A fair minimum wage would be $0.00 dollars an hour? - 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 best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

A fair minimum wage would be $0.00 dollars an hour?

Debate Information

You do not deserve the amount of money you get paid, you're simply not worth that much, no matter what you do, or who you are (speaking of American people only. Non-Americans can make up their own labor laws). 

If the purpose of raising the minimum wage is to help those who are underemployed, I fail to see the effectiveness in that. Raising the minimum wage raises prices on everything, and it raises the prices for everybody, including those we are trying to help.

If you're worried about people being dumb enough to agree to get paid $0.00 dollars an hour, then I have a valid question as a retort. How much do people deserve to get paid if they're willing to get paid 0 dollars an hour?

Raising the minimum wage is a form of socialism. It is my belief that it actually causes more economic hardship than it helps. It's can be argued that raising the minimum can be counterintuitive not only because it raises prices, but it also forces small business owners to cut hours or layoff low wage employees. It is a socialistic policy because it makes all of us have to collectively pay higher prices for everything we buy, for the sake of helping only a portion of the population. It's no different than a tax for the purpose of being charitable.  

In the end, even if there were benefits to low wage employees (which is questionable), the plain and simple fact is that it is certainly not beneficial to me to have to pay higher prices for people I do not know or care about. Help is the worst form of torture we can give to somebody because it gives them a false sense of hope. 

Four years ago, if I had put this thread up here it would have been squarely pointed at the democrats and their fetish for raising the minimum wage. Now, this is directed at both major parties because now the republicans have dropped their dedication to reducing the minimum so there is no major party in the US that will stand up for my anti-minimum wage ideal. Shame on ALL of you.

Consider voting for Jo Jorgensen.              
xlJ_dolphin_473
  1. Live Poll

    Raise minimum wage?

    5 votes
    1. Yes. We need to help others.
      40.00%
    2. No. It only hurts us economically.
      60.00%
  2. Live Poll

    Keep the minimum wage as is.

    5 votes
    1. Yes. It's at a good spot now.
        0.00%
    2. No. There must be more talk about setting it to a better level.
      100.00%
  3. Live Poll

    Lower, or even eliminate the minimum wage.

    5 votes
    1. Yes. It raises prices on everything.
      80.00%
    2. No. It will hurt the underemployed.
      20.00%
Debate Details +



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

    Arguments


  • I feel like this is a good idea when capitalism is working how it is supposed to. The main problem nowadays is that it is not, rather we are living under a more corporatist capitalism. Removing a minimum wage would allow large corporations to hurt employees by allowing them to possibly coalition and come to agreement on their own minimum wage that they would all stick to. All this does is shift the control of the minimum wage from the government to corporations. One might beg the question, well couldn't one of these corporations break the cycle or not participate in the first place? If they raise what they pay, then they can get higher quality workers. To this I say it is beside the point, since we are talking about presumably entry level jobs. Also it seems strange that a company would not participate in this collective minimum wage, as it would benefit them greatly. But if the companies decide together to only pay people dirt cheap, what can they do? They can't go work for someone else if everyone pays the same. And they need to live, so they succumb and work, because the alternative is worse. 

     Think of 1984, where the three super states constantly remain at war. This war benefits each super state immensely. I would compare that war to the supposed "war" that would be happening between these corporations. Supposedly they are warring for better employees or labor, but by setting their own terms, they all benefit. Another good comparison would be to the situation with insulin (which has now been resolved). Insulin costs $3 dollars to produce. Yet it was sold for $300. Why? Well, if only a limited number of people produce insulin, they can control what they sell it for. Why doesn't one of the businesses sell it for lower? Wouldn't they be able to get more sales that way? In theory, but it benefits them more to sell it for the same ridiculously inflated price as the "competition". All I am saying is that we should be careful. I don't trust the government in the slightest; they cannot be trusted with power. But removing the minimum wage just shifts power to large corporations, all with financial incentive.
  • piloteerpiloteer 961 Pts
    edited October 18
    @Monketrunk

    I agree that incentives to have more competition between businesses would be most satisfactory. I do not embrace the idea of giant corporations coming to agreements on prices or wages like the cereal companies did. I think it would be best to remove other barriers that get in the way of growth for small businesses. All that would need to happen is one smaller company to sell at a lower cost for the prices to begin to fall. 

    It's a little difficult to properly address your statement because you use the term "large corporations" in a very broad sense and paint them all with the same brush. If we were to get into specific business sectors like retail, or electronics, or the food industry, I'm sure we could find the small companies that are trying to get a foothold in those sectors and stir the pot of competition and make some waves. I have some trepidation about government interference in economics, but I am open to the idea of government programs that help to give small businesses a boost. One thing that should be considered here is the needs of the businesses as well as the needs of the workers and the consumers. It may be beneficial for consumers when price wars break out between companies, but it often turns out to be very disastrous for the businesses involved. Perhaps we could consult our game theory guidebooks to find a happy price vs wage ratio that benefits the companies, the workers, and the consumers equally.            

    I understand your distrust of the government, but then you talk about a distrust of large corporations. That's quite a pickle you got yourself into there, because who can you trust? If it's not the government, then it will have to be the people. Yes, corporations do have financial incentives just as we as individuals do. We all have agendas, but does that really make us all nefarious agents working toward an evil outcome? We are all the people who make up our society, and the people who are in the government and those large corporations are members of our society as well. It's OK to be skeptical and alert, but simply brushing everybody off as just another cog in the scheme to rule is just as bad as actually being a part of whatever nefarious scheme you may have in mind. We must all engage in the processes of our society for us to have a society. If we just think we're all working against each other, we don't really have much of a society.        
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    edited October 18
    To me a fellow human being should be entitled to basic human rights a minimum wage being one of these. A minimun wage should be sufficient to cover the basic necessities of life as in food , shelter ,clothing if it doesn’t it exploitation 

    What is it about Americans when someone like me claims a minimun wage is just and fair it suddenly becomes socialism which seems to be Americans biggest fear ?

    I call it a social policy. Explain to me the fairness of a system where big business can collectively decide to pay everyone say 5 dollars an hour would you be happy with that ? Surely that’s more like Socialism as used in Cuba where one wage applies to all.
    AlofRI
  • piloteerpiloteer 961 Pts
    edited October 18
    @Dee

    If small businesses are able to sell products or services for cheaper because of cheaper labor costs, then prices will go down which will undermine any corporations wage and price fixing.  Low wages brings prices down for everything which in turn brings down the cost of living. Bringing down the cost of living would be beneficial for everybody including low wage workers. It can be demonstrated how raising the minimum wage increases prices.  

    A minimum wage is indeed a socialist policy because it purposely increases the cost of living for everybody only for the "benefit" of a portion of society. I'm not afraid of socialism because I've lived in one my entire life. The US is a socialist country and has been since the 1930s. I'd say I'm more sickened or enraged by socialism and it is my hope that it doesn't increase and we fall into a bureaucratic nightmare so thick with red tape that we need to buy a license just to have a television. In the end, people actually do better on their own when they have no handouts to rely on.   
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1037 Pts
    Poverty is expensive. Those living in poverty have to be supported by those that are not .... unless they are simply allowed to starve to death or die from whatever disease they might not be able to afford medication for. 

    The "increase in the minimum wage" is not an "increase" at all. When the minimum wage was begun it was a certain amount in the '60s. The minimum suggested today simply brings it up to the approximate level of today's cost of living. 

    Yes, it's a "socialist policy", just like the $billions Trump tossed out to the farmers to help them with the "minimum wages" his trade policy brought them! Just like the oil subsidies the oil companies have received since, at least, the original minimum wage was begun. The farm subsidies by a VERY large part went to the big corporate farms, the oil subsidies go to the richest corporations in the world! THEY DON'T NEED IT, the people do. 

    8 million Americans slipped into poverty in the last few months. $5 or less..... even $7 .... AIN'T GONNA SAVE THEM! $Billions to the oil companies ain't gonna save THEM either! (But it WILL pay for some YUGE executive bonuses). That bonus money is OUR tax money! If it goes anywhere it should go to the people who need it whether they are working or not! Democracy can't work without capitalism. Democracy can't work well without a measure of socialism also. Corporate socialism doesn't help democracy, it helps those who use OUR tax money to turn it around and give it back to "lawmakers" so that they will pass more advantageous laws FOR THEM! We, the people, are financing poverty with the money that should be preventing it ..... with corporate, "socialist welfare."

    It's time we took it back.
    DeexlJ_dolphin_473
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    @piloteer


    If small businesses are able to sell products or services for cheaper because of cheaper labor costs, then prices will go down which will undermine any corporations wage and price fixing. 

    If small businesses cannot pay a wage that secures the necessities of life they are exploiting their workers 

     Low wages brings prices down for everything which in turn brings down the cost of living. 

    So why not pay everyone low wages why only some? 


    Bringing down the cost of living would be beneficial for everybody including low wage workers. It can be demonstrated how raising the minimum wage increases prices.  

    Tell me how does one on low income pay for healthcare /education in the US seeing as it’s possibly the most expensive in the world?

    A minimum wage is indeed a socialist policy because it purposely increases the cost of living for everybody only for the "benefit" of a portion of society.

     Basically you’re saying f- - k the poor. Why do most Americans fight tooth and nail to protect a system that reduces taxes for the wealthy and who seem to collectively enjoy being robbed blind for healthcare/ education and go insane at anyone who dares suggest such? 

    I'm not afraid of socialism because I've lived in one my entire life. The US is a socialist country and has been since the 1930s. I'd say I'm more sickened or enraged by socialism and it is my hope that it doesn't increase and we fall into a bureaucratic nightmare so thick with red tape that we need to buy a license just to have a television.

    I buy a license to have a tv , I spent time in the US and New York was ridiculously expensive , you buy dinner in a restaurant and a local tax is on your bill then a 15 per cent tip is on top is this the sort of fair society Americans think is fair and balanced?


    In the end, people actually do better on their own when they have no handouts to rely on.  

    Tell that to the millions of Americans who face medical bankruptcy ever year 
  • piloteer said:
     Low wages brings prices down for everything which in turn brings down the cost of living.
    It’s a nice idea, but there are not enough people on the minimum wage for this to be true. You would need to decrease wages on EVERYONE for the cost of living to go down enough for the minimum wage to still be enough. And even then, we’re no better than where we started, because the cost of living decreases proportionally to the minimum wage.
  • A fair wage measured in the dollar could only be achieved in a federally registered receipt proportional in its own cost to the economy it is trying to serve. 

  • @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Wages would go down for everybody because the dollar would become worth more. There may be some corporations that would try to keep their employees wages up, but as competition becomes more robust, they would eventually need to lower prices and thus lower wages. This is not a proposal to only allow low wage workers to get lower wages. Wages would go down for everybody.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • piloteerpiloteer 961 Pts
    edited October 18
    @Dee

    Yes. I am plain and simply saying that I am not responsible for helping the poor.  I do not fight tooth and nail for lower taxes for the wealthy, I fight tooth and nail to make taxes lower for everybody. If we reduced the minimum wage, the prices in New York would go down. I would also suggest visiting bean town instead of New York. Much more culture in Boston.    
  • piloteer said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Wages would go down for everybody because the dollar would become worth more. There may be some corporations that would try to keep their employees wages up, but as competition becomes more robust, they would eventually need to lower prices and thus lower wages. This is not a proposal to only allow low wage workers to get lower wages. Wages would go down for everybody.
    The value of the Federal Reserve Note does not move it is a registered receipt for that debt. legal and insecure as possibly illegal, the cost of goods and services inside an area can gain or lose value and never changes the value of the Note, AKA Dollar. The need for less registered receipt in the public lowers the costs of insuring debt between legal and illegal income as it is reflected in a crime rate. Slavery is a form of income that is now owned only by Congress, regulated by law. The risks involved in unsecured transactions in which secure value between legal and illegal income has greater consequences to the overall economy.

    The suggestion was given to small businesses on minimum wages is false, again the use of a state-issued wage is driving legal slaves between states to stimulate parts of an economy. In laymen's terms, a person could say it is juicing figures creating a cost to increase economic activity. Pufferfish economy as a sale and distribution market area shrinks the economy must look bigger or become devoured by other interests.
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    edited October 19
    @piloteer

    Yes. I am plain and simply saying that I am not responsible for helping the poor

    Right so you agree with the exploitation of workers as you’re not responsible for their plight




     I do not fight tooth and nail for lower taxes for the wealthy, I fight tooth and nail to make taxes lower for everybody. If we reduced the minimum wage, the prices in New York would go down. 


    Right , so the solution to reducing prices in the US is to reduce an already low pay for the lowest paid in the US 

    I would also suggest visiting bean town instead of New York. Much more culture in Boston.    

    How do the low paid pay for healthcare in the education /healthcare in the US?
  • @Dee

    It is now the law in the US that employers must provide all permanent employees with healthcare. If the employers do not, they will have a tax levied on them. If the workers cannot get healthcare through their employers, they can through their state healthcare system which is fortified by the federal healthcare system. Low wage employees must get healthcare or face a fine. If their place of employment does not offer healthcare, the workers can still get healthcare by other means. The minimum wage does not affect this.

     If the minimum wage were to be brought down, that doesn't necessarily mean low wage employees get less buying power because the value of the dollar will steadily rise and the price of everything will go down. It is not as if suddenly wages would drop instantly over night if the minimum wage were eliminated. Competition between companies will cause prices to go down over time which increases the value of the dollar. As the value of the dollar goes up, and the price of labor goes down, businesses will adjust the amount they pay all their workers accordingly. 

    As far as exploitation in business, that's how it works regardless. The businesses exploit their workers for labor while the workers exploit the businesses as a source of income. You will need to specify what specific kind of exploitation you are referring to if that's not the type of exploitation you are talking about. One of the most obvious methods for making a profit is to keep overhead costs low and lower labor costs is one of the best methods to do that. If an employee feels that they are not being compensated fairly for their labor, they are free to try other places of employment and even other sectors of employment entirely.  

    Not every single thing we do as individuals is for the benefit of society at large. Some things we do is solely for the purpose of serving ourselves first. Obviously there's a balancing act when it comes to how much should be intended for ourselves and for all of society, and there's much debate on where exactly the line should be drawn. The US was founded on the principle of allowing its citizens as much liberty as possible for them to serve themselves first and foremost. The reason for that is a dedication to happiness (or at least the freedom to pursue happiness) as opposed to societal altruism which can really only lead to satisfaction at best, and utter dismay at worst. You'd have a good point if my proposal could be proven to actually economically hurt people who are underemployed, but that's not so easy for you to do because low wages across the board equals low prices across the board, therefore it lowers the cost of living for everybody including low wage workers.

    The ideals in the US are not necessarily geared toward a meritocratic system where we all serve each other. It is an individualist system where we are given more choices than other systems of government and economics and even social standards of living. A socialist system may offer more of an economic safety net, but it does nothing in the way of happiness because it takes away much choice. Our whole purpose in life is not necessarily to just shut up and do what we're told to do for the sake of the rest of society, and our worth cannot truly be measured accurately by a system of measurement. We as individuals also have a say in our own worth and we may be happier if we were allowed the liberty to prove it instead of a forced altruism that tells us what our worth is.  
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    @piloteer

    As far as exploitation in business, that's how it works regardless. The businesses exploit their workers for labor while the workers exploit the businesses as a source of income. 


    That’s incorrect .....

    exploitation

    /ɛksplɔɪˈteɪʃ(ə)n/

    noun

    noun: exploitation; plural noun: exploitations

    1. 1. 
      the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.


    How is a worker exploiting his employer?



    You will need to specify what specific kind of exploitation you are referring to if that's not the type of exploitation you are talking about. 


    I told you already as in a fair wage should cover the necessities of life if it doesn’t it’s not fair 



    One of the most obvious methods for making a profit is to keep overhead costs low and lower labor costs is one of the best methods to do that. 


    Yes , but if you cannot pay a fair wage don’t start a business 


    If an employee feels that they are not being compensated fairly for their labor, they are free to try other places of employment and even other sectors of employment entirely.  


    Right ,  but how does that work if there’s no minimun wage guarantee?


    Not every single thing we do as individuals is for the benefit of society at large. Some things we do is solely for the purpose of serving ourselves first. Obviously there's a balancing act when it comes to how much should be intended for ourselves and for all of society, and there's much debate on where exactly the line should be drawn. 


    A fair wage is a start 


    The US was founded on the principle of allowing its citizens as much liberty as possible for them to serve themselves first and foremost. The reason for that is a dedication to happiness (or at least the freedom to pursue happiness) as opposed to societal altruism which can really only lead to satisfaction at best, and utter dismay at worst. 


    How’s that working for you? I don’t know how societal altruism can lead to dismay


    You'd have a good point if my proposal could be proven to actually economically hurt people who are underemployed, but that's not so easy for you to do because low wages across the board equals low prices across the board, therefore it lowers the cost of living for everybody including low wage workers. 


    It’s never going to happen , prices go up not down such a system can only work if it’s embraced by the whole world and even then it’s a race to the bottom and economies opt for cheaper prices and competition keeps driving prices down until total collapse


    The ideals in the US are not necessarily geared toward a meritocratic system where we all serve each other. It is an individualist system where we are given more choices than other systems of government and economics and even social standards of living. 


    How are you given more choices and what social standards of living do you have that others don’t have?


    A socialist system may offer more of an economic safety net, but it does nothing in the way of happiness because it takes away much choice. 


    Right so having the right to state shelter , food , education and medicine does not lead to ones wellbeing /happiness? 

    What choice is it taken away when it’s denying no choices?


    Our whole purpose in life is not necessarily to just shut up and do what we're told to do for the sake of the rest of society, 


    Why who is doing that?


    and our worth cannot truly be measured accurately by a system of measurement. 


    Again who is doing that?


    We as individuals also have a say in our own worth and we may be happier if we were allowed the liberty to prove it instead of a forced altruism that tells us what our worth is.  


    Forced Altruism? If you don’t want it don’t take it no one is forcing you.


    No one is telling you what your worth is , an altruist is telling you society values you thus you are worthy 

  • @Dee

    Well thank you, you are valued also. But I wasn't particularly concerned about whether I have value for society or not. My value onto myself is all I concern myself with. As far as having a choice in my altruism, I don't really have one if I as a consumer must pay higher prices for everything so companies can cover the overhead costs of higher wages. So I would definitely say I'm being forced into this. 

    All the people I know who need to rely on state shelter and food wouldn't describe their situation as "happiness". In fact it's quite the opposite. I understand the need for shelters and food, but I'm not to sure what this has to do with the minimum wage. I'm not proposing that we get rid of state shelters or the welfare system altogether. In fact, none of what I'm proposing has anything to do with the welfare system.

    In a capitalist system we as individuals have the freedom to choose what we WANT to do for work, and where we WANT to work, and how much we WANT to get paid. The same is true in a socialist system as well. There is no difference between a capitalist system and a socialist system in any of those respects at all. The only true difference is that in a capitalist system, you could potentially ACHIEVE those goals. In a socialist system, or meritocracy, it DEPENDS on whether your goals are in line with all of societies goals.   


               
  • DeeDee 2843 Pts
    @piloteer

    Regards your point on happiness  I actually said,  I don’t know how societal altruism can lead to dismay.


    The only true difference is that in a capitalist system, you could potentially ACHIEVE those goals.

    But I live in a capitalist system where minimum wage applies and all of what I mentioned , it’s taken as a given by the population 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch