Instigator / Pro
2
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Topic
#3687
Minimum wage is a bad thing, it should not be raised, and it 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
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description
rules:
pro:
* Should show how minimum wage is bad for the economy.
* Should show why raising minimum wage is bad for the economy
* Should show why minimum wage should be abolished
con:
* should try to logically refute pro
* Should show how minimum wage is good for the economy.
* Should show why raising minimum wage is good for the economy
* Should show why minimum wage should not be abolished
Round 1
Pro
#1
Why it’s bad. First of all, you have to understand the rules of supply and demand. When demand goes up, prices increases. When supply goes up, prices go down.
Would you rather pay $15 an hour for an experienced working man with big muscles and a college degree or would you rather pay $15 an hour for a teenager who never worked a day in their life.
Most companies would choose the former. Because the teenager isn’t worth the money to the companies, so he will have a hard time finding a job. People like the teenager are the ones who are hurt most by minimum wage.
Minimum wage was originally created by racists who saw that black people were taking jobs that they thought should go to white people. So they set a minimum wage to keep blacks from working.
Raising the minimum wage would cause more people to be unemployed. Lowering the minimum wage will cause more people to be employed. So why don’t we abolish the minimum wage? That way people of any kind can find work. The 13th amendment already outlaws work without pay so we don’t need to worry about companies wanting to pay the smallest possible amount to workers. Also companies usually give higher wages to better workers because they know that they would lose workers if they didn’t.
Minimum wage would cause workers to be much more expensive to hire, which would kill small companies. This would lead to higher prices of everything and inflation. And when the money inflates, then the previous minimum wage would become worthless. And it could go on and on in an endless stagflation crisis.
Con
#2
x. Default to con
- Pro bears the burden here, so con need not provide an argument, and simply showing that con has not sufficiently upheld his burdens grants con the debate.
x.1. Propositions
- There are three propositions embedded within the resolution.
- The minimum wage is a bad thing.
- The Minimum should not be raised.
- The Minimum wage should be abolished.
- Proving merely one of these contentions to be false would necessitate that pro has not proven the resolution. Additionally, placing even one of the claims under the scrutiny of doubt disfavors the instigator in this contest.
Constructive negation
I. Impact on employment
Raising the minimum wage would cause more people to be unemployed.
- This seems untrue. Many credible economic analyses such as those cited in this report indicate almost the opposite. Even analyzing all the times the United States has increased wages seems to show they led to increases in employment.
The results were clear: these basic economic indicators show no correlation between federal minimum-wage increases and lower employment levels, even in the industries that are most impacted by higher minimum wages. To the contrary, in the substantial majority of instances (68 percent) overall employment increased after a federal minimum-wage increase.
II. Impact on economy
- The minimum wage increases consumer spending, which generates more revenue for the country as people purchase more products, which generates more money/revenue for businesses. It also increases worker productivity, which will save these businesses more money long term.
Rebuttal(s)
Minimum wage was originally created by racists...
- This claim is unsourced and consequently unsubstantiated. Even if it were true, this is the genetic fallacy. Many things were implicated in racist practices like the Cotton Gin, yet it does not logically follow that we ought to ban them today.
Minimum wage would cause workers to be much more expensive to hire
- (See II). With the minimum wage, people would have more money to pay for things, you can see this in its implicative effects increasing consumer spending. Consequently, the minimum wage also provides more money for businesses while granting them new increased worker productivity benefits. If a business has slightly more expensive labor costs, but also makes significantly more revenue what matters is the proportional or marginal increase of costs, not the total increase.
The 13th amendment already outlaws work without pay
- Slightly tangential, but not true. The 13th amendment outlaws slavery. Internships are typically workless pay and are perfectly legal.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Constructive negationI. Impact on employmentRaising the minimum wage would cause more people to be unemployed.This seems untrue. Many credible economic analyses such as those cited in this report indicate almost the opposite. Even analyzing all the times the United States has increased wages seems to show they led to increases in employment.
here are some sources from CBO
wage was originally created by racists...This claim is unsourced and consequently unsubstantiated. Even if it were true, this is the genetic fallacy. Many things were implicated in racist practices like the Cotton Gin, yet it does not logically follow that we ought to ban them today.
Okay here are some sources:
I was not saying we should ban something because of its racist history. I was pointing this out to show that racists created the minimum wage to keep blacks out of jobs, since back then businesses didn't see blacks as worth the money. This is put here to show that minimum wage would cost jobs and the original founders of minimum wage knew it would lead to unemployment.
Minimum wage would cause workers to be much more expensive to hire(See II). With the minimum wage, people would have more money to pay for things,
If they can even find a job
you can see this in its implicative effects increasing consumer spending. Consequently, the minimum wage also provides more money for businesses while granting them new increased worker productivity benefits. If a business has slightly more expensive labor costs, but also makes significantly more revenue what matters is the proportional or marginal increase of costs, not the total increase.
you are spending the same amount of money as you bring in. Workers would be more productive if they started with a lower wage and if they worked hard they would get a raise.
The 13th amendment already outlaws work without paySlightly tangential, but not true. The 13th amendment outlaws slavery. Internships are typically workless pay and are perfectly legal.
Involuntary work without pay is the literal definition of slavery.
Con
#4
x(.1)
- Extend as its applicability is evident in this two-round debate. Bearing the burdens, pro drops a series of random links without even responding to the majority of my arguments.
Constructive negation
I. Impact on employment
- My argument and sources in this contention were not responded to, and are thus dropped by the instigator. Instead, he posts two links in response without context or analysis. There are glaring issues with this unorthodox response as well.
- Pro's sources only evaluate the impact of raising the minimum wage drastically: doubling the current $7.25 dollar wage to 15 dollars. However, the resolution only entails discussion about increasing the minimum wage at all, not to any particular amount. We can increase the minimum wage in smaller portions incrementally as done historically. Historically, a 7-dollar increase in the minimum wage occurred over the span of 71 years, whereas pro cites the implications of a policy that increases the minimum wage by over the same amount in 4 years. My cited research shows that our incremental increase of wages holds no negative impact on employment levels or jobs and even on balance increase employment, rendering pro's sources irrelevant. "Seven decades of historical data," that "find no correlation between minimum wage increases and employment levels" indicate this. Thus pro has not proven that the minimum wage should not be increased, especially if we can increase it incrementally and slowly over time, and improve the economy and business revenue while having no negative impact on employment.
II. Impact on economy
- This contention is majorly dropped, and I extend it. The only response I can detect from pro is in my subsequent rebuttals which does not address the contention as a whole. In summation, the minimum wage provides:
- Increases in worker productivity, generating more revenue for businesses and improving our economy.
- Increases in consumer spending, adding the same benefits.
Re. Genetic Fallacy
- Pro's "sources" do not even suggest that the minimum wage purposed "to stabilize the post-depression economy and protect the workers in the labor force," was created by racists to keep blacks out of jobs. His research is careless and ridiculous. For one, he posts the same article twice (published on different platforms) that only vaguely mentions various past industry wages which are irrelevant to our debate, and do not support his proposition for the minimum wage.
- Even his Forbes article points to singular cherry-picked examples of racist people who support these laws in different countries, which has no bearing on the minimum wage itself. Regardless, despite disproven, even if one was to buy such a statement the origins of a policy do not invalidate its current use and benefit to all people and asserting such would simply be the genetic fallacy (Rebuttal 1).
Rebuttal(s)
If they can even find a job
- Not only does pro-drop my counter-argument on the increases in revenue in parallel to the cost increase (showing all that matters is proportional or marginal labor costs from revenue, which pro has not provided), his response shows he does not even understand his own argument which is on the existence of the
...Workers would be more productive if they started with a lower wage and if they worked hard they would get a raise.
- Unsubstantiated claim, as well as previously disproven. Pro does not even attempt to make a baseline credible or analytic response to my proposition of this counter case.
Involuntary work without pay is the literal definition of slavery.
- Pro stated the 13th amendment outlaws work without pay, he did not mention anything about it being voluntary or involuntary. Thus his previous assertion is false and moving the goalposts does not change that.
Conclusion
- The decision here is simple. Let's review the resolution propositions. Pro has the full burden of proof for three different claims. (1) The minimum wage is a bad thing, (2) The Minimum should not be raised, and (3) The Minimum wage should be abolished.
- Has pro proven claim 1? No, he shows no evidence of this, he has not countered my evidence that the minimum wage is beneficial to the economy, and he has not countered the evidence that a gradual increase of wages in small increments over time does not negatively impact jobs.
- Has pro proven claim 2? No, we have increased the minimum wage gradually and incrementally, and doing so on balance increases employment.
- Has pro proven claim 3? No, there has been no refutation of the minimum wage economic benefits, and no evidence that the current existence of a minimum wage is harmful.
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:
Argument: PRO throughout the debate consistently relies on the argument that minimum wage is "racist" and prevents people from getting good jobs. This is an assertion made with little to no evidence and was consistently proven wrong by CON. Also rightly proven is the fact that many practices were started with racist intentions, but are not necessarily racist in modern nature. Therefore, my vote goes to CON.
Sources: CON provided much more credible and relevant sources.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Tie.
I gotchu :)
I have an urgent need for a vote on this debate. There are only just over 3 days left at this time. I hope there is anyone who can assist here.
I really need a vote on this, if anyone can help.
Vote now!
Thus far neither side is winning. While both cited sources, both also did not explain the methodology of the sources, why the sources make credible arguments, or even summarize any key points by the sources.
Citing NELP, for instance, can be spurious because they are an organization that, according to their website, are working to raise the minimum wage, so without explaining their methodology or anything about the report, that is basically like stating "here's a biased source in my favor."
Yes, NELP could have solid methodology and such, but without explaining it, or even citing the applicable part of the study, PRO does not actually have to debunk the claim.
The same is true with PRO, who cited a CBO link on the minimum wage. While the CBO is generally a significantly more credible organization than NELP, that does not mean the source:
1. Actually proved anything PRO stated on minimum wage, because he did nor cite any portion of the paper in question or even why it is relatable.
2. Actually had good methodology.
Additionally, at least in my opinion, the CBO tends to be partisan to whichever party is in control. Which could prove spurious to an argument about a public policy.
Yes. I admit this is the genetic fallacy to a degree. But without explaining why it is or is not the genetic fallacy, then the other party does not actually have to respond to the sourcing. They can just claim "xxx failed to prove how that source supported his case. The burden of proof is on xxx."
Increasing consumer power doesnt make up for the increased cost of labor.
Case 1) If you have 4 dollars, and you pay a worker 2 dollars and he gives you back those 2 dollars through consumer spending, you still have just 4 dollars.
Case 2) Same if you pay a worker 4 dollars. He returns them to you through spending, and you still have 4 dollars.
Difference between these two cases is that in case 1) you have to pay 2 dollars to the worker every time.
In case 2), you have to pay 4 dollars every time. This makes it more expensive to hire workers.
Yes, I agree. Minimum wage is not the magic solution that will fix everything. In fact, its not a good solution at all due to the problems it causes. Applying it to areas with high unemployment would devastate small buisnesses and we would have to rely on big companies to cover that.
It does increase the wealth of the workers- if it doesn’t kill your job or your job opportunities. Most minimum wage workers are below 25 years old, probably still in college, never worked much - minimum wage harms them. Dollars are not unlimited, eventually we are going to run out and print more.
Raising the wage does work to increase the wealth of the workers if there isnt enough money circulating in the economy to allow raising prices. If there isnt too much money being printed, its certain that raising minimum wage cannot result in increase of prices enough to negate it.
However, it does decrease profits, make buisnesses more expensive, workers less desirable...ect.