Instigator / Pro
17
1566
rating
29
debates
56.9%
won
Topic
#1770

The minimum wage should be abolished

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
1,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
23
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description

The minimum wage was created supposedly to make things better for workers. However, is it actually a bad thing? Bad enough that we should set it to $0?

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RESOLVED: The minimum wage should be abolished

PRO as instigator has superior burden of proof here. No specific govt. is id'd although most modern governments implement some form of minimum wage.

R1-PRO argues supply and demand. When labor is not demand the value of labor must drop- minimum wage builds a floor for that drop beneath which job opportunities are lost.

R1-CON argues all human labor is worth at least minimum wage. Abolished minimums creates jobs without fair compensation- so either nobody does them or the disenfranchised are compelled to participate in an unfair system.

R2-PRO counters that 12 years of schooling teaches no useful skills worth compensating.

CON correctly points out that school- literacy, math has value

PRO asks how immigrants are hurt so long as their participation in unfair systems in voluntary. CON counters that voluntary slavery is still slavery.

PRO argues that millions of people are unemployed but takes us to a Wikipedia article that describes full employment at around 5% and current unemployment rate at 3.5%- better than full employment (in spite of major increases in minimum wage in many states and local municipalities). Further the wikipedia article shows that minimum wage is 44% of what it was 50 years ago but employment levels are about the same. PRO argues that abolishing minimum wage will drop unemployment to at or near 0%. CON wisely argues that PRO is contradicted by own source.

ARGUMENTS to CON.
SOURCES to CON. Sourcing was scant but PRO contradicted his own argument with his sources and CON capitalized so sources to CON.

I would have awarded CONDUCT to CON in response to PRO's generalization about Indians as ignorant (they don't know better) but CON responded with a generalization regarding the unemployed as "drug addicts." So both sides stepped off the high ground there.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro's Arguments: (con rebuttal (CR), pro defense (PD), final rebuttal (FR), my ruling (MR))

1. Under the current system, people who produce under the minimum wage won't be getting hired.
CR: 90% of Americans graduated from high school, and they are mostly all producing at or above the minimum wage.
PD: Only a quarter of students have job experience, and the rest are producing at below minimum wage.
FR: The average high school graduate has 13-14 years of education and therefore do have large worth.
MR: Pro never gives evidence that people out of high school produce under the minimum wage, so it is bare assertion. Without seeing the actual evidence that says high school students only produce at below minimum wage when they haven't had job experience, I have to side with Con.

2. By starting at the bottom, workers can work their way up to higher wages. This is apparent because those with college degrees make more money than those without them. The system allows everyone to sell their labor.
CR: A lot of employees won't stay for such low wages, and then wages will stay low because minorities + immigrants will be willing to work low paying jobs, which harms them. Job growth won't happen because a lot of people won't be willing to work. India is an example with a dangerously low average wage that people are (??) working to raise.
PD: Immigrants and minorities aren't harmed because they're willing to stay, and India doesn't know any better.
FR: Immigrants and minorities are harmed precisely because they are willing to take ridiculously low wages. India does know better as cited in the source, and they are trying to raise the minimum wage after having it go dangerously low.
MR: Con consistently showed that lowering wages is dangerous and only takes advantage of people who can't get better jobs. Pro's argument hinges on employees not having minimum wage value, but he never shows a source stating that their value are that low. I have to side with Con.

3. The unemployment rate would dramatically drop.
CR/FR: The source used itself shows that there are more jobs than people trying to work, so everyone should be able to find one.
MR: If there are more jobs than people, then the unemployment rate is really no concern, so I have to side with Con.

Con won all the arguments, so he wins.

Tied on all others.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

1. selling labor
A decent opening with the idea of someone selling their nearly worthless labor at $3/hour for the company to gain $5/hour in productivity. This of course cross applies to other potential minimum wage levels above that $5 which the company would only break even.
Con counters that too few people are such poor producers for this to be a necessary change.
Pro defends that people fresh out of high school are not worth paying any minimum amount.
Con counters that they have x years training, and indeed get hired (a source for this would have been useful ... the end source showing how low the unemployment rate is, did hold solidify this).

2. Harms of no minimum wage
Con points out the danger that various people would be taken advantage of and paid less than they’re worth.
Pro counters that them being under paid wouldn’t hurt them because they would still be employed…
Con clarifies the point by comparing it to slave labor, which gets across the point he already clearly made.

Pro also says it further harms job growth for skilled laborers.
This is dropped by con.

3. India
Con brings up a very close to pro’s goal minimum wage in India ($0.28), and asserts that activists want it raised.
Pro calls them ignorant to want it raised.
Con defends with a history lesson, and compares the outcome to pro’s proposal as clearly the people are dissatisfied without a minimum wage.

4. Unemployment rate to 0%
Pro adds in his final round that he previously (he did not) said his plan would eliminate unemployment. This really could have used some support (plus “literally” being in the previous round like he claimed).
Con rudely calls everyone unemployed drug addicts. However, his use of pro’s own source was very effective; showing how incredibly low the unemployment rate is according to pro’s own source effectively defanged the argument.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points.
So decent harms shown, lack of benefit. The benefit be to make us more like India than even India is… I’m not buying it.

Sources:
These lean a bit in con’s favor (due to flipping a source), but not by quite enough to claim the point.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

http://archive.ph/VuDov