must be scrutinize for the following reasons:
(1) the labor force is defined as those who are actively looking for work within a FOUR WEEK span following these methods:
using a public or private employment agency, job service, placement firm, or university employment center
seeking assistance from friends, relatives, or via social networks; for example, asking friends and family for job leads or indicating one's job seeking status on social media
(2) The current labor force participation rate is 63%. That means more than a third of the population is not counted in either (legal) employment or unemployment.
(3) It doesn't take into account underemployment--reduction in hours, i.e. transition from full-time employment to part time employment. (Hidden Unemployment.)
"Which means you also stated that it “may not”. That makes for a weak argument."
"May" is not an indicator of a "weak" argument; "May" considers the likely prospects, most of which I listed above:
The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices (contingent on price elasticity.)
Another, would be disemployment or the reduction in labor hours as informed above.
"It is possible, but I do not recall bringing families into this at all. Please quote me"
Here:
"I’m glad we agree. I am not debating welfare here. A living min wage assumes full time employment, not a one time round of erase the board. These are people reporting to work every day, trying to support a family… in the richest nation in the world. That considers itself the greatest." [End of Round Three.]
"Furthermore, your link only covers workers working for the federal minimum wage."
As did your numbers when you attempted to correlate the minimum wage with GDP, or would you argue those numbers reflected an algorithm that incorporated every localized minimum wage? Furthermore, 21 out the 50 states either by statute or by the absence thereof abide by the federal minimum.(www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx)
"Most min wage jobs are in cities that have much higher local minimum wages, all of those workers are not counted in your federal minimum number."
Which is typically commensurate to their State's cost index and population sizes. For example, California has among the highest minimum wages, but in return has the highest cost of living, particularly in San Francisco.
"Thus your link is missing the demographics for the vast majority of minimum wage workers, and its conclusion useless. Remember your position is not a juxtaposition of scale, so whether they are at a federal minimum or a local minimum wage, they are still minimum wage workers, and should all be counted."
No. Read the description carefully: The minimum wage itself, and not just juxtapositions of scale... My position does not exclude juxtapositions of scale, it just doesn't limit the argument to them. Not to mention in one sentence, you argue that my submission of federal minimum wage workers was useless, while in another argue that they should be counted. This submission of information actually weakens your position. One need only provide a reductio ad absurdum incorporating the extremes of the minimum wage, and you'd have to argue it is beneficial whether it be one cents or nation's GNI. I however have adequately argued with sound eco comic reasoning as well as sufficient information why the minimum wage, whether it be the federal or a local minimum wage isn't beneficial to the poor.
Closing Arguments:
1. Through sound economic reasoning, I was a leader to convey with the use of anecdotal evidence that:
The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.
The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.
Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.
2. My opponent made an irrelevant reference to the Industrial Revolution, and in an attempt to reciprocate his poor conduct, have me blamed for engaging this tangent.
3. My opponent failed to demonstrate any substantial correlation between minimum wage and GDP. It can be argued that the minimum wage was a result of GDP and not the o thg her way around.
4. I provided examples of First world countries that thrive without a minimum wage.
Thank you, vote well.
Pro
#10
I ask that the audience, prospective voters, as well as my opponent, give me some leeway to provide a final rebuttal/rejoinder before closing arguments given especially that this debate was essentially deprived a round.
This is extremely confusing. Whether we grant you leeway or not,
your rebuttal/rejoiner/closing arguments are already presented in the same post
as your request for leeway. If your argument required all 5 rounds, you had all
5 rounds, only my portion of the round was forfeit, instead of extending you
had every opportunity to expand on your points in that round. Going out of your
way to highlight my single forfeit two times with bold letters just stinks of a
desperate attempt to cement a Conduct point you likely already earned with that
forfeit. Personally I did not come here to play high score, I came here to debate, and the only
vote I care about is the one related to arguments.
I will apologize to the viewers for the length of these post. With dueling BoP and 2 opening statements each with their own rebuttals and defenses, it has become quite unwieldy. I appreciate any voters who take their time to analyze this debate. Thank you.
You stated:"We live in a developed, first world nation, where 3rd world salaries simply will not cut it.""First-world" salaries are immediately embodied in the reference to a nation's status as "first world." Hence, for a nation to be considered "first world" it must reflect and be addressed by first world wages, which themselves reflect a first world's standard and cost of living (tautology.) Now, if the implication is that without a minimum wage, wages would reflect "third-world" rates, that would have to be substantiated. I would counter that by citing six "first-world" nations with no minimum wage:DenmarkIcelandNorwaySingapore (except for cleaners and security guards upon further research) Sweden Switzerland (where a majority voted against a national minimum wage.) List of First World Countries (The data also cites these nations as doing better than the U.S. on the Human Development Index.)
Congratulations, you just listed some of the most socialist 1st world nations to prove your free market point. Marvelous. In cultures that care
about their workers and have decent wages to being with, minimum wages is not
necessary. The CEO to worker ration in USA is 354:1, In Denmark it is 89:1,
Norway is 58:1. That’s like pointing to a nation without cars to demonstrate
why we don’t need speed limit laws. lol
Furthermore most of these nations have strong welfare
programs for anyone who doesn’t earn a living wage, there is no idealistic
expectation of unrealistic personal responsibility. If the government covers
your healthcare, some of your food, your travel expenses, ect, a lower wage
works perfectly fine. A tax funded welfare system is a valid alternative to a
minimum wage, however my opponent is not arguing for a welfare state to support
those who do not make a living wage, thus these welfare/pseudo socialist
examples are invalid.
My opponent claims that any salary in the 1st world is by definition a 1st world salary even if they are earning a
dollar a day in line with the 3rd world. THAT is semantics, irrelevant,
and clearly dodging my point. 3rd world like salaries do not
function mathematically in a 1st world society. That is
indisputable. A certain minimum needs to be set or the economy wont function.
People will need to find someway to put a roof over their heads and food in
their belly, one way or another they will not be in the wrong in doing so. We
will be for allowing such a situation to happen.
No, the contradiction is still there; I'm rebuffing your sensationalism and demagoguery in your attempts to conflate wage-earning with slavery. You stated earlier that it was unacceptable, only to concede later that workers accepted employment in the absence of duress. Hence, the contradiction.
So you are actively ignoring the clear distinction that the unacceptable was
in reference not the society’s choice? It feels as if all my arguments are ignored. Child labor is
not slavery either, and many “chose” to accept it. Does that mean we as a
society cannot declare it unacceptable? We clearly did, are you saying we
should revoke that law and bring back child factory labor because some children and families chose it? I made the
distinction between acceptable to the worker vs to the society very clear.
"All great in theory. I showed the results of this ideal in practice, it didn't end pretty."You most certainly did not. You made mere statements.
I demonstrated the conditions before government intervention
during the second industrial revolution, they were objectively horrendous. I cited
them at your request. If you do not dispute the links, you do not have the
right to ignore them. Your ideal fails in practice, I showed the results. Numerous
links are not mere statements.
"Perhaps equal is not the term"Then you are conceding to my point."balanced is.Inconsequential statement of lexical semantics.
Do not quote fragments of sentences. That is dishonest. Elaboration
is not concession.
No 2 different things can be perfectly equal, no 2 boxers are
alike. They do have to be balanced, you don’t put a heavy weight against a
feather weight. This is not semantics. This is how reality functions.
False. Negotiations can and still do occur. The "balance of power," as you put it, is contingent on the subjective values of each involved party. If the worker values the employment more than employer values his labor, then naturally the worker would have to give up more (lower his reservation wage) than his prospective employer to reach a mutual agreement; if the employer values labor more than the worker values employment than the employer would have to give up more (raise wages) in order to reach a mutual agreement. As it stands, there are no measures that give recompense for a worker quitting on whim. If anything, employers are afforded two weeks notice where they must assume the transaction costs themselves of searching for another employee. This "balance" of which you speak is not there.
Lets return to the worker, the actual subject of this
discussion. Clearly if the value of labor was high, minimum wage would not stop
wages from rising. What it is doing is stopping them from falling. Thus
removing minimum wage will inevitably drop wages. As a consequence the poor,
many of whom already live paycheck to paycheck, will fall into debt, become
more of a public charge, or perhaps even a public hazard as work no longer meets
even the minimum of costs. Most poor families already have both parents working.
Record low unemployment means few job gains will be realized. How is this
better for the poor? Your negotiations anecdote is more theory that does not play
out in reality. Workers either accept the preset low pay, or go elsewhere with
the same standards. With mom and pop shops workers had a power balance that
allowed them to negotiate. Most workers are employed by corporations like
amazon and Walmart. Their salaries are preset and nonnegotiable.
First, let's dispense with this sophistic statement that I've somehow "shamed you." You are responsible for how you feel, not I. There are no arguments that were levied against you personally. Second, I requested that you cite worker conditions before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution, you did not. (You only provided information for during.) As I've stated before, this was to control for your allegation that worker conditions were particularly harsh. Not only that, it would've demonstrated the role of the minimum wage had if any since there were none even before the Industrial Revolutions. Furthermore, you are the one who brought up the Industrial Revolution; it's your responsibility to argue its relevance, not mine. You decided to focus on worker conditions and how the "invisible hand" was responsible for child labor, uncompensated work injuries, and such, when your argument should've focused on the lack of a minimum wage during that time, and the effect it had on poverty once imposed. But you didn't. That's your liability.
1. Attempting to shame me was not what I called you out for.
Attempting to shame me *for providing the citations you requested* is.
2. I never said I felt shamed. I called you out for your actions,
not for my feelings. I explained it’s relevance, I provided the citation, at your request.
3. Your request for before during and after is irrelevant. Before
was a low industry economy that is irrelevant to the current discussion. I needed
to show what happens during the time the market held the reins. It was horrendous,
particularly to the “not technically a slave, but pretty damn close” workers.
4. Any misdeeds of poor government programs negate the reality of what happened without government involvement. Nor do poor government programs negate the reality of good government programs and regulations.
5. In addition to the working conditions, many of my quotes focused
on their lack of compensations. From my quote in the 3rd round:
“Furthermore, in modern society, governments
are often responsible for establishing minimum wage laws in order to protect
workers from being underpaid. However, during the Industrial Revolution,
no such laws existed and as a result, industrial workers barely made enough to
cover their cost of living.”
The minimum
wage is part of their working conditions, and is part of government regulation
of the workplace.
"Your solution to minimum wage is elimination of all such government interference.Quote me (from our discussion in this debate.)
“The minimum wage itself, and not just juxtapositions of
scale, will be included in the purview of this debate.”
In other words, it is not about how much minimum wage, but the
existence of any laws regarding minimum wage. Your solution, I assume, is not
as extreme as eliminating all government regulations such as child labor, but
it is to remove as much government regulations as possible, including all
minimum wage laws, bringing us closer to the nightmare scenario I cited.
"This is poor conduct."Nice try. Forfeiting a round is poor conduct; engaging a tangent isn't.
There are more then one example of poor conduct, and my poor conduct does not exempt you from any and all future poor conducts.
"The question was what would happen if the government doesn't pass any rules, and that is clearly a horrible solution."No, the question is implicated by the topic: Is the minimum-wage beneficial to the poor? No one entertained the notion of the government not passing "any rules (laws/regulations.)
This was in reference to your request for me to cite the conditions before, during,
and after. Please provide full quotations to maintain context. The question I was raising in that specific point was what
happens when the market sets the rules of the workplace, aka the during. I answered
that question, and provided all relevant citations.
It's neither something I "made-up" nor is it something you said. It was stated in your reference: "Because the government practised laissez-faire capitalism, this meant that they did not have initiatives in place to force factories to protect workers or to compensate them when they became injured and could no longer work. "
The part I said you made up was an arbitrary statement that
the government should not practice capitalism… I agreed with you it should not,
and never claimed that it should. You were responding to something that was
never said here or by me anywhere, you made it up. Please don’t twist my message.
Longer quotes can help preserve the context if you become overwhelmed.
Here is your quote that I said you made up and was not relevant to anything I said "Furthermore, the State cannot by definition practice capitalism." Please do not quote out of context.
You took two trends and said that they're related. You have provided no argument that demonstrates how these variables are related or how they vary with each other. You've demonstrated no "perfect correlation." If I took my grandfather's yearly raises in income before he retired, and put them next to the increases of minimum-wage it would demonstrate a positive trend as well. Except it was my grandfather's investment in himself (human capital) that explained his raises in income, as he earned far above the minimum. Furthermore, asking for the "impossible" is not a fallacy, which I haven't done. I requested that you substantiate your claims that the minimum wage led to a boom in the economy. By presenting the data as you have, I could just as well make the argument that increases in the minimum wage were a result of increases in GDP rather than the other way around especially given that the minimum-wage is a policy measure. If you cannot define these trends and argue to how they're specifically related especially as it suits the context of your argument, then don't make the argument.
You cannot because the minimum wage was consistently
increased 1 year PRIOR to gdp growth, and was initially created during difficult
economic times as a stimulus, that worked. The correlation is consistent
throughout decades. I also did describe why it boosted the economy before I
even showed the perfect correlation. By boosting incomes, you boost spending,
which boosts the economy.
If the biscuit maker is compelled to incur increased labor costs then this may result in one of three things:The biscuit maker will have to either disemploy or undermploy his employees to cover the costs (biscuits are price-elastic.)The biscuit maker will have to extend the increased costs of labor to the price of his biscuits, making them more expensive (assuming they are price-inelastic, which they aren't.)The biscuit maker will incur the loss and eventually lose out to a competing bakery/biscuit maker
If the minimum wage is raised the biscuit maker will not
lose out to a competitor as the competitor has the same cost increase. Fair regulations do not change competitive advantage.
Not having a customer base who can afford his biscuits
causes him to close his shop instead of losing on some profit.
Increased business from more local customers who can afford
his biscuits is consistently ignored. As is the need for more workers to handle
the increased demand.
None of that which you state is supported by economic reasoning. You're assuming "more money, more demand." But that money comes at a cost, as prospect you have failed to address. And if you look at the above reference, it's demonstrable that the minimum-wage creates a substitution for low-skilled labor with high-skilled labor (pricing-out low skilled labor.) Who buys the biscuits if the consumers either have no job or work too few hours to afford them? Your claim of the minimum wage shoring up demand is not supported by sound economic reasoning (considering all variables, rather than just one.)
I have been explaining the reasoning since the first post. A cost that is addressed by the increased demand. More money,
more demand is not an assumption when discussion low wage workers. They are
underpaid relative to costs and have massive pent up demand for home/car
repairs, appliances, an education, child care, etc. Increasing their income will
be an immediate adrenaline shot for the economy and will ripple all the way up
through every business. You have not demonstrated any job loss effect.
You haven't answered my question. None of those statements are about the effects on the employer per se, but the effects on the employee through the employer.
You made several conclusion statements after your analogy, I
answered all of them. Rising wages have not increased unemployment. Nearly 50%
or more of costs will not be affected by minimum wage even if consumer costs do
rise (which they may not). And automation will not be slowed or sped up through
minimum wage due to the fact that the investment for it is high, and the gains
immense. Your effects were all refuted.
"2. I negated all 3 of those in the previous round. "Tautology: negation is not the same as refutation."So different that the logic no longer applies and the analogy fails completely.You have neither demonstrated nor substantiated this at all.
Semantics. “I refuted all 3 of those in the previous round”
happy?
Your students are not full time year round employees trying
to live off your board erasing salary. You can pay them whatever you want, minimum
wage laws do not apply to non-businesses. And your analogy implies an employer
will waste all of his money hiring as many people as possible when in reality
he will just hire the minimum amount people at the reduced cost and put the
rest into profits. That’s what happens in reality. You claim businesses cannot
afford higher wages, yet all we see are record profits being reported. I said
all of this before. At this point I’m just repeating myself.
The current unemployment rate must be scrutinize for the following reasons:(1) the labor force is defined as those who are actively looking for work within a FOUR WEEK span following these methods:(2) The current labor force participation rate is 63%. That means more than a third of the population is not counted in either (legal) employment or unemployment.(3) It doesn't take into account underemployment--reduction in hours, i.e. transition from full-time employment to part time employment. (Hidden Unemployment.)
2. Yes, only 63% of the population, including young children,
retired elderly, the disabled.
1. With record low unemployment, anyone who wasn’t seeking
work but wants to work is back to seeking work. If the rest are not seeking
work in a tight labor market, what makes you think they’ll jump back in for
lower wages?
3. True, It would be nice if you would have provided such
hours. You did insist on shared BoP.
"May" is not an indicator of a "weak" argument; "May" considers the likely prospects, most of which I listed above:The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices (contingent on price elasticity.)Another, would be disemployment or the reduction in labor hours as informed above.
The “may” was clearly in reference to your "prices *may* go up" comment. This has
nothing to do with switching to automation or reducing labor hours which would
be an alternative to raising prices. Please use full context quotes to ensure
your response is relevant to the actual point being addressed. Clearly you
admit they “may not” go up, probably due to the effect of increased business covering
the lower profit margins. I also listed large portion of costs that are not
affected by low wage labor, like rent and medical, which will not go up or down
based on wages.
"It is possible, but I do not recall bringing families into this at all. Please quote me"Here:"I’m glad we agree. I am not debating welfare here. A living min wage assumes full time employment, not a one time round of erase the board. These are people reporting to work every day, trying to support a family… in the richest nation in the world. That considers itself the greatest." [End of Round Three.]
Again you take things out of context and argue the wrong
point. What I said was the students in your example are not full time, year round,
trying to make a livelihood workers. The family was simply a way to contrast workers
from kids doing a task. I never outright stated minimum wage is necessary for
families. I do agree it is, but I think it is necessary for non family people
as well.
As did your numbers when you attempted to correlate the minimum wage with GDP, or would you argue those numbers reflected an algorithm that incorporated every localized minimum wage? Furthermore, 21 out the 50 states either by statute or by the absence thereof abide by the federal minimum.(www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx)
A significant percentage of minimum wage jobs, if not the
vast majority, are in cities with higher minimum wages. If you are talking
about demographics, your example is leaving out most minimum wage workers in
areas with most of the minimum wage jobs. This has no relation to my example
which simply shows minimum wage go up, followed by GDP going up.
Which is typically commensurate to their State's cost index and population sizes. For example, California has among the highest minimum wages, but in return has the highest cost of living, particularly in San Francisco.
You are implying a cause and effect without even speculating
on any connection. I said how increased spending will outweight any negative
effects of min wage and actually boost the economy, logic you couldn’t deny and
simply leaned in on your “I said it may increase prices,” As clear cut
logic in defense of my several decade long correlation.
Logically speaking, jobs form where people want to live. People
wanting to live somewhere drives up demand. Demand for the land increases the
cost to live there. The jobs follow the cost of living, minimum wage is an
adaptation to the situation, it came in response to costs surpassing wages. How
in any form of logic will you claim minimum wages caused the higher cost of living?! This is where people want to live, this is where the jobs are, these things
drive up costs. Its very simple logic. Your just shooting blindly at this
point.
"Thus your link is missing the demographics for the vast majority of minimum wage workers, and its conclusion useless. Remember your position is not a juxtaposition of scale, so whether they are at a federal minimum or a local minimum wage, they are still minimum wage workers, and should all be counted."No. Read the description carefully: The minimum wage itself, and not just juxtapositions of scale... My position does not exclude juxtapositions of scale, it just doesn't limit the argument to them. Not to mention in one sentence, you argue that my submission of federal minimum wage workers was useless, while in another argue that they should be counted. This submission of information actually weakens your position. One need only provide a reductio ad absurdum incorporating the extremes of the minimum wage, and you'd have to argue it is beneficial whether it be one cents or nation's GNI. I however have adequately argued with sound eco comic reasoning as well as sufficient information why the minimum wage, whether it be the federal or a local minimum wage isn't beneficial to the poor.
My response was clearly in reference to your link being
invalid, not the entirety of your argument. I will try to respond to what your
saying, but your previous evidence from that link is still invalid due to it being
about demographics while using a small and extremely nontypical example of a
minimum wage worker. Your previous argument is thus invalid. The other example
was a cause and effect of national policy on national GDP. Yes, in that example
demographics are not relevant.
Too much of a good thing does not make it better. Obviously
minimum wage should allow someone to cover a crummy neighborhood within reasonable
travel distance to the regional work hub, with a big left over after the bills.
That will be great for the economy. Setting the minimum wage to some absurd
amount is not an argument against the minimum wage, its an argument against an
absurd minimum wage. If I level has positive effects, but another level has
negative effects, we don’t pretend the positive effects never happened.
Closing Arguments: REBUTTAL
This essentially the first post unphased by any of my criticisms.
1. Through sound economic reasoning, I was a leader to convey with the use of anecdotal evidence that:The minimum-wage prices out low-skilled/unskilled labor.The minimum wage may be offset by extending the increased costs of labor to prices.Automated/Robotic alternatives increase the opportunity costs of employers hiring at the minimum.
Low skilled workers are plenty employed despite rising wages
Increased demand is an obvious consequence of increased wages,
and a very significant portion of costs has no relation to low wage work
(medicine, rent for example)
The insane cost of automation and the insane perfect tireless benefit
means that the companies that can afford it will do it ASAP with 1penny wages, while
companies that can’t afford it are nowhere near to affording it.
2. My opponent made an irrelevant reference to the Industrial Revolution, and in an attempt to reciprocate his poor conduct, have me blamed for engaging this tangent.
An example of what happened when the government was hands off, including
the wages at the time. My opponent asked for references, references provided,
then asked why am I providing these references. I forfeited a round, my
opponent is desperately reminding you of that #4. Bold letters.
3. My opponent failed to demonstrate any substantial correlation between minimum wage and GDP. It can be argued that the minimum wage was a result of GDP and not the o thg her way around.
The minimum wage gains happened the year before gdp went up, and
gdp did not rise until the following years. My opponent simply ignored all of
my data.
4. I provided examples of First world countries that thrive without a minimum wage.
Pseudo socialist welfare states with low income inequality. Sure,
if the taxpayer supports the poor and most costs are covered by the government,
that will resolve the minimum wage problem, although I’m not a fan of that
solution. This argument, LOL.
My Closing Arguments.
Currently much of the population is living paycheck to paycheck.
They are one unfortunate event from becoming a public charge or a homeless vagrant.
Assuming they are fortunate to make it to retirement, what savings can they possibly
accumulate? Increasing the minimum wage increases their spending power whether
prices rise or not, and the goods they buy can greatly improve their situation,
from fixing their car/ac to paying for a skills program.
And even if they reduce someones hours, if they get paid the
same amount for fewer hours, that’s time they can cook saving on food costs, or
time to devote to a career or skill. Time is money!
A minimum wage is necessary for the health of the economy precisely
because it is helpful to the poor who have pent up demand they could not
afford.
I have debunked all of my opponents claims, from inevitable and
unaffected automation to the idea that minimum wage will cost jobs, which it
never has. My opponent did not do a good job criticizing my proofs and
arguments, but made baseless claims without evidence of his own. He did not
show any causation or correlation of any kind for job loss, for get about
consistently across decades, despite his own insistence on shared BoP. No
negative effect of minimum wage was demonstrated objectively, only a
hypothetical and grossly simplified anecdote that has no connection to the actual
real world outcomes as demonstrated by my arguments and citations.
Thank you for your time.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N9TY-vAV_Bi8ErxAvGRnvc7w7CTmrgYZJShNVsxsjR4/edit?usp=sharing
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Reason For Decision:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029125616/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KH8aLtYjkA6NqmtadVzCJGbHOOpC_wMk8rohKLa5kBg/edit
Mobile and smartphone users should use this link instead:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029052319/https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1KH8aLtYjkA6NqmtadVzCJGbHOOpC_wMk8rohKLa5kBg/mobilebasic
Yeah okay, that would work too.
@Christen: I saw your RFD through my mobile device beforehand, so all is well with that link. It wasn't until I logged in with my computer that I noticed the error with the first link.
@bmdrocks21: Does having no debates place limitations on voting? My first and only vote was done with no debates under my belt either, so I'm fairly certain what Harleygator did wasn't against the rules. (Maybe it was for debate.org) Perhaps check, first?
Hi christen, you can edit your vote for a short period after voting; I can remove it for you to let you repost if you no longer have the delete icon on the vote.
How do I edit my vote so I can put the newly update/fixed links?
My link somehow linked to a different RFD instead of the one for this debate. Web archive must have gotten the 2 links mixed up. I fixed it, and I need to put it in the vote.
I flagged the first vote. No debates yet, started yesterday. Apparently has a couple other votes as well.
Try this link instead:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029125616/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KH8aLtYjkA6NqmtadVzCJGbHOOpC_wMk8rohKLa5kBg/edit
If you're using a mobile device or smartphone, then use the mobile/smartphone link in my vote. I fixed that one too.
The mobile smartphone link is easier to read on smartphones than the first link is.
Thanks for letting me know. Working on fixing it right now.
@Harleygator: Your vote is appreciated. I'm acknowledging your vote in particular because your analysis is fairly accurate. That is, my anecdote was intended to be explanatory not a reference to circumstance; the emotional language frequently invoked by my opponent; the issues with causality when attempting to correlate the minimum-wage and GDP growth, etc. Good eyes.
@Christen: Your first link leads to an RFD for the prospect of Donald Trump's impeachment; the second link can only be viewed by mobile devices. Your vote is appreciate as well. However, this error may present difficulties--i.e. vote deletion. Just a heads up.
No shade taken. Quiting is irrelevant, even the active debates were free points. Winning a tough debate gives me a better rush then scoring some points. And losing a debate sets me up for more wins in the future. So i dont really get the rush for points. I do lol when i see FF debates get 3x the votes of any serious debate cause voting takes as much work as debating. Apparently i have to repeat every point raised or i didnt examine the arguments enough and it gets removed :(
Oh lol, sorry. Didn't mean to cast shade.
Some people began snatching up all of Billbatard's debates once he got banned because they wanted free wins. It is really annoying how low they steep for fictional points on the leader board.
Or crosses... but you only find that out after debating with them. Those 2 combined messed up all of my early debates.
If truth mattered more than points, no one would debate billbatard lol.
Even if it's after the voting time, i would appreciate any reviews, reactions, or judgements of this debate. I know it wont score us or you any points... but isnt it all about the arguments and truth in the end?
Thank you, and cheers!
I would agree to some extent. If I had an error, it was in creating a character limit that wasn’t commensurate to the time allotted for arguments or voting period. 30,000 is excessive. I don’t think anyone has come close to the limit. I think I went as high as fourteen thousand, where most of it were quotes and citations. Duly noted, bmdrocks.
With a debate that is 30k characters and five rounds, I would recommend a minimum of a one month voting period. Any debate with over 10k characters usually doesn't even get looked at.
"It's a nice calculation, but it misses the reality of peoples lives and priorities."
I actually addressed that right after the statement you quoted:
"Of course, I don't expect anyone to spend 80 hours focused on a single debate given other priorities (family, friends, homework, recreation, etc.) But even if you were to spend an eighth of that remaining time, that would still be 10 hours..."
Believe me, I understand. But the voting period wasn't set with any particular voter(s) in mind. Whoever wants to participate can participate. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a vote; it can be commentary as well. I'd be interested to see what takes others had on the subject.
"one would still have more than three full days."
It's a nice calculation, but it misses the reality of peoples lives and priorities. Technically every single member of this site has enough time to vote on every debate, but they do not.
Anyway, I wish you the best. I might get around to voting on this, but I do have other things going on (Halloween week is always very busy for me).
1. One time reminder of your forfeit. Every mention of forfeit thereafter was in response to that fictional narrative of shaming, which you were clearly using to overcompensate for said forfeit.
2. There were no quotes taken out of context on my part. Every parsing was related back to your assertion that the legislation after the Industrial Revolution was meant to "equalize" or "balance" the "power" between employer and employee.
3. I asked for a citation for worker conditions BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the Industrial Revolutions. You provided only one for during. (That was your first error.) You were the one who initially invoked the reference to the Industrial Revolutions with little to no focus on the minimum wage (that was your second error.) Any reference to the Industrial Revolutions and its relevance to the minimum-wage is your responsibility (that was your third error.) Even if you're claiming that I conspired in some "nefarious" plot to goad you into addressing an irrelevant tangent, as I've stated before, it would still be your responsibility to know which arguments are relevant to your position. If the roles were reversed, and you decided to ask for a citation or reference for my classroom anecdote, which would later be deemed irrelevant, then that would be my responsibility. The difference is, my arguments remained focused while yours didn't. You were more concerned with scrutinizing the free-market, rather than the subject over which we argued as evidenced many times throughout the debate. You were not "shamed" or "deceived." And most if not all of your "concerns" have no relevance to the substance of our debate.
4x reminder of a single forfeit. Out of context incomplete sentence quotes. Asking for citation, then complaining (softer language) when the citation was provided. Many examples, most of which were called out in the debates. The list of what you believe my concerns are show that you havent been regestering much of what i have been typing.
For which error am I at fault? "Shaming" you? That's fiction. The time periods? You're not complaining about that, and assumed responsibility for your obliviousness, right? So that can't be it. Was it the burdens of proof? You said you were open to "going my way" so that must not be it either. Where was my error?
Its hardly complaining when i admit its my fault for rushing to accept. I am able to own up to my errors, you should too. Also, highlighting my concern or seconding another's opinion is hardly the same as constantly nagging without prompting. You are the one that cant seem to move on.
If you want to do another debate that is fine, i will insist on longer debate/voting periods tho.
And you're right: complaining is unbecoming. So why are you doing it? (You've been complaining as far back as the beginning.)
1. I did ask for the reason for your forfeit; and you did mention that you were oblivious to the time limit. Whose fault was that? A full round had passed before your forfeit. You were able to manage a submission on time before; if you didn't read the description of the debate beforehand, then your discomfort was on you.
2. Yes, it was a courtesy and formality (as an authority on my own intentions, I outrank you.) And if you noticed--perhaps you didn't--the voting standard is "Winner Selection." There are NO conduct points. (Though, I can't really dictate the standards voters use at their discretion.) It's not necessary to handicap you by deductions in conduct, spelling, or even sourcing to provide a superior argument. Second, I always point out the forfeit in bold letters after the forfeit. (Look at every one of my debates.) If I continued to do this, then you would've had a point. I only continued to point out your forfeit because it was clear to me that you were using this "shaming" narrative you fictionalized to overcompensate for your forfeit. Hence, you sought to point out some "poor conduct," on my part using said narrative. As I said before, "nice try."
3. Blame is not the same as "shame." And your "shame" doesn't make you any less responsible for your arguments as well as your burden of proof. But this is rather nonsensical and irrelevant. I will indulge it no more.
4. It wasn't your burden to argue for "common sense regulations." It was your burden to argue for the "minimum wage." And the only arguments you made to that effect were easily refuted (i.e. in their absence, first world country cannot sustain themselves with third world wages, and the minimum wage boosted GDP.)
Second, let me repeat: I don't care how or what you feel; even less so, I'm not the slightest bit concerned about how or what I feel. Once again, it's all irrelevant.
5. I addressed every one of your statements however much beleaguered they were.
I communicated to you in pm when you asked me why i forfeited that i didnt realize the short time frame. I did succeed in posting them but it was quite uncomfortable.
2. It was hardly a courtesy or a formality. It was a sad attempt to again highlight my forfeit to score browny points for your conduct point. I found it strange your choice to highlight my forfeit in BOLD LETTERS initially, but the constant reminders were objectively yet another example or poor conduct. Sorta like a sore winner, only without the winning yet.
3. I referenced what happened when the market was allowed to set its own wages, conditions, etc without government laws like min wage. You asked for citations, then you blamed me after i provided the requested citations. Im sorry you got triggered or something by the term shame, but a duck is a duck and you should own up to your actions.
4. Regulated capitalism is not socialism. I was arguing for common sense regulations, not an abandonment of capitalism. I dont think you understood or properly addressed most of my arguments and ended up restating the end of your first post as your last post. I have no desire to enter a forum like infinite debate. With longer window i am confident my rebuttals could have been more organized. You took my opening statements even more out of context then i called you out on when i reread the debate afterwards. But from here forward let us leave it to the voters.
Any concerns regarding the rules i openly stated is my fault for being too fast to accept. I dont blame you for any of it. So stop being so sensitive. I am allowed to voice concerns before during or after. Geez.
5. You didnt address many of my claims, with much of what you did address was out of context 3 word useless quotes. With more time, you would have gotten a better response, but that's a negative for me if i didn't address something, just like your failures to address will count against you. This complaining is unbecoming.
I'll admit that it probably would've been prudent to extend the voting period. But my concern is not the convenience of prospective voters, however big they may be. I still don't see how a week is too short. Even if one were to deduct the average 40 hour work/school week and 40 hour sleep schedule, one would still have more than three full days. Of course, I don't expect anyone to spend 80 hours focused on a single debate given other priorities (family, friends, homework, recreation, etc.) But even if you were to spend an eighth of that remaining time, that would still be 10 hours, which is far more than a sufficient amount of time to read the arguments of all five rounds (especially given that the opening arguments were rather short, and the third round consisted of a forfeit and an extension of argument) the sources provided, and render a judgement.
If this debate interests you, and you want to participate by voting, then do so. If it doesn't, then don't. However, your concerns haven't fallen on deaf ears. I may consider extending the voting periods to two weeks in future debates.
Let's get a few things straight:
1. You communicated no complaints about the time allotted until after Christen mentioned it. You had no reservations about communicating your concerns about the format, as evidenced below. Only after your forfeit did it become a concern, given that you managed to submit arguments on time for four out of the five rounds.
2. My "asking" the audience, and prospective voters for leeway was clearly a courtesy and formality. Hence, it was a statement and not a question. (Who's to say that anyone would've responded even if I "asked" a round before.) It's confusing that you'd bring it up.
3. I don't care about what or how you feel. That means I don't care enough about you to attempt to solicit any emotion from you, including shame. My actions are in service to debate. Since you invoked the language of "shame," it's obvious that you felt shamed. You must assume responsibility for that. Furthermore, how you feel, how I feel, how anyone else "feels" is irrelevant. So once again, let's dispense with the sophistry.
4. In this entire debate, you kept a tenuous focus on the subject at hand. We were not debating Socialism vs Capitalism; we were not debating Government Intervention vs Government Non-intervention. We were debating the Minimum Wage and its alleged benefit to the poor as the title suggests. It doesn't matter that the countries I listed are socialist as you claim. The other programs they have in place don't matter. The only aspects which matter are that of the minimum wage. And I cited six countries without a minimum wage which are considered first world, completely refuting your point.
5. And it's not lost on me, that in the final round of this debate, you did not address the refutation of your claim that minimum-wage boosted GDP. That is, the minimum wage was shown to demonstrate 1-2% decrease in low-skilled worker productivity for every 10% increase in the minimum wage.
As the second biggest voter on the site, I will say that I rarely read any debates before they're finished. I hate excessively long voting periods, but a week is very short...
I disagree with athias's statment. Forum discussions are irrelevant to a debate as per rules, and our PMs were limited to clarifying your juxtaposition statement. The short argument period got you a forfeit instead of preventing one, and is absolutely unrealistic for a dual statement, economic research heavy debate. It was a mistake on my part to rush to accept.
Also assuming is generally not good.
The reasons I chose to have a relatively shorter amount of time allotted between arguments were: (1) it's been my experience that most people who debated with me have forfeited at some point, so to hedge against prolonged periods of waiting for the debate to end, I ensured that this debate would undoubtedly end in at most fifteen days, and (2) 10 weeks (one week for each of the five rounds afforded to each debater) is an absurdly lengthy amount to have a discussion about the benefits of the minimum wage. Since Nemiroff and I were already discussing the topic in the forums, as well as outlining some particulars through private messaging, I didn't see a need for anything more than three days.
As for the voting period, I assume that those who would take an interest in voting normally follow the debate as it's happening, and not stumble across it weeks after the fact, and submit a vote in order to boost a stat. It's my way of screening prospective voters. The time shouldn't be a problem if one were following the arguments somewhat regularly. I've used this method in almost every debate I've started and I have yet to discover any drawbacks.
I agree.
Would you like to debate the economic benefits of min wage with me after this finishes?
I'm gonna see if I can prepare an RFD beforehand in advance, seeing how the debate is just about finished at this time, with only one more argument to go.
I recommend having at least 1 week for arguments, and at least 2 weeks for voting, next time. 4 and 5 round debates require more time to survey arguments, weigh them against each other, and reach a conclusion. Less time for voting means anyone who does vote will have to rush through everything to avoid running out of time, especially those who have other real-life responsibilities, but still want to contribute their vote.
Again, not difficult, just less effective. I for one dont believe juggling is usually productive, but i am eager to end this side discussion. We'll let the debate decide how constructive it is :)
The subject is the same: "The Minimum Wage Is Beneficial to the Poor." It's just that our arguments supporting our respective theses will be different. And this subject as titled requires two different theses: one which affirms the proposition, and one which negates it. Unlike the forum, formal debates require more structure (formats, stipulations, definitions, etc.)
Now that our opening arguments are out of the way, you can challenge my reasoning, and I can challenge yours. The resolution of this debate is ultimately and primarily "does the minimum wage benefit the poor?" not "can Athias find a cheaper method for cleaning his blackboard?" or "Is Nemiroff right about the second Industrial Revolution?" As long as the arguments inform the effect of the minimum wage, then there's nothing about which to worry. Not to mention, we have four more rounds, and a 30,000 character limit. So whatever needs to be addressed can be addressed.
As i said, im open to going your way, and i didnt mean that it is particularly difficult, just less efficient/effective in comparison to focusing on 1 assertion at a time.
Each round we will rebutting different subjects. Seems suboptimal. But im down to see how this works out. I just wanted to make my concern known, not insist upon it.
The burden of proof is assigned to the argument which affirms a claim. Your claim is "p" -- the minimum wage is beneficial to the poor; my claim is "q" -- the minimum wage is not beneficial to the poor. It just so happens that my argument "q" is the negation of your argument p. It's being "positive" or "negative" has no relevance. I have just as much a burden to substantiate my claim as you do yours. If we were to follow your format, and have you defend your position while I simply probe, then the resolution to this debate would be "Can Nemiroff defend the Minimum Wage?" as oppose to "The Minimum Wage Is/Isn't Beneficial to the Poor." I cannot use your failure to defend your position as information for my position less I risk arguing from ignorance, a logical fallacy; thus, your format would be in fact the less effective method. You may not be used to arguing this way, but it is a sound method.
Round One: Opening Arguments (I provide my thesis and argument; you provide your thesis and argument.)
Round Two: Rebuttals (Defend/Supplement theses and arguments; rebut opponents thesis and argument.)
Rounds Three & Four: Rebuttals/Rejoinders (Defend theses and arguments; rebut opponents thesis and argument; rebut rebuttals.)
Round Five: Closing Arguments (Reaffirm theses and arguments; summation.)
It's not difficult at all. As long as you keep focus on the resolution, the format should be easily to follow (and in my experience is quite helpful.)