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.





Is it time to bring down wages because of inflation?

Debate Information

Joe Biden says we shouldn't pay employees less, but businesses should cut costs to combat inflation. But what is one of the hugest chunks of those high costs? Our wages!!! I propose that if the US brought down the minimum wage then US workers would be considered a better option for US businesses instead of foreign labor. And if we cut the minimum wage even lower, we could become a globally competitive labor force. We would see a rise in entry level jobs and manufacturing jobs, and inflation would fall. 


  1. Live Poll

    Is Joe right about not lowering wages?

    6 votes
    1. No. Nothing works better at stopping inflation than lowering wages and costs.
      50.00%
    2. Yes. Joe is right. We can stop inflation without lower wages.
      50.00%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    All the comments on this thread have disappeared, so it's like we can start all over again.   
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    We're actually reaching the stage of brainwashing where arguments like this aren't immediately understood to be sarcasm. As long as you say something is beneficial for the economy, most people think it's a good idea.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    My apologies, but that statement is kind of vague to me. Not necessarily your fault, but still I'm in the dark on whether you are against minimum wage decreases.   
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    I'm hoping what you wrote was sarcasm. If not, pretend I don't exist.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Twas not.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @piloteer
    Twas not.

    Cool. Then in that case it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. You live in a country where 92 percent of the wealth is owned by 1 percent of the population.

    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Quick question, why is it not a good idea then to raise the minimum wage to $100.00 dollars an hour to absolutely ensure that everyone clears the hurdle of poverty? 
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @piloteer
    Quick question, why is it not a good idea then to raise the minimum wage to $100.00 dollars an hour to absolutely ensure that everyone clears the hurdle of poverty?

    Because whichever party did that would lose all its election campaign money and be bankrupt by the end of the week.

    With the greatest of respect, I'm getting the impression you might be confused about something, so I'm going to clear it up for you. Paying workers more money doesn't drive up inflation. Inflation is a drop in the value of money, and it's caused by an increase in the total amount of money in circulation. 

    John_C_87
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @piloteer
    Quick question, why is it not a good idea then to raise the minimum wage to $100.00 dollars an hour to absolutely ensure that everyone clears the hurdle of poverty?

    Because whichever party did that would lose all its election campaign money and be bankrupt by the end of the week.

    With the greatest of respect, I'm getting the impression you might be confused about something, so I'm going to clear it up for you. Paying workers more money doesn't drive up inflation. Inflation is a drop in the value of money, and it's caused by an increase in the total amount of money in circulation. 


    I concur completely. Raising the minimum wage is not a primary cause of inflation, but can it really be touted as a cure for inflation? More money in circulation is the cause of inflation, which basically waters down the value of our monetary units. But the added cost to all consumers that is caused by raising the minimum wage is in no way a watered down economic impact. It is a full-on, solid economic burden that negatively impacts everybody, including those on the bottom rung which are the people an increased minimum wage was actually designed to help in the first place.   

    Raising the minimum wage absolutely does increase the cost of production, and therefore the cost of services, and from there, the cost of everything goes up. This increase in cost is still true for those on the very bottom economic rung. They may make more money, but they will have to pay more for everything. There's often a double impact on this lowest earning rung also because if businesses must pay more for production, they often must layoff workers, or at least stop hiring more people. The added cost of production because of an increase in minimum wages isn't really the best method for attracting international business either.               
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 828 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Responding To Inflation

    Inflation refers to a sustained increase in the prices of goods and services over time. The best response to inflation depends on the root causes of the inflation and the specific circumstances of the economy in question. However, some general responses that are typically effective in combating inflation include:

    1. Tightening monetary policy: Central banks can use various tools to tighten the money supply, such as raising interest rates or reducing the amount of money banks can lend. This can help reduce inflation by reducing demand for goods and services.

    2. Fiscal policy adjustments: Governments can adjust their spending and taxation policies to reduce inflationary pressures. For example, reducing government spending or increasing taxes can help reduce demand and inflation.

    3. Addressing supply-side issues: Inflation can also be caused by supply-side issues such as shortages of key goods or services. Governments can address these issues by increasing investment in infrastructure, promoting competition, and reducing barriers to entry for businesses.

    4. Indexing prices and wages: Indexing prices and wages to inflation can help reduce the impact of inflation on consumers and workers. This means that prices and wages are adjusted regularly to keep up with inflation.

    5. Promoting competition: Promoting competition in markets can help keep prices in check by giving consumers more options and reducing the ability of businesses to raise prices without fear of losing customers.

    Overall, the best response to inflation will depend on the specific circumstances of the economy in question. Governments and central banks should carefully consider the root causes of inflation and tailor their responses accordingly.
    John_C_87
  • @piloteer
    Quick question, why is it not a good idea then to raise the minimum wage to $100.00 dollars an hour to absolutely ensure that everyone clears the hurdle of poverty?

    Because whichever party did that would lose all its election campaign money and be bankrupt by the end of the week.

    With the greatest of respect, I'm getting the impression you might be confused about something, so I'm going to clear it up for you. Paying workers more money doesn't drive up inflation. Inflation is a drop in the value of money, and it's caused by an increase in the total amount of money in circulation. 

    With the greatest of respect, I'm getting the impression you might be confused about something, so I'm going to clear it up for you. Paying workers more money doesn't drive up inflation. Inflation is a drop in the value of money, and it's caused by an increase in the total amount of money in circulation. 

    Yes, pay does have a direct impact on economic inflation. The printed volumes of money may be mishandled to increase economic inflation by congress and the Federal Reserve. However, the greatest cause of moneys loss of value is misrepresentation in courts of law. It is rulings which have great implications as payouts may be stop suddenly without hope of restarting them even cash payouts can suddenly appear to evaporate as they are frozen.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @piloteer
    Joe Biden says we shouldn't pay employees less, but businesses should cut costs to combat inflation. But what is one of the hugest chunks of those high costs? Our wages!!! I propose that if the US brought down the minimum wage then US workers would be considered a better option for US businesses instead of foreign labor. And if we cut the minimum wage even lower, we could become a globally competitive labor force. We would see a rise in entry level jobs and manufacturing jobs, and inflation would fall. 

    I don't know if I can put this in a way that is easy to understand but economically inflation is a cost it has become a price governing often will pay to expand an economy for statistics purposes. Most often when the cause of instabilities cannot be rapidly located. The real problem piloteer is set in the cost that move as an imbalanced inside an economy before expansion can become a more costly fix during or after expansion occur.


    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    Inflation refers to a sustained increase in the prices of goods and services over time. The best response to inflation depends on the root causes of the inflation and the specific circumstances of the economy in question. However, some general responses that are typically effective in combating inflation include:

    1. Tightening monetary policy: Central banks can use various tools to tighten the money supply, such as raising interest rates or reducing the amount of money banks can lend. This can help reduce inflation by reducing demand for goods and services.

    2. Fiscal policy adjustments: Governments can adjust their spending and taxation policies to reduce inflationary pressures. For example, reducing government spending or increasing taxes can help reduce demand and inflation.

    3. Addressing supply-side issues: Inflation can also be caused by supply-side issues such as shortages of key goods or services. Governments can address these issues by increasing investment in infrastructure, promoting competition, and reducing barriers to entry for businesses.

    4. Indexing prices and wages: Indexing prices and wages to inflation can help reduce the impact of inflation on consumers and workers. This means that prices and wages are adjusted regularly to keep up with inflation.

    5. Promoting competition: Promoting competition in markets can help keep prices in check by giving consumers more options and reducing the ability of businesses to raise prices without fear of losing customers.

    Overall, the best response to inflation will depend on the specific circumstances of the economy in question. Governments and central banks should carefully consider the root causes of inflation and tailor their responses accordingly.
    I personally believe a combination of 3 and 4 would make a cocktail of economic awesomeness. And by awesomeness, I mean "healthy economic growth." I'm never against investment in education, and perhaps sustainable economies (green energy/sustainable foods). A policy like that., coupled with a reduction in wages would make the US the most powerful economic beast on earth for many decades to come. Expanding Space Force wouldn't be a terrible idea, but not expanding the overall military budget would be ideal.       
    John_C_87
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @JulesKorngold
    1. Tightening monetary policy: Central banks can use various tools to tighten the money supply, such as raising interest rates or reducing the amount of money banks can lend. This can help reduce inflation by reducing demand for goods and services.

    Wrong! The whole truth and self-evident truth are it puts some consumer goods out of reach of the people.

    How do we get something so vast as wealth down to something as minimal as 1%...?


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 6017 Pts   -  
    In the reasoning laid out below I may be committing the broken window fallacy - however, given the complexity of the effects discussed, it may not be the case.

    Let us first discuss the effects of the minimum wage laws. Who benefits from the minimum wage being a non-zero value? It is not the employees since some of them do not have the ability to sell their labor at its market value and remain unemployed, and the rest would be paid the minimum wage amount or above even in the absence if the minimum wage laws. It is not small business owners either since they have a hard time affording the overpriced labor. Finally, it is not the customers who have to pay a premium for all products as, as the OP noted, the increase in the price of labor results in the increase in the price of products.

    Who really benefits from these laws are the unions and the big businesses, both rigorously lobbying for various tax exemptions and regulations affecting their competitors' business, and the latter being able to actually afford the overpriced labor as a consequence of acquisition of the political benefits. Socialist-minded people are doing the devil's work by advocating for policies such as this that empower the megacorporations they claim to despise so much.

    All this is pretty terrible, but pales in comparison to the biggest drawback of this state of affairs: technological stagnation. Specifically I am talking about automation. It is no secret that automation increases productivity of companies in the long run, and in the absence of deadly regulations, given how cheap deployment of automated mechanical systems and AIs nowadays is, entire job sectors would have been wiped out by now, replaced with virtually free machine labor and prompting the current employees to move on to more productive activities. 

    Yet since large companies are the only ones capable of pushing the technology forward rapidly, them being incentivized by the government to hire a lot of overpriced workers to do useless things means that automation accross the board happens at a snail's pace. Go into any Walmart and see hundreds of employees walking around, casually chatting, pressing a button on devices a 2 year old kid can be trained to operate... What a waste of human capital. Virtually all of this "work" can be automated: instead of having 10 cashiers, have 9 self-checkout terminals and one cashier to tackle the tiny minority of customers who cannot checkout without external assistance - and the maintenance of those 9 terminals is virtually free and they will pay for themselves within weeks. Have the 9 workers who would otherwise do this basic labor take some introductory data analysis courses and then apply their knowledge to more sophisticated tasks the company can benefit from in the long run.

    Paradoxically, it appears that increasing the minimum wage laws past a certain amount can actually facilitate rapid automation. Suppose the minimum wage in the US was to increase to, say, $25 per hour. This would put millions of people out of the market as companies would no longer profit in any way from hiring them and even the political compensation will not justify doing so - and rapid automation would be the only option for them to stay competitive. If every labor that is worth less than $25 an hour on the market is automated, then humans will only do high-level work and be much more productive, which in turn will lower the production costs even further, causing massive drop in costs of living and making everyone effectively richer while receiving a pretty decent compensation!

    My analysis may be wrong somehow, but as of now it seems to me that both low and overly high minimum wage can be beneficial to the economy, and it is this in-between area that is problematic. Of course, my argument presupposes that the government largely operates the way it does nowadays and that outside of the minimum wage laws there are going to be endless other crony policies that create perverse incentives on the market and change the market dynamics drastically. On a relatively free market with little governmental intervention, of course, this argument turns into the plain broken window fallacy, and the best policy for the economy then becomes the complete absence of the minimum wage laws.

    Lastly, I want to touch on your claim that lowering the minimum wage would make the American companies more competitive internationally. The caveat here is that the living costs in the US are going to be fairly high no matter what given the general trend of richer countries being more expensive to live in. In a sense, there is always going to be an effective soft minimum wage: since, say, in my area it is almost impossible to live conventionally off $10k a year, job positions featuring such salary are going to be mostly empty - at the same time, in Senegal $10k a year is beyond most people's wildest dreams. A worker in my area cannot therefore reasonably compete with a worker in Senegal given the value of labor of both being approximately $10k a year, and any such jobs are going to be either obliterated or outsourced overseas. Which, again, is fine, as the worker who would otherwise do this unproductive work can instead apply his skills better elsewhere.
    John_C_87
  • jackjack 453 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Is it time to bring down wages because of inflation?


    Hello p:

    Nahhh..  Lowering wages while prices are rising is a double whammy on the middle class.  The old fashioned way to reduce inflation is to raise interest rates.  That hurts too, but it hurts all classes evenly. 

    excon
  • @MayCaesar
    Let us first discuss the effects of the minimum wage laws. Who benefits from the minimum wage being a non-zero value? It is not the employees since some of them do not have the ability to sell their labor at its market value and remain unemployed, and the rest would be paid the minimum wage amount or above even in the absence if the minimum wage laws. It is not small business owners either since they have a hard time affording the overpriced labor. Finally, it is not the customers who have to pay a premium for all products as, as the OP noted, the increase in the price of labor results in the increase in the price of products.

    Benefit of minimum wage is political leveraged debt by use of job training. Who benefits wages being a law over wages being a person’s earnings is the bigger question and that is taxation. The conflict is that there are laws which are addressed to corporations which are not addressed to other businesses unless you are a person who has had access to a variety of information we drive blind between laws. Again in an economic environment when the many are trained to ignore united state constitutional law but obey and contribute to makings and conflicts of interest in legislative law including long term court battles with ruling which flip flop back and forth.


    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    My assertions are universally accepted economic truths. Lower minimum wages results in a cheaper cost of labor. That alone is my claim. I am not leaving out the option of completely getting rid of any minimum wage laws and setting it at $0.00 dollars an hour, which would most definitely make US labor more competitive with Senegali workers. There are too many "in-between" areas and 'just right' areas from too many economists for a valid attempt from our government to try and dazzle as many economists as possible, let alone any at all. The real economic debate starts at whether or not lowering minimum wages brings down labor costs. If it does, does it help with inflation?          
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @jack

    I'm not quite sold on the idea that lower minimum wages would hurt the middle class. There is a high number of entrepreneurs in that "class". Those business owners can pay their employees less, which in turn creates more money for their business to invest with.
  • jackjack 453 Pts   -  
    piloteer said:
    @jack

    I'm not quite sold on the idea that lower minimum wages would hurt the middle class. There is a high number of entrepreneurs in that "class". Those business owners can pay their employees less, which in turn creates more money for their business to invest with.
    Hello p:

    Couple things..   If you flip burgers for $7.25/hr, getting paid LESS would absolutely HURT.  And, it's very true that if you pay your people LESS, there is going to be more for you to invest..  But, taking money from the very poorest amongst us to invest for your own interests, sucks BIG TIME..

    When I was an employer, I looked for reasons to pay my people MORE, not less.  I'm certain you have no idea why.

    excon
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @jack
    Couple things..   If you flip burgers for $7.25/hr, getting paid LESS would absolutely HURT.  And, it's very true that if you pay your people LESS, there is going to be more for you to invest..  But, taking money from the very poorest amongst us to invest for your own interests, sucks BIG TIME..

    Omg, you're literally OBSESSED with me. Get some professional HELP, Jack. 


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 6017 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    piloteer said:
    @MayCaesar

    My assertions are universally accepted economic truths. Lower minimum wages results in a cheaper cost of labor. That alone is my claim. I am not leaving out the option of completely getting rid of any minimum wage laws and setting it at $0.00 dollars an hour, which would most definitely make US labor more competitive with Senegali workers. There are too many "in-between" areas and 'just right' areas from too many economists for a valid attempt from our government to try and dazzle as many economists as possible, let alone any at all. The real economic debate starts at whether or not lowering minimum wages brings down labor costs. If it does, does it help with inflation?          
    I think that it is much more complicated than that in the real economical environment, with countless laws and crony schemes altering the calculation. As a hypothetical example, imagine a country in which the following low exists: "Any of the top 50% salaries must equal at least $1b/X, where X is the lowest yearly salary in the country". In such a country, lowering the minimum wage, say, to $5,000 a year would have dramatic consequences on most of the companies that now have to pay to their top specialists insane amounts of money.

    Sure, such an insane law does not exist anywhere in the world. I made up this example simply to illustrate how illogical laws can make the effects of various policies differ drastically from what they would be in a free market environment. Saying that X helps inflation period makes little sense outside of a particular economical context, and the contexts vary differently between the countries.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    jack said:
    piloteer said:
    @jack

    I'm not quite sold on the idea that lower minimum wages would hurt the middle class. There is a high number of entrepreneurs in that "class". Those business owners can pay their employees less, which in turn creates more money for their business to invest with.
    Hello p:

    Couple things..   If you flip burgers for $7.25/hr, getting paid LESS would absolutely HURT.  And, it's very true that if you pay your people LESS, there is going to be more for you to invest..  But, taking money from the very poorest amongst us to invest for your own interests, sucks BIG TIME..

    When I was an employer, I looked for reasons to pay my people MORE, not less.  I'm certain you have no idea why.

    excon
    So then, are you still harping on about how lowering minimum wages hurts the middle class, or the poorest among us? It almost seems like you concur that it is actually helpful for the middle class. 

    Regardless of any of that, what I'm still not really sold on is how exactly would it not be beneficial for anybody if prices come down? It kind of seems that lower prices would be beneficial for everybody no matter which geo-socio-economic class you wanna toss them into.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @MayCaesar

    Nothing in this OP is a proposition for enhancing government red tape of economic "policy", only to lessen it. There are no laws in the US constitution that binds the federal government to conduct economic policy in a manner to avoid court battles at all costs. You elude to the fact that no matter what the Fed does, they'll be sued. It's hardly a claim anybody here would deny, including myself. So if there are lawsuits because of decreasing the minimum wage, it would be no different than the lawsuits for increasing the minimum wage, or the lawsuits for keeping it where it is. The lawsuits always come, but that doesn't mean do not conduct economic policy in a manner that can relinquish some of the burden on consumers that is brought by high prices.       
  • @piloteer

    Nothing in this OP is a proposition for enhancing government red tape of economic "policy", only to lessen it. There are no laws in the US constitution that binds the federal government to conduct economic policy in a manner to avoid court battles at all costs.  I just want to make something clear there are no laws at all in then American United States Constitution there are self-evident truths that are held as right. This is different than the writing of legislation into law. This process is a means to hold legislation above the law the common defense towards the general welfare is to establish a more perfect state of the union with established justice. The common mistake is that people often believe the self-evident truth which prevents one thing to take place cannot be explained and held in a self-evident truth which allows what was once block out to pass through a state of the union made on established justice.


  • @MayCaesar

    Do you know you are simply making the economic argument that higher wages are the lead indicator for a large economy over other indications? Meanwhile wages are not necessarily tied to actual economic inflation simply by setting wages to go up as they are connected to a series of direct cost for companies. Not just State random impulse. The argument of using outside influence on business for shifting unexpected cost is the focus point of this discussion with piloteer. 



  • @piloteer

    I do not know if this direct answers to your possible question satisfies curiosity the way it may be preferred. Point blank a reason why wages will not drop in the regulation of wage law is more than likely they are tide to movement inside smaller parts of a state’s economy and infrastructure. Issues dealing with things like future zoning laws, building code, and land usage. Think of the process as the best way known to move businesses to locations like farm animals with a bit of prodding, understand piloteer. In all honesty to help an inflationary cost the amount of wage that would need to cut be shaved off increased other cost is just too high and is therefore unacceptable as a real game changer in economics.

    I am not clear if that was an answer to the question you asked or if I said it in a way you easily understand.

  • jackjack 453 Pts   -  

    Regardless of any of that, what I'm still not really sold on is how exactly would it not be beneficial for anybody if prices come down?

    Hello p:

    If prices come down at YOUR expense, of course it's not beneficial to you.  Besides, inflation all by itself, lowers the buying power of the middle class, effectively lowering their wages, and you wanna lower their wages further.. 

    Why, escapes me.. 

    excon
  • jack said:

    Regardless of any of that, what I'm still not really sold on is how exactly would it not be beneficial for anybody if prices come down?

    Hello p:

    If prices come down at YOUR expense, of course it's not beneficial to you.  Besides, inflation all by itself, lowers the buying power of the middle class, effectively lowering their wages, and you wanna lower their wages further.. 

    Why, escapes me.. 

    excon

    Product pricing increases are not automatically inflationary, however when connected to the idea in whole truth with acts of political legislation, added costs sent to goods and services through a transfer made in substitution for added taxation of some kind elsewhere then are often mistaken in statistics as something else having been seen like economic growth. I like the term "Puffer Phish Economy." When I first started writing in forum, I called it Puffer Fish Economics, but the use of PH might be better suited or this name in whole truth. I see it as a translation some have made on corporation’s process of polishing books to secure the high values of appraisals in companies being managed.


  • @piloteer

    So big question Piloteer. How do we slow and economy to reduce trash and waste output and promote living wage and jobs at the same time?


  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    John_C_87 said:
    @piloteer

    So big question Piloteer. How do we slow and economy to reduce trash and waste output and promote living wage and jobs at the same time?


    I'm not sure why there's a need to slow the economy. As far as reducing trash and waste output, and promoting a living wage, those are not necessarily things that can be controlled. It's hard to argue against what Hayek demonstrated in the 1930s. There are so many variables and outside influences on the economy, it is impossible to plan. The best thing any government could ever hope to do when it tries to plan the economy is hope it doesn't just make things worse on the economy. Either that, or outlaw any activity that can be considered free enterprise and just distribute all of our goods, but of course, that's not really an economy. It's just a system of distribution in which the distributors get to decide who get what. 

    The economy will go at whichever speed it wants and it would be daft of anybody to think it's a good thing to try and influence the speed of the economy. Right now, supply chain issues are still doing a bang up job slowing the economy. We don't need to help supply chain problems. Those problems are caused by a need for workers that are simply not available. This is the direct cause of prices going up. It now costs far more for businesses to get a product off the planning table and into the hands of consumers because there are less people along the chain of production and distribution (stores) to get that product sold. This is not an issue any government policy can fix without causing other major economic problems. The only viable option for businesses to stay competitive in this kind of market is to reduce overhead costs. One great method for doing that is by stopping governments from mandating how much workers must be paid.                
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    jack said:

    Regardless of any of that, what I'm still not really sold on is how exactly would it not be beneficial for anybody if prices come down?

    Hello p:

    If prices come down at YOUR expense, of course it's not beneficial to you.  Besides, inflation all by itself, lowers the buying power of the middle class, effectively lowering their wages, and you wanna lower their wages further.. 

    Why, escapes me.. 

    excon

    You have exposed the problem of the idea of helping the people on the lowest economic rung by raising the minimum wage. You are correct, if we lower wages, we have less money. But if you flip that, and increase wages, we may have more money, but obviously there's no real benefit because prices go up. Can you guess why it would be a bad idea to increase the minimum wage to $1,000 dollars an hour? It makes our money worthless. Do you know what happens when our money becomes worthless? We can pretty much say goodbye to any notion of an economy if that happens!  

    If your gripe is with a reduction in buying power, you should probably let Mr. Biden know that his plan to raise interest rates will cause that problem to be worse. In fact, that's exactly what the Biden administration is trying to do. They want to limit buying power because if businesses keep needing to spend more to make products at a higher cost because of supply chain issues, then the worse thing we could ever hope for would be for the general public to continue buying at those costs, which is exactly what has happened. The costs for production have increased, but the demand has not decreased. Demand is only increasing because of less production output. There are shortages, and the products that do make it on the shelves are sold at outrageous prices. The obvious outcome is price hikes and money that continuously gets weaker and less valuable. So, instead of combating the problem at its source and reducing production costs by lowering minimum wages, the Biden administration has opted instead to raise interest rates which reduces buying power across the board in the hopes that people will buy less products and businesses will be forced to reduce costs and make less money overall. That will be very bad for small businesses and low wage employees.   

    Lowering the minimum wage does not reduce buying power. It seems pretty well established that we both agree our wages influence product pricing. So if wages go down, and so do prices, there's no reduction in buying power. What actually happens when we reduce the minimum wage is we make our money more valuable, which in turn, gives us more buying power.               
  • @piloteer
    I'm not sure why there's a need to slow the economy

    Simply said, slower econemies gednerate less waste and it can be harder to self-indulgence, it is precisely what is done through taxation by admission in polotics in America today. Something Parliament had done to the colonies while they were still part of English law 200 plus years ago.

    The economy will go at whichever speed it wants

    Be clear piloted an economy is not a thinking machine it is a programmed machine it does not chose its own speed the assembly of mechanical parts that are operating within the economy set its speed. There are so many complicated issues to be considered in understanding a nation’s economic future and motion to that future. One of the biggest is litigations on two levels national and international and where it may not appear at first site to be connected to labor cost it is and it occurs at a much higher expense then employee wages. .

    One great method for doing that is by stopping governments from mandating how much workers must be paid.     

     I do not like the idea of minimum wage on a United States Constitutional level and a great deal of my spare time now goes to looking and testing for states of the union made on discovery of United States lingering at a constitutional level. This goes for all kinds of topics which do include economic outcomes. The complication is that a state of the union made on cost of labor with constitutional right is describe in self-evident truth to over or about “Time” itself. Not the understandings of the personal high's or low's a person is to be paid. This goes with the idea of hidden cost of labor that changing a person’s paycheck will not ever effect. Understand?      


  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @John_C_87

    If by, "slower economy" you mean an economy not based on enormously overvalued markets stabilized by heavy government spending and home subsidies insurance, I fully agree. That would be a an ideal economy. 

    But then you claimed the economy is a "programmed machine" and suddenly your argument became trippy imagination fun time land because I'm sorry, the economy cannot be planned. Hayek and Keynes alike would both attest to the fact that an economy can never be made to run perfectly all the time, and Hayek would even go as far as to claim any government intervention in the economy only ever causes adverse economic reactions. There are far too many variables, including the most indecipherable variables of all, unforseen future events for us to have a perfectly functioning economy.

     Like for instance, a nuclear war between India and Pakistan (which hopefully will never happen) would greatly influence the global economy, and even regional economies on a global scale (meaning, possibly all local/small regional economies on earth). If we were to ever reach some kind of generally accepted concept of a "healthy economy", but then suddenly two nuclear armed South Asian countries make craters out of each other, the reverberation would effect the global economy, which would require a drastically completely different set of economic circumstances and political circumstances across the globe. People believe we can just live in magic trippy fun time land and have an instantly new healthy economy on hand that is pre-programmed to be already adapted to the new global/regional economic and political variables and everyone is perfectly fine. 

    I know it's fun to live in happy fun time land, but I'm not convinced that's possible.                
    John_C_87
  • If by, "slower economy" you mean an economy not based on enormously overvalued markets stabilized by heavy government spending and home subsidies insurance, I fully agree. That would be a an ideal economy. 

    Topic1 : Speed Vs Size

    (The speed of any object Piloteer is an outcome when that object / thing is compared with time.) The simplest idea of any economies speed is made when we shop by the length of time it takes to pay for a good at a stores check-out line. This is going to turn into a length complex descussion so I am going to go slow and not over complicate it with a lot of information given all at once. As we put together the information it is will help you better understand why I describe an economy as a programmed machine.

    For the sake of debate, I am going to say goverment spending is a way a "person or group" may "feel" is the best method they know to keep an economy moving when they compare it to a series of different times.

     Hayek and Keynes, you little name dropper ...............The idea they both appeared to have shared is: An economy is not a real machine. This means the idea of maintenance is to be left out, I question that principle. I assure you there is no economy that is a living animal, thus is capable of its own abilities to graze in open pastures. A government and politics are part of an economy whether we like it or not. I would go as far as to say be it the government is the acting as the squeaky horn and plastic steering wheel or the three-year-old behind it.

    Keynes v Hayek: Two economic giants go head to head - BBC News
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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