Should we raise the minimum wage? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should we raise the minimum wage?

Debate Information

The minimum wage has been an issue that has plagued our society for a long time now, during this time, groups like $15 now are constantly emerging, trying to force the increase of a minimum wage. However, The Congressional Budget Office projected that a minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $10.10 would result in a loss of 500,000 jobs, 38% of employers said that they would lay off some employees if the minimum wage was increased and 54% of employers said they would decrease hiring levels. (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf). Although groups like $15 now do have good intent, they have little knowledge of how the economy works and how increasing the minimum wage would rupture it. I will now refute some common arguments in favor of raising the minimum wage.

1. Increasing the minimum wage would reduce poverty
This is a funny one, as the exact opposite is true, as a study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that although low-income workers see wage increases when the minimum wage is raised, "their hours and employment decline, and the combined effect of these changes is a decline in earned income, minimum wages increase the proportion of families that are poor or near-poor." (https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/working-papers/working-papers-archives/1999-working-papers/wp-9919-the-effects-of-minimum-wages-throughout-the-wage-distribution.aspx)  

2. Increasing the minimum wage would reduce income inequality.
This is true, however income inequality is not necessarily a bad thing, I compared the living standards enjoyed by the poor and by the middle class to inequality measures from (https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/inequality-does-not-reduce-prosperity-compilation-evidence-across-countries-6032.html#.VFclZfnF9hw) These comparisons consistently showed that once the developed nations of Europe, Asia, and the English-speaking world are distinguished from the developing world, there is a tendency for countries with more inequality to have higher living standards below the top. 

3.The current minimum wage is not high enough to allow people to afford housing.
This is somewhat true, however it is proven that increasing the minimum wage would increase the price of housing. In cities such as Los Angeles with a limited housing supply, raising the minimum wage but not increasing housing stock would lead to an increase in rental prices as "700,000 minimum wage workers will have more money to compete for the same low inventory of rental units," according to researchers from the University of California in Los Angeles.(http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/05/21/51883/minimum-wage-hike-could-increase-la-rents-economis/)

hopefully these examples proved that while groups like $15 now  do have good intent, the results would actually harm the people they are trying to desperately to help. Groups like these have no understanding of the economy, and they are the reason we may end up with a $30 big mac sometime in the future. Increasing the minimum wage would destroy a substantial amount of jobs in the United states, increase prices for everyday products, and create more impoverished. However these groups do not understand that, and i feel it is our duty, as the American people to better educate our students so they do not fall into this trap. I would now like to invite my opponents and supporters.


P.S how is my debate style? please provide feedback, because i always like to improve myself.
agsr1Hacker0northsouthkoreanatbaronsjoecavalryZombieguy1987



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • VaulkVaulk 790 Pts   -  
    I think artificially raising the minimum wage is going to create nothing but new problems.  There's nothing natural about doubling the national minimum wage in this fashion.  The current minimum wage is $7.25, so that means artificially raising it to $15.00 would more than double the current minimum wage.  The result would be a price hike on everything from Milk, Eggs, Bread and other standard staple human needs products.  Instead of $3.50 for a gallon of milk, we'd pay $7.00 or likely higher due to the added effects of doubling the minimum wage in such a substantial way.  The economy would eventually balance out but at first you could easily expect milk to soar to $10.00/gal to compensate for:

    1. The sudden unavoidable loss of employees.  Business will immediately have to begin paying the new wage but won't have the financial capital to back the sudden salary hike.  Businesses will be forced to begin immediate employee cutbacks to compensate and suddenly the price of your employees goes up, you lose employees, and yet the demand for the product remains the same.  So prices must increase to compensate or the business goes under.

    2. The sudden loss of employees due to loss of government subsidized support.  Because the pay increase is artificial, suddenly making $15.00/hr will disqualify innumerable amounts of Americans from Government subsidized programs like WIC, TANF, Medicaid and Medicare.  So employees get two choices, stay on government assistance and quit your job, or keep your job and lose your government assistance.  With the guaranteed price increase of basic products like Milk ect ect, citizens making minimum wage won't be able to afford it without government assistance...which they'll be disqualified for.

    This idea of hiking minimum wage is...retarded.  There's really no other way to aptly describe the idiotic ideology that has to be behind this movement.  This is a case of the "Has nots" against the "Has its", greed and jealousy are showing their ugly face in this battle for $15.00/hr.
    1Hacker0JuicyMelonTechZombieguy1987
    "If there's no such thing as a question then what kind of questions do people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".


  • 1Hacker01Hacker0 91 Pts   -  
    I agree. Job fairs should be implemented instead. Companies are always looking for new employees. The problem is that most people in poverty can't dress up properly for the interview, communicate with the company with the internet, etc. These problems keep poor people poor. 

    Socialism can be implemented a little to solve some problems. Reaganomics is a good example. But we have to remember that our society is still mostly capitalist and we shouldn't just go around implementing socialist values wherever we can.
    JuicyMelonTechnorthsouthkoreaZombieguy1987
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1193 Pts   -  
    So there are paramedics that make $12 or $13 an hour, yet people think they need $15 to flip burgers?
    northsouthkoreaZombieguy1987
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • northsouthkoreanorthsouthkorea 221 Pts   -  
    The minimum wage should be raised in order to enforce a good living pay for employees.
    Zombieguy1987SaltBucket
  • JuicyMelonTechJuicyMelonTech 98 Pts   -  
    The minimum wage should be raised in order to enforce a good living pay for employees.
    What about the 500,000 less jobs? A lot of the employees would get fired, so your argument is unfactual, please refer to my opening statement
    Zombieguy1987
  • OakchairbcOakchairbc 88 Pts   -  
    a) The CBO report is based on survey data from businesses. Its not a a empirical study. Its going to conclude that job losses occur because it automatically assumes they do. 
    b) The thing is that historically there is no evidence that minimum wage hikes result in job losses[1]. In fact studies that analysis states that increased their minimum wages find that minimum wage increases are followed by stronger employment growth[2]. Minimum wage increase states in this decade have seen a third more job growth[2].
    c) Certain cities have increased their minimum wage to $15 and they have not experienced any harmful effects. In fact they all have experienced more job growth then other comparable cities that did not raise their minimum wages[3][4].
    d) There is a reason why advocates use the $12 and $15 wage levels. The reason is that raising the minimum wage to those levels would restore the inflation adjusted and productivity adjusted minimum wage to what it was back in the 1970's[5].
    e) There are many reasons why minimum wage increases have a positive impact on the economy and employment. 
    1- Increased productivity from workers working harder. Incentives matter.
    2- It shifts income towards the middle and poor classes who spend more of their income resulting in higher total demand and spending which results in more economic activity.
    3- Higher wages increase happiness and happiness increase productivity[6].
    4-Higher wages result in less employee turnover. Training new employees is costly and a company loses a lot of value when it has untrained employees working. 


    [1]http://cepr.net/publications/reports/why-does-the-minimum-wage-have-no-discernible-effect-on-employment
    [2]http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/07/03/3456393/minimum-wage-state-increase-employment/
    [3]http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/04/early-analysis-of-seattles-15-wage-law-effect-on-prices-minimal.html
    [4]https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CALOSA7URN
    [5]http://www.epi.org/publication/15-by-2024-would-lift-wages-for-41-million/
    [6]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/14/does-a-higher-minimum-wage-make-people-happier/

    natbaronsSharky
  • natbaronsnatbarons 133 Pts   -  
    Minimum wages should be raised. This increases business regulations and helps people receive more income and increases satisfaction of employees possibly.
    Zombieguy1987Sharky
  • ViceRegentViceRegent 68 Pts   -  
    The minimum wage is immoral, preventing those with the least valuable skills from participating in the job market.  It is also immoral because it is anti-freedom.
    DrCerealZombieguy1987Sharky
  • NopeNope 397 Pts   -  
    The minimum wage can help people and make things fair but ViceRegent has a point in that it limits freedom in place such as business. Fair opportunity vs freedom.
  • ViceRegentViceRegent 68 Pts   -  
    The purpose of the economy is not to satisfy your silly notions of fairness, but to efficiency distribute scarce goods based on voluntary exchange. And no, the people who lose their jobs due to your misquided desire to be “fair”, will not feel treated very fairly.
    Sharky
  • ViceRegentViceRegent 68 Pts   -  
    Fair opportunity = being denied opportunity because your skills are not worth hiring you only in the mind of a liberal at war with reality.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    Whenever a certain policy is found to be counter-productive, there is usually a core problem related to it existing that can be expressed in very short terms. For example, forcing people to go through lie detectors in a court as a way to check their testimony for truth does not work for a simple reason: lie detection is based on correlation, not causation, and correlation always leaves a large room for error - meaning that, in case of this policy proposed, a lot of guilty people will be found innocent, and a lot of innocent guilty.

    In case of the minimum wage, I believe, such a core problem is simple: consensual contracts do not warrant governmental intervention.

    ---

    Let us consider a hypothetical situation. I am jobless, I just grow some fruits in my garden and make money by selling them. I also happen to be incredibly good at baking fruit cakes. So I cook them for my friends, who help me with gardening in exchange every now and then. We are all happy.

    One day, the fame of my fruit cakes reaches one of the small bakeries in the area. The bakery is really impressed by my cakes and offers me a job: I bake cakes part-time for $10 an hour. I also get to carry one cake a day home. The employer pays for my insurance, offers a free car for me to reach the bakery every day at no charge (the company pays for gasoline, for car insurance, for repairs, etc.). All the ingredients come free of charge as well, obviously. This sounds awesome to me, my quality of life would immediately jump sky-high compared to my current situation, so I gladly accept the offer.

    As we are about to sign the contract at the bakery, a Social Security officer walks in the office. He looks at the contract and says, "I am sorry, friends, but in this city the minimum wage is $15 an hour." The employer says: "Look, our bakery is small, we are already struggling to stay in business. We simply cannot afford to pay $15 an hour, especially since we cannot predict with certainty what the cake sales are going to be." I also say, "Officer, I am very happy with the offer as it is. I do not need $15 an hour. What is the problem?" Officer says, "I am sorry, law is law."

    The contract is not signed. Both me and the bakery owner lost a great opportunity to make money and to serve the community by selling great cakes in large quantities.

    ---

    This is something the minimum wage advocates do not realize. The minimum wage is not just harmful to businesses - it is also harmful to the workers. As with most regulations in the economy, workers get limited in their opportunities just as much as employers are. Workers cannot find jobs because their number is reduced due to the increase of business maintenance costs, and employers cannot offer jobs because of that increase. Yes, some workers win, because their employer is now paying more to them than before... But to make up for it, the employer now has to sell their services and products at an increased cost. The cost of living in the country increases, and the increase in the minimum wage does not lead to nearly equal increase in the effective income. The society loses as a whole.

    A very big problem in the modern society is that many people see economical relation between workers and businesses as a rivalry. As if the businesses try to extort the workers, and the workers try to fight the oppression back. In reality, workers and businesses depend on each other. Businesses provide workers with tools they need to do the job effectively, and workers provide businesses with labor needed to use those tools effectively. They depend on each other strongly. A worker with no access to any tools cannot do any job; a business with no qualified workers cannot afford to pay for maintaining the wasted tools. Both sides have a lot of leverage in negotiations.

    Someone said once that economical regulations solve a problem that does not exist. While it is a bit extreme, it does have a point: typically what happens is regulations create new problems, and then new regulations try to solve these problems, creating a vicious cycle of rapidly increased restrictions on everything and bureaucracy raising along with it, leading to the situation where only large corporations can handle the burden of taking it all into account - and small businesses die under pressure, since they cannot afford to hire a dozen of lawyers and accountants to produce anything on the market.
    Zombieguy1987
  • BonitaVanhooserBonitaVanhooser 132 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    I think poverty is not only the issue of the United States but many other developed countries are facing this problem too. If the USA raise minimum wage rate then what will happen? all jobless personnel will get a job or start earning. Although, I agree that we must raise the minimum wage rate but I think we should also try to create a number of new job opportunities for unemployed people. A few days ago, I just read the story of famous Motivational speaker Liz Murry and it came into my knowledge of how ill and jobless people and their families struggling in our society. 

    On the other hand, the government must offer some relief to investors and business too. A few months ago, I started my new business and now, I need to get a tradesman insurance for staff and customers safe. It is just getting on my nerves and just found this UK based site to compare tradesman insurance quotes ( https://www.comparetradesmaninsurance.co.uk ) but I will say, these quotes are too high. If you have any US-based site to compare quotes then share with me.

    Again, I would request the government to give bug reliefs to small businesses, we are facing very legal and financial issues. 
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 493 Pts   -   edited September 2018
    We should raise the minimum wage to at least $8.50
    The American Institute for economic research (https://www.aier.org/mission-history) calculates that the buying power of $100 in 2009, when the last minimum wage increase was, is equivalent to the buying power of $116.70 today. That raise was the last of three prescribed by the minimum wage act of 2007.
     
    That means if I perform my job just as well as I did ten years ago my work has gone down in value even though I provide the same output for my employer. Mathmatically an increase of $1.25 would maintain the same buying power as the last minimum wage increase.

    Let's look at that last increase. Who passed it? How did the details work out? 

    1. Who introduced the bill? was it partisan or bipartisan? What stipulations were there?

    "The act was a component of the new Democratic majority's 100-Hour Plan in the United States House of Representatives. It was introduced into the House on January 5, 2007, by George Miller (D-CA) and it was passed by the House on January 10. All 233 House Democrats voted "Aye," and 82 Republicans joined them. 116 Republican representatives voted "No," and 4 representatives did not vote. President Bush advised that the bill should include tax cuts for small businesses that could be harmed by the wage increase, and on January 24, 2007, a cloture motion in the Senate failed as 43 Republican Senators (all but 5) rejected the bill without the tax cuts, opposing all 47 Democrats who were present for the vote. Once tax cuts were added to the bill, the Senate passed the amended bill 94-3 (3 Republicans opposed and 1 did not vote; 2 Democrats did not vote) on February 1, 2007."

    I think it's fair to say this was a bipartisan effort introduced by a Democratic house, passed by a republican Senate, and signed into law by a republican president. Interestingly enough it was only passed if it could be paired with tax cuts, which we just reacieved a lot of. Also important to note, the GDP growth rate the day the Senate passed the bill was around 1% while we are currently experiencing a growth rate of just a little over 4%. 
    https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

    2. How did the details work out? 

    "The act raises the federal minimum wage in 3 increments: to $5.85 per hour 60 days after enactment (2007-07-24), to $6.55 per hour 12 months after that (2008-07-24), and finally to $7.25 per hour 12 months after that (2009-07-24)"

    So no one is coming to you the minute before you hire someone and tells you that you suddenly have to pay a significant amount more than you expected. In fact most States were not affected by the federal minimum wage increase as they already paid above it, and the ones that did it were given plenty of time to prepare with the year long periods before the wage increase with the most impact. https://money.cnn.com/2008/07/24/smallbusiness/state_minimum_wages.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2008072411

    If we want to stay consistent to what had bipartisan agreement on what was fair compensation for the same work, mathmatically an increase in wages to $8.50 should be implemented over a two year period, with an increase to $7.75 or $8.00 an hour in a year. These are significantly smaller jumps than those businesses faced by the minimum wage act of 2007. If desired throw in some tax cuts for small businesses over that time, giving even more protection to the man who was just about to hire his first employee.

    The standards for work output of the jobs that pay minimum wage have not decreased over the years so why shouldn't we raise pay in a careful manner so that the value of the work stays consistent with the standards. Minimum wage can be raised in a smart, responsible, and fair way.
    beckysmith
  • Minimum wage is simply used to justify educational cost. The issue is that some employees are in a supplemental situation with lower paying jobs, and others are tied to student debt. So the trick is how to balance this position. Add to this when governing is the entity which gives employees a pay raises, they are in fact the employer of those employees, and no longer are employed by economic industry, or retail. Independence is lost and the lower wage earners are employed by the state as a political vote.

    An axiom shift in the numerical value of notes could be tried to set a level expense to lower income though the use of money in the form of legal tender.

  • cheesycheesecheesycheese 79 Pts   -  
    The minimum wage should be raised in order to enforce a good living pay for employees.
    What about the 500,000 less jobs? A lot of the employees would get fired, so your argument is unfactual, please refer to my opening statement

    you can change employment laws  to make it so that there has to be a reason for firing someone other than they decrease profit for the fat cat owner at the top

    Zombieguy1987
  • This is why we can’t have nice things
    -my mother
    Zombieguy1987
    Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    @cheesycheese

    If the minimum wage increases and it becomes much harder to fire those workers that do not bring profit, then the employers will simply stop hiring new workers and, instead, put a lot of work load on those they already have, in order to maintain a profitable business.

    Such rash decisions are how economies collapse. You introduce one regulation, then another to mitigate the negative effects of the first one. That, in turn, leads to further negative effects... You keep introducing new and new regulations, until the system becomes so overweight, it collapses on the floor and dies.

    While the pragmatic approach is to, instead of trying to force people to abide by the rules you made up, look for ways to create an environment in which the intended behavior will be a result of a free choice of individuals. And that is not done through regulations, that is done through creation of positive incentives.
    Zombieguy1987
  • cheesycheesecheesycheese 79 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @cheesycheese

    If the minimum wage increases and it becomes much harder to fire those workers that do not bring profit, then the employers will simply stop hiring new workers and, instead, put a lot of work load on those they already have, in order to maintain a profitable business.

    Such rash decisions are how economies collapse. You introduce one regulation, then another to mitigate the negative effects of the first one. That, in turn, leads to further negative effects... You keep introducing new and new regulations, until the system becomes so overweight, it collapses on the floor and dies.

    While the pragmatic approach is to, instead of trying to force people to abide by the rules you made up, look for ways to create an environment in which the intended behavior will be a result of a free choice of individuals. And that is not done through regulations, that is done through creation of positive incentives.
    australia has that law and it is quite industrial
  • AmpersandAmpersand 823 Pts   -  
    @JuicyMelonTech

    It's a good attempt at a post on the topic. If you compare your post to other people in this thread who are packing your point of view, you can see you're the only one who actually presented evidence to back up their points of view.

    For all the other posters, they merely stated what their ideology leads them to believe. That's essentially a childish argument where you don't even try to engage with the subject matter and why all their posts can immediately be dismissed, because no matter how cocksure they are or no matter certain they are they are right - they only have their subjective and unsupported opinion to back it up.

    On the other hand you've gone further and provided evidence, so your argument for that alone is a massive improvement over everyone else's. That said, I think there are four key problems with your approach:

    1) Lack of Topicality

    You have presented cons to raising the minimum wage. However the topic under discussion is "Why we shouldn't raise the minimum wage". There being negatives to raising the minimum wage does not in and of itself mean that that the minimum raise shouldn't be raised. That would only follow if:

    i) There are no positives to raising the minimum wage
    ii) The negatives to raising the minimum wage outweigh the cons

    To give a real answer to this question you have to weight up both sides of the argument, which you haven't done.

    2) Misrepresentation

    When presenting evidence, you need to summarise and put forward it's points fairly - not cherrypick the bits that are most helpful to you and try and ignore the bits that aren't.

    In your third point for instance you characterise the assessment as wholey negative. In fact the article is far more nuanced and positions minimum wage as one of of the solution to a major problem - with the issue being that the other half (increased supply of housing in the country's most unaffordable rental market) still needs to be addressed and without that the minimum wage increase will have a very limited effect on people's ability to afford housing in this non-representative environment. Similarly while you quote the job loss figures from the CBO assessment, there's no mention of net change of hundreds of thousands of people moving above the poverty threshold or the net rise in income which directly contradicts the statement of the very next point you try and 

    3) Quality of Sources

    Just because a source says something doesn't make it true. The CBO report is a good official source, otherwise the next best source is probably a Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland report from nearly 20 years ago which is fairly dated at this point.

    It's best to present multiple official sources (e.g. government papers, peer reviewed academic articles) for each points or at least a meta analysis that will comprehensively overview the research on a topic.
  • AlecAlec 71 Pts   -  
    I think the minimum wage should be $0.00.  This gives poor people and businesses to negotiate their salary without government intervention.

    "But poor people will get exploited"  If a poor person doesn't like their job due to lack of salary, the government could provide them a job because there is a lot they could do that pays something mutually agreed upon.  The jobs poor people could do are:

    1: Rebuild the houses in PR
    2: Build Solar panels in the South West.
    3: Participate in Place and Take against PR and Russia.
    4: Something I haven't thought of yet.
  • cheesycheesecheesycheese 79 Pts   -  
    Alec said:
    I think the minimum wage should be $0.00.  This gives poor people and businesses to negotiate their salary without government intervention.

    "But poor people will get exploited"  If a poor person doesn't like their job due to lack of salary, the government could provide them a job because there is a lot they could do that pays something mutually agreed upon.  The jobs poor people could do are:

    1: Rebuild the houses in PR
    2: Build Solar panels in the South West.
    3: Participate in Place and Take against PR and Russia.
    4: Something I haven't thought of yet.
    Those jobs are going to be automated in 10 years
  • Basic grievance.

    Minimum wage means simply a company is no longer privately owned. It has been forced by legislator and legislation to be a publicly held company with no recorded of stock sales to set controlling interest.

  • The reasons to have a minimum wage is to help set a minimal value for raw material.

  • linatelinate 57 Pts   -  
    in the 1970s, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage was twelve bucks. if it was good for us back then and the economy did so well, it's still good for us now. 

    increasing the wage increases the amount of jobs probably, at a certain level. i dont claim to know how much that is, but i know it was good for us back then so it still should be. 
    CYDdhartaMayCaesarZombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1815 Pts   -   edited April 2019
    linate said:

    increasing the wage increases the amount of jobs probably, at a certain level. i dont claim to know how much that is, but i know it was good for us back then so it still should be. 

    It's just the opposite.  Increasing the mandatory wage increases the overhead; jobs are cut to compensate for the increased production costs.
    Zombieguy1987MayCaesar
  • ApplesauceApplesauce 243 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    linate said:

    increasing the wage increases the amount of jobs probably, at a certain level. i dont claim to know how much that is, but i know it was good for us back then so it still should be. 

    It's just the opposite.  Increasing the mandatory wage increases the overhead; jobs are cut to compensate for the increased production costs.
    and crime will increase due to lack of jobs.  It will be more difficult for high school and college kids to find part time jobs, idles hands and all.  costs and crime will go up while jobs will go down, sounds like a real sh1t idea to me.
    CYDdhartaMayCaesarZombieguy1987
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4676 Pts   -  
    linate said:
    in the 1970s, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage was twelve bucks. if it was good for us back then and the economy did so well, it's still good for us now. 

    increasing the wage increases the amount of jobs probably, at a certain level. i dont claim to know how much that is, but i know it was good for us back then so it still should be. 
    No reputable economist will ever support the assertion that raising a minimum wage increases the amount of jobs. In fact, a very basic application of common sense will show that it makes no sense: when a price of something increases, the gain from buying that something decreases, hence people will buy less. Only crazy employers who do not know basic math and think that higher expenses mean higher profit will create job positions as a response to the increasing minimum wage, and such employers are going to be bankrupt well before the employees can get their first paycheck anyway.

    As for 70-s, it was a very different time technologically and socially, and you cannot compare these times so easily. I also would not say it was all that "good" back then, with the Rust Belt incoming, constant oil price crises and such, but that is just my personal assessment.
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • billbatardbillbatard 133 Pts   -  
    maybe but better would be to go to a guaranteed minum income
    Applesauce
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • kevin_burkekevin_burke 47 Pts   -  
    You raise the minimum wage everything raises with it. It is a balancing act. All be doing is making the poor feel richer. And anyone with a set wage will be poorer. It will only negatively impact the economy just look at the states that have raised it. 
  • SilverishGoldNovaSilverishGoldNova 1193 Pts   -  
    The federal minimum wage is way too high in my opinion, it should be lowered by $7.25
    kevin_burke
    I am no longer active on DebateIsland or any debate website. Many things I have posted here and on other sites (Such as believing in the flat Earth theory or other conspiracy theories such as those that are about the Las Vegas Shooting or 9/11) do not reflect on my current views. 

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p6M-VgXHwwdpJarhyQYapBz-kRc6FrgdOLFAd3IfYz8/edit

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/18248/#Comment_18248 (Me officially stating that I am no longer a flat-Earther)
  • kevin_burkekevin_burke 47 Pts   -  
    The federal minimum wage is 7.25
  • What can be found by observation of data a little reply to inquiry on whole truth.

    The growing concern to address is the raising of taxation in payment of National Debt. The accumulation of debt by spending as a national level can take place with Federal Reserve Notes which are/is a impartial receipt issued on all debt both foreign and demodectic. In basic principle this means the domestic debt can still be legal or illegal debt. If proven to be illegal in the future it is uncollectable, however in basic principle the money that was already been collected for the payment of debt. This process is not a bubble it is a vacuum as empty payment space is made within a structured economy. 

    This means the payment of debt is effected by the trial process of both civil and criminal cases as a united state and judicial constitutional separation. Perjury is one of the harder crimes to establish before a court of law, this means type proceeding can take the longest to establish as a whole truth. Decades. Realistically this would mean the interest payment on that debt is what is to be paid off until the separation process is complete other wise a economic market crash becomes more likely to take place.   

    Taxation is paid for money that is on illegal debt, the money, the dollar is revoked form the receipts collected as tax. Here again the economic principle might have been to secure housing price for a longer value on investment, secure costs of living by increase bottom line labor on all goods as a distribution expense, or even building costs by force or inventively motivated renovation cost. This to bring higher value by proportion of costs increases need to replace needed items. This places those goods and services in a united state economically and when effected they are hit all at once. 

    This is outside the basic principle that when minimum wage is affected by sources outside the companies which pay the cost. Those companies though started while wages had not been assigned by outside influence now become no longer autonomous, they are shifted as a publicly held companies. By ‘the powers which have sold incorporation licensing to both type or forms of company under state authority.


  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    Increasing the minimum wage means a reduction in staff, and a reduction in the quality of customer service, or the maintenance of a facility.

    Waiting in lines longer, employees who display a negative attitude, towards the customers, and toward their job production as well. 

    And raising the minimum wage, might see a business do a hiring freeze, or close up the business, and start all over again.

    I've seen businesses struggle, I've seen customers who after grocery shopping for their pre Thanksgiving day groceries, leaving some of their carts full of unpaid groceries, because there were 8 cashier's working out of 33 checkout lanes made available to deal with the pre Thanksgiving day rush.

    This was from 7pm until 1030 pm.

    People were asking the store manager to please open up more checkout lanes, he responded that he was working on it, and I didn't see this store say anything else to any of the other customers.

    The reality of the situation was that many of his employees had called in sick that day, and didn't want to deal with that pre Thanksgiving shoppers rush.

    So, some of his employees, present, and not present at work, affected the customer service quality, along with his management skills.

    To the point, to where some of the shoppers called the business number of the head office of this particular store, to let the corporate office know how they felt about the shopping experience.
    Zombieguy1987
  • GeoLibCogScientistGeoLibCogScientist 128 Pts   -  
    I agree with your points. It's well-intentioned but not thought well-enough through.

    I think the issues the 15 crowd wants to solve can be better solved through the following:

    1) Funding of a citizen's dividend(A type of Universal Basic Income) by a land value tax. A citizen's dividend, like that proposed by economist Henry George, would provide more income to people without directly raising the costs employers have for a person's wage. Additionally, a minimum wage doesn't address the issue that many types of work are not officially recognized in this nation and no one gets paid for them(i.e child-raising)
    2) The land value tax as argured by Henry George, of course, as well as award-winning economist Milton Friedman,  to be the most efficient and "least-bad tax". That video linked has a misleading title, if you watch it, you'll see he's referring to a tax on the unimproved value of land(aka, the land value tax), not a property tax as the title claims(though those taxes are similar, they're not the same). A common reason economists like them believe a Land Value Tax would actually be efficient and not inefficient like other taxes, is it discourages the holding of land for speculative reasons like banks are notorious to do. They will want to sell and sell it quickly if they have a hefty monthly tax to pay for holding it. To sell it quick, they would have to sell cheap. So, it's argued for that reason it's a tax that would actually decrease the price of what it is taxing, and not increase it like many taxes are known to do. Anyways, I'd argue such a UBI, if it were to completley replace our current welfare system(every single aspect of it), and is hefty enough to be a liveable income, it would be the most efficient and simple way of handling welfare, and it's non-discriminatory in that everyone receives it, no questions asked, so no need for paying for the salaries of those welfare bureaucrats as they're no longer necessary to determine who qualifies as everyone would by default of being a citizen. The argument, of course, that rent would go up with a UBI is not as applicable when it's specifically a Citizen's Dividend funded by an LVT. Given what I said, banks will be selling land super cheap and landlords, in order to compete with them, will need to maintain competitive rates for rent. So, theoretically, it ought not increase rent much at all, and if it does, well landlords would probably go out of business since people would rather buy the super cheap land banks would be selling lol. I consider that a good thing anyways given landlords earn primarily passive income and I'd argue are leaches(very many of them don't even manage the land, many have property managers to do it, as is the case with my landlord I've never even met, has never been on the property since I've lived here, etc). That apartment complex could easily be a housing cooperative instead, where the tenants wouldn't be paying for the living expenses of a landlord in order to live there themselves.


    Plus, minimum wages inherently hurt younger Americans. As an employer, why hire that hormonal teenager when you can hire that more mature 30-40 year old with a better work ethic at the same exact minimum wage since it is not tiered by age or experience? Think about it, I'm sure you've noticed in fast food an increase in middle-aged workers and it seems harder to find teenagers working there, and the unemployment rates by age reflect that. For the past few decades, the unemployment rate, even during non-recessionary years, is always higher among those under 20 than any other age group. And before someone says "that's because they're in school and not looking for a job", such people in that group are not part of the Labor force participation rate, so they are not part of the unemployment rate since the U-6 and below are considered part of the LFPR. So, this is only looking at the unemployment rate of teenagers specifically who do want to work. They have the highest of any other group. I think the most logical reason is that no matter whether someone is 16 or 40, they still get paid that $7.25 an hour working in fast food, so employers probably have a preference for an older adult who's likely to have a better work ethic than someone less mature. If we tiered the minimum wage by age/experience or just got rid of it altogether and had a UBI as I'm suggesting, I would predict that teenagers would have an easier time getting a job, which is still important. While teenagers may not need a living wage, they do need to develop skills asap, otherwise they'll end up as that 30-40 year old later in life still applying for fast food jobs who are taking the jobs that normally would go to teenagers.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • SharkySharky 101 Pts   -  
    Favoring minimum wage laws and, more to the point, favoring the doubling of the current minimum wage demonstrates that advocates have practically no understanding of the most basic of economic principles, the Law of Supply and Demand.

    Everything purchasing decision we make, including the hiring of labor, is based on the value we receive for making that purchase. Nothing can or will ever instantly double the value of the labor of a 15- or 16-year old kid who has never before worked a day in his or her life. It is a certainty that a federal $15/hour minimum wage will drastically limit the number of entry level jobs in our country that have always been the "Intro to Work" jobs reserved for high schoolers. The negative ripple effects of that drastic limitation will haunt the country in the long term. Entry level jobs were never intended to pay a "living wage" that pays a mortgage or feeds a family. How anyone ever reached that conclusion is anyone's guess.

    Minimum wage laws are unnecessary because employers who don't pay high enough wages will fail to recruit employees. Federal minimum wage laws are because they remain at a specific level across the country despite the variance in the cost of living in places like San Francisco, CA and Topeka, KA. Minimum wage laws are damaging because they artificially skew the free market and harm economies, hindering the efficiency that the market naturally creates.

    Imagine you need to buy a new car but your funds are severely limited. You research the least expensive cars and determine you will buy a Nissan Versa at about $13,000. Suddenly, the government steps in and says they don't think Nissan is getting enough for this car and they arbitrarily increase the price to $26,000. Will you still buy it or might you decide you need other alternatives?  
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch