CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
7
Yes. No.
Debate Score:12
Arguments:9
Total Votes:13
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (5)
 
 No. (4)

Debate Creator

YeshuaBought(2848) pic



Do you suppot minimum wage laws?

Yes.

Side Score: 5
VS.

No.

Side Score: 7

Yes, and we already have minimum wage laws.

Side: Yes.
0 points

I favor the use of robots. The higher the wages for humans, the more robots will be used. This will put humans out of work.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Yes, the minimum wage mentality inspires industrial and commercial concerns to develop A I systems and automated manufacturing techniques to fulfill the functions hitherto performed by people.

Soon the left wing unions and the so called workers will be replaced by non-complaining-no coffee break-non striking robots.

Side: Yes.
3 points

Hello Y,

No. I’m not in favor of wage and price controls. Therefore, I support the free market.

excon

Side: No.
Rusticus(810) Disputed
1 point

There is no such thing as a free market. That's just a Republican illusion designed to keep you compliant.

Supporting Evidence: There is no free market. (www.salon.com)
Side: Yes.
excon(18260) Disputed
2 points

There is no such thing as a free market.

Hello R:

I agree. There is no such thing as an unfettered market. But, by the time all that fettering is done, the market is still somewhat free. Certainly, in my business, I'm free to pay my employees anything I want.. And, when I shop, I'm free to buy or not to buy based on price..

So, while not absolutely free, it's pretty damn free.

excon

Side: No.
1 point

Typically they stay well enough below equilibrium to cause little trouble. But on occasion politicians will raise them causing quite a bit of trouble for the poor and for small or struggling businesses. Touble for the poor because they stop getting hired for jobs that only pay for value added which are often the kinds they would otherwise work for. Trouble for small businesses because they cannot weather the lag time for product prices to balance against their costs of labor. When they go out of business they can’t hire anyone.

The trade off with minimum wage is this: You can have more people employed getting paid less, or you can require higher pay and have less people employed.

Side: No.
seanB(950) Disputed
1 point

This is why unions are essential for the working class. Iceland has no minimum wage, but the populace use collective bargaining to set industry standard wages. Employers there pay their staff more than $2k a month.

America is in the unfortunate position of having a low minimum wage, relatively high living costs, high competition for jobs, and a relative lack of union power, which puts employees in a very shitty position. It's a poster-child for crony capitalism, really.

The GDP per capita for the US looks great, but then you realize that most of that ends up in the hands of a small percentage of households, with relatively little spread among the "peasants".

Last I checked, the living wage for an adult and child in New York was about $25, the minimum wage was $10. Taking into account the American distribution of income, we know that about 30% of households have a gross yearly income of less than $25k. Accounting for current unemployment figures of around 4%, that means 26% of housholds are earning a wage lower than necessary for the living standard for a SINGLE ADULT.

Take into account how many of those households are home to more than one individual, and it's not hard to understand why 16% of Americans meet the federal definition of impoverished, while significantly more have less income than for basic living expenses.

Meanwhile, over 50% of US national income ends up in the hands of less than the highest earning 10% of households.

65% of goods bought in America are made cheaply overseas: people can't afford to buy shit unless it is built with cheap child labour in some shit-hole in China. Now that the pool of countries to exploit is getting thinner, America is panicking. Roll-in Trump with his protectionist policies (he thinks taxing imports will increase American productivity and boost GDP, which it will, but in the long run it will damage the working class consumer even more), and it won't be long before America is the non-minimum wage state building lead-paint action figurines for Chinese kids to play with.

Of course, that's an exaggeration, but I think it makes the point: seems to me that small business owners and their low-earning employees are all getting shafted with the same broom.

And of course, the rich get richer ....

Side: Yes.
Amarel(5669) Disputed
1 point

This is why unions are essential for the working class. Iceland has no minimum wage, but the populace use collective bargaining to set industry standard wages. Employers there pay their staff more than $2k a month.

The economy of Iceland is not comparable to the economy of the US. The number of tourists reached 4.5 times the Icelandic population in 2016 and it has a singularly unique abundance of geothermal and hydropower sources. There are a host of complex factors that contribute to economic health including a volatile currency. Which I expect contributes more to Iceland’s volatile economic health, which is currently doing well, than does it’s unions. Furthermore, not all union structures are created equal. Japan has a more participatory union structure where unions exist per business, as opposed to per sector as in the US, where unions are more confrontational. If unions in Iceland are much like US Unions (which they are if they are setting industry standards), then the economy is thriving despite union strength rather than because of it.

America is in the unfortunate position of having a low minimum wage, relatively high living costs, high competition for jobs, and a relative lack of union power, which puts employees in a very shitty position.

The minimum wage varies in the US. If you look to parts of the US that have forced high minimum wages, you will find they have only contributed to an increase in local poverty. Spotlight on Seattle. Cost of living also varies. But middle and lower class Americans tend to have larger living spaces than the upper class of England.

As for the lack of union power, if you trace American union participation over time, you will find that it had been declining right along with the poverty rate until just after Lyndon Johnson’s great society initiatives which saw the halt to declining poverty. After that you see declining union participation declining independent of the fluctuating poverty rate. Not only is the necessity of unions doubtful, it’s counterfactual to American economic history which has shown booms, busts, and other measures of economic health fluctuating independent of union participation. In highly dynamic, rapidly changing sectors, unions only serve to stifle the flexibility required to stay competitive, which is likely the cause of lower union participation as technology industries outpaced old economy blue collar economies.

The GDP per capita for the US looks great, but then you realize that most of that ends up in the hands of a small percentage of households, with relatively little spread among the "peasants".

American peasants have an abundance of flat screen TV’s and an obesity epidemic. Your view of our great GDP per capita is flawed at best.

Last I checked, the living wage for an adult and child in New York was about $25, the minimum wage was $10. Taking into account the American distribution of income

Let’s stop right there and consider the obvious fallacy of comparing one of the most expensive cities in one of the largest countries to the economic measures of the country as a whole.

we know that about 30% of households have a gross yearly income of less than $25k

Actually, we know that 20.8% make less than $25K.

Accounting for current unemployment figures of around 4%, that means 26% of housholds are earning a wage lower than necessary for the living standard for a SINGLE ADULT

Wow..Slow clap for the slow kid. Based on the living wage in the most expensive city in the richest nation, you wish to extrapolate (using incorrect math) the economic circumstances of everyone else in this, the third largest country on earth. There’s a reason for the line “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere”.

Take into account how many of those households are home to more than one individual, and it's not hard to understand why 16% of Americans meet the federal definition of impoverished, while significantly more have less income than for basic living expenses.

16% in 2011. This is 2018, where the poverty rate is 12.7% which is barely higher than the 12.5% in 2007, when all agree that the economy was booming.

Meanwhile, over 50% of US national income ends up in the hands of less than the highest earning 10% of households.

This is so misguided it’s difficult to know where to begin, but here it goes. First, income doesn’t “end up in your hands”, it’s earned. Second, my dollar earned is not your dollar lost. This is because wealth is produced, not simply divvied up in a zero sum world. Third, the highest earners, like the lowest earners, are not a set of people, but a category. It’s very easy for a small business owner to be a 1%er. He sells his business and just like that, he is a 1%er….for that year. It’s the same with other capital gains such as the more common scenario of someone selling their home. Many of the people who sold their home last year won the title of social justice enemy for nothing more than that. But they will be right back down in the middle class next year.

The category of people known as poor aren’t the same either. When people demand higher minimum wages, what they are demanding (in addition to higher unemployment), is higher entry-level pay for college freshmen. Which is good ya know? Cuz kids these days have it rough enough.

65% of goods bought in America are made cheaply overseas: people can't afford to buy shit unless it is built with cheap child labour in some shit-hole in China. Now that the pool of countries to exploit is getting thinner, America is panicking.

I really appreciate this part. Do you know why the pool for cheap labor is shrinking? It’s because Capitalism is shrinking it, it all the ways that socialism and even charity never could. You want to pretend that kids in a textile shop would otherwise be in school if not for evil capitalism. The truth is that they would be finding other ways to make money, either on a street corner or in the wallets from the pockets they picked. The only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited. If enough companies exploit enough workers, then they will have to compete to get enough workers to work for them instead of someone else. To do that, they will have to find a way to raise their wages, which is what they have done, which is why the pool is shrinking.

And of course, the rich get richer ....

That’s been happening for quite some time. The rich have gotten richer, as have the poor.

Side: No.