CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:26
Arguments:27
Total Votes:28
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (24)

Debate Creator

KMAWHq2(18) pic



Will you Debate an Economic Issue of your choice?

Pick an economic Issue from isidewith.com/polls/economic and argue your point of view on one of the issues posted my adding your argument below
Add New Argument

My answer to ALL ISSUES is 'depends on how high or low it currently is'. :)

1 point

Written by: Jason Royse for KMA Economics Quarter 2

With President Trump taking office earlier this year in January, he has had many radical ideas on various economical issues such as tax reform, healthcare, and foreign policy to "Make America Great Again." However, Trump's proposal to build a wall along the Southern border of the United States is the most absurd agenda he has on his list. Too start off, most people think building a wall along the border would be an effective way at keeping illegal immigrants from entering the country because it poses a huge, concrete obstacle that seems almost impervious to get through. However, many Trump supporters (and other Americans alike), have given little consideration too the many methods immigrants use to get past our border even today. Building a large, 30-foot concrete wall will do little in keeping illegal immigrants because many are so desperate to get into the U.S. that they will use aircraft, 31-foot ladders for a 30-foot wall, or even sail around it. However, the most practical way of getting into our country is too dig tunnels, which is happening right as we speak. According to the Huffington Post, "a 481-foot tunnel under the current 'wall', used to smuggle drugs" was found not too long ago. Another instance was the 2,400-foot long tunnel found by U.S. officials that begins from an area near Tijuana International Airport and ran into a warehouse in San Diego. Some would say to use motion technology and other instruments too detect tunnels and activity along the border too prevent these matters, but no technology is able-equipped to deal with such a large scale operation. No matter what way Mexicans intending to come here use, they will find a way.

Furthermore, the wall and its utter ineffectiveness in preventing illegal immigration into the United States brings me to my next point about the billions and billions of dollars used in constructing this wall. Many Americans are already concerned with the tax rates that they pay and, most importantly, where those tax dollars go. If this wall is built, a very large sum of money that could be used to improve infrastructure, promote economic growth, and go towards healthcare will be lashed to be used towards its construction. The concrete wall would have to be be over 3,000 kilometers long, the length of the United States - Mexican border, and would be equipped with guard towers, surveillance systems, and barb wire which would oblige U.S. taxpayers some $15-$25 billion dollars to $38 billion dollars up front, not forgetting the billions and billions of dollars spent on further maintenance. The United States will be building a wall for massive amounts of money that will not even be effective at doing its job besides slightly reducing the flow of labor into the U.S. which would choke off the fuel for the Mexican labor to the U.S. economic engine, making American firms less productive and cutting both jobs and wages for U.S. workers which was concluded by a study by the USNews. The wall will not only have a drastic affect on government spending, but also have a direct affect on the U.S. economy.

Last, but not least, the wall would be almost impossible to build because of the harsh environments it will pass through, the environmental impact it will have on the land, the time it will take too build as well as cutting through private sectors of land. The roughly 1,954 miles of land the wall would cover slices through a variety of environments including mountains, rivers, valleys, and even over Native-American burial grounds. Not only does this pose problems for the inhabitants in those areas such as private land owners who refuse to have a wall built on their land or tribesman and women whose ancestors have roamed those areas for thousands of years. Not only that, but the wall would take an incredibly long time too build. For example, the fence that already runs along a portion of the border took over six years too construct, so engineers predict that it would take over 10 years to build with workers working around the clock, day and night. Once the wall would be finished, it would be an "environmental catastrophe" for the ecosystems and animals that inhabit and migrate through these areas says Jeff Corwin, a renowned wildlife expert. The wall would completely obliterate the natural bridge between North and South America, eliminating a vital passage way for many species of organisms that have used it for millions of years. In conclusion, with my points presented, I hope one can see how the wall would be an utterly useless and reckless decision to follow through with, and understand the many untold consequences for the U.S. if Donald Trump passes this legislation.

Sources:

https://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000778

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2017-02-02/why-walling-the-us-off-from-mexico-wont- work

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/donald-trumps-tunnels--an b11831094.html

KMAWHq2(18) Clarified
1 point

Jason you need to rebuttal someone's argument now for full points. Great argument btw

1 point

I believe we should have universal health care because

Universal Health-care is a system under which basic health needs can be paid by a single government payers. For instants the United States is the only wealthy and industrialized country that does not universal health care, But it, does have a publicly funded government health care program for the elderly, disabled, military service, and veterans. Programs like these only cover one quarter of the U.S. population.

Universal health care can be thought as similar to a single-pay health care system. By this time most of these patients have reached a point in their sickness where there is far more treatment needed and therefore, costs more money. Consequently, this has an effect of places who are established to help the uninsured since they take in so many losses many of these establishments are forced to cut back on services or even be forced to shut down Universal Health Care

for example it in simple terms Universal Health care would give everyone a right to carry some form of health coverage as people who pay taxes, they would be getting coverage for things important in their life. This includes health care these people would be able to be covered for “preventive care, pregnancy and childbirth, acute, chronic and catastrophic conditions, rehabilitation and end of life care” with no bearing on their economic condition

www.procon.org

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/.../ best-health-care-system-country-bracket.html

https://study.com/.../lesson/what-is-universal-health-care-definition-pros-and-cons.html

331478Fabian(2) Disputed
1 point

I believe that the health care program will be bad investment of our society. The health care program is just a bad proposal in general. I will discuss that it will cut funding for other essential programs and may even get rid of them. It will damage the US economy drastically. It will also create insurances that many people cannot afford. As you can see these will all damage our economy.

First topic is that it will cut funding for other general areas because health care on average costs about 2.7 trillion which is a lot of money. That money could be used to create more beneficial products for the economy. Next is that it will damage the U.S economy drastically, and president Trump said that,"Obamacare will never work. It's very bad, very bad health insurance. Far too expensive. And not only expensive for the person that has it, unbelievably expensive for our country. It's going to be one of the biggest line items very shortly.We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive and something that works, where your plan can actually be tailored." Finally It will create a very high insurance cost that many people will not be able to afford. Studies shown that this proposal was a fail shown here,"We were promised that Obamacare would bring down healthcare costs with increased competition between insurance providers. We were promised we could keep our healthcare plans. We were promised that Obamacare would not raise middle class taxes. Instead, the law brought the American people rising premiums, unaffordable deductibles, fewer insurance choices and higher taxes. We were let down." As you can see that the universal health care will not work and only will damage our economy.

Source I Used

https://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001526

BriannaT(2) Disputed
1 point

Your argument seems unclear but I'm assuming you are against Obama care due to your supporting evidence and quotes from Trump on repealing Obama care. Trump had made a point about the repealing of Obama care but after looking into the pros and cons of this I'm not so sure repealing Obama care is the best idea. Repealing obamacare would lower costs for small businesses and if you are young or healthy. On the other hand, costs will increase for those who have a chronic disease, are older, become pregnant or need an abortion, or use mental health services. In my opinion after doing research the cons outweigh the pros of repealing Obama care. Donald trump also said his top priority was to lower the prices of prescription drugs and that other countries pay less for their prescriptions than we do. This may also be true but they pay less due to price controls. Lowering the prices would save medicare billions annually however that also means less revenue is dedicated to medical research. In conclusion, repealing Obama care is only going to help those who are in good health but for everyone else who needs medical attention of any kind will suffer.

Sources:

https://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-pros-and-cons/

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/07/18/537868412/health-care-the-risks-of-repeal-without- replace

sophiap29(2) Disputed
1 point

I disagree with your argument. i believe that universal health care will be beneficial for our people even if it will cost us a lot more. In terms of the economy, i do understand how it would seem ridiculous yet in terms of taking care of our society, it seems a lot more reasonable.

Many people in the united states are not able to afford their own healthcare and private insurance providers are just too outrageously high. By providing our country with universal healthcare, people are able to get medical treatment and there is a lesser rick of a health epidemic to breakout since everyone will have access to it.

KMAWHq2(18) Clarified
1 point

Andrew you need to rebuttal someone's argument now for full points

chrisb720(2) Disputed
1 point

I disagree with Universal healthcare for several reasons. First it would reduce the amount of money that doctors make so no one would want to choose it as a profession. This would lead to a shortage of doctors. Next, with no competition it would lead to no incentive to improve services. People would abuse the system which would lead to even longer lines in offices and hospitals.

The biggest problem would be that it would increase taxes because it has to be paid somehow. This country already has a huge problem running things. Just look at the strain that Medicare and Medicaid put on our country. The government would have to cut other areas to compensate for a universal healthcare system. I just can't see it working in the US.

1 point

For the people who don't know, Net Neutrality is the equal amount of internet speed to everyone everywhere that's being provided from internet service providers. So what you're doing today is that everything on the internet is full access to anyone at the same speed of broadband. An example brought up by "vlogbrothers" on YouTube goes as such: you can go on hbo go and watch game of thrones at the same broadband speed as you can watch a video on youtube.

What's happening today (and the past month) is that there is talk in the FCC about having net neutrality taken away. What this'll do is internet service providers will speed up certain websites part of a monthly package, while slowing down everything else. An Example from a Futurism article shows that you may pay an extra $10 a month for a social media package that comes with facebook, Twitter, myspace, etc. And the rate of speed that these websites will be at will be extraordinarily amazing. While everything else on the internet buffers and is slow.

So my debate stands as so: is there any possible Pro scenario if this situation goes through? What is there to gain from this? according to an article from Inverse, This just seems like a scandal from companies such as Verizon and Comcast to get more money. I stand in the affirmative position of keeping net neutrality as it is and to not touch the subject matter again.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2aso6W7jQ

https://futurism.com/portugal-american-internet-without-net-neutrality/

https://www.inverse.com/article/39445-verizon-att-comcast-fcc-net-neutrality

Supporting Evidence: Video (m.youtube.com)
KMAWHq2(18) Clarified
1 point

Hi there this is Ms Hill. First of all, I don't know who this is so please email me and let me know. Second you need to rebuttal someone's argument now for full points.

1 point

My economic issue I will be discussing will be net neutrality.Net Neutrality is a very controversial topic that a majority of Americans are opposing this new proposal by the FCC. Net neutrality is the equal stature of each individual using the internet using the same speed. There are consequences and benefits to both sides I will be discussing the pro side of net neutrality. I believe that we should support net neutrality because it would create a two tier system, implementing this would only be beneficial to cable providers, and finally it would impair small starting companies.

Abolishing net neutrality’s strong rules associating the equal speed of all users will let companies control what content you could see and what you can use. The internet society.org said that, “Some view these agreements as an unacceptable discriminatory practice by giving preferred treatment to some data on the network and potentially degrading the performance of other data.” It would also let privileged individuals that pay more for internet view it faster than the rest of people. The majority would have to deal with slower and more censored internet that is biased under the certain provider. For example, let’s say that you possess Time Warner Cable and Bing is in compliance with your provider is that if you try to use any other search engine other than Bing they would take significantly longer than Bing. That is how it will create a two tier system in our system that economically will be biased to the wealthier people.

This would also impair the chances for starting small businesses. The only reason why small businesses thrive today is because net neutrality. SavetheInternet.com says that, “Net Neutrality is crucial for small business owners, startups and entrepreneurs, who rely on the open internet to launch their businesses, create markets, advertise their products and services, and reach customers. We need the open internet to foster job growth, competition and innovation.” This very true what internet service providers will exploit their gatekeeper position without net neutrality and disable the opportunities that small starting businesses have. This could ruin the chances for the next google or Microsoft both were starting companies that grew fame. Small businesses that use the internet to advertise their products will have to pay commission to cable providers they perhaps may not have the money to pay for that and their business they so rely on will plummet.

Also implementing this now would be only beneficial to the cable providers. Cable providers want to end net neutrality to tax and control the internet. Many Americans have protested against this studies shown so far that in battleforthenet.com,” In just one day, websites large and small participated in one of the biggest online protests ever, reaching tens of millions of people, driving over 2 million comments to the FCC and over 5 million emails—and over 124,000 calls—to members of Congress.” Showing how much opposition is against this act. Also on the same website it said that they are doing this because, “This would amount to a tax on every sector of the American economy. Every site would cost more, since they'd all have to pay big cable. Worse, it would extinguish the startups and independent voices who can't afford to pay. If we lose net neutrality, the Internet will never be the same.” Not only are they doing this for more profits but to control and tax every sector of the American economy. You could see ending net neutrality would be only beneficial to wealthy cable companies and leave the rest of struggling.

SOURCES ARE

https://www.internetsociety.org/tag/net-neutrality/

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

1 point

I am for the Government needing to increase environmental regulations to prevent climate change. So much evidence is out there supporting human activity is the reason for the dramatic change.The wild weather, rising sea levels, melting snow glaciers, less snow pack, warmer ocean water and weather and increased acidity in oceans.

The majority of scientists are in agreement that human contributions to the greenhouse effect are the main cause, in fact more than 9 out of 10 scientists agree our carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming. A fact that gases in the atmosphere like methane and CO2 trap heat and block it from escaping our planet.. (greenhouse effect).

Global sea levels are rising at an alarmingly fast rate ;(6.7 inches) in the last century alone and going higher. Also we've had drastic weather conditions and natural disasters; such as the list of many hurricanes and earthquakes in North America to the droughts in Africa. In fact the climate of climate-related disasters has more than tripled since 1980.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/climate-change/

https://www.earthday.org/campaigns/climate-change/climate-change-basics/

1 point

Women have fought long and hard for equality with men. From voting rights to being able to work in the job force women have accomplished a lot. One thing women have yet to achieve is getting equal pay in doing the same job as men.. It is very clear men get paid more than women for their jobs, even though they are working the same amount.

In today’s world, more women have college degrees and experience in many different careers. According to AAWU’s The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap, women’s median earnings are way less and the pay gap can be larger with higher levels of education. This is not fair. Women pay the same amount as men for college tuition. They should be paid the same in the jobs they do regardless of gender. Education and experience should determine how much a person earns, not their gender.

On average, women are paid 80 cents for every dollar a man earns. The gap is even greater for women of color, earning only 60 cents to a man’s dollar. Discriminating a woman for her gender and race is wrong. Gender and race should not affect how much a woman is paid in her job.

Women with children also have a wider pay gap. In an article by Meghan Werft with Global Citizen, she states “Women earn a third less after childbirth, while men earn 6% more after having children.” Just because a woman has children does not mean she should get paid less.

Gender should not be a factor in how much a person is paid. Men and women should earn the same amount for doing the same job.

Sources:

https://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-the-gender-pay-gap-isnt-a-myth-and-heres-whyus5703cb8de4b0a06d5806e03f

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/10-reasons-women-need-equal-pay-and-are- still-figh/

1 point

written by: Brianna Torres for Ms. Hill economics

My argument is on the wage gap and equal pay for women. Employers should be required to pay all employees equally for the same jobs. The fact is that women are paid 80% less of what men get paid making a 20% wage gap. Women have been suffering from the wage gap since before the wage act was passed in 1963 all the way to present day. Many people argue that the wage gap is a myth; however it is very real and has been a problem in America.

According to the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) article “ equal pay and the wage gap” women of all education levels are paid less than men and only gets worse as women's careers progress. The wage gap may seem like only a small percentage but it translates to more than $10,000 lost for women per year. Pay should only be determined by job description, work ethic, experience and qualifications not by race or gender in any circumstances.

According to the National Committee On Pay Equity: The wage gap over time women in 1963 who worked full time made 59 cents to every dollar a man made. By 2010 women were making 77 cents to man’s dollar. The wage gap closed about half a cent per year, and at this rate women wont reach equal pay until 2059. The truth is even with the wage act women have been facing injustice and unequal pay compared to their male colleges for years. Many continue to argue that this is a myth but these are the facts. Time magazine did a study in an article called “women are now more likely to have a college degree than men” proving that women are more likely to get their bachelors and excel in college over men yet even with this high education women are still paid significantly less.This is complitely unfair and women desrve the same equality as men. Women have fought long and hard on many social issues and they will continue to fight for their equality today until justice is granted.

1 point

In 1938 during the Great Depression minimum wage was introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in order to help rebuild the economy. There are many people that live a normal life because of minimum wage, others despise it for many reasons. in this debate i will show you the pros and cons of minimum wage.

Minimum wage is a nationwide currency that gives a minimum amount of currency to any one who is employed. there is a large number of people who think it is very helpful and good for keeping the economy healthy. the nation wide minimum wage is set at $7.25 per hour, although it ranges from state to state. many believe that it should be raised as it is to low for anyone to live off of and that it should be raised. proponents of raising the minimum wage state that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy. while some may agree with this, you shouldn't ignore the downfall that an increased minimum wage will have on the united states economy.

what people who agree with the increase in minimum wage don't realize is that doing so would actually force businesses to lay off employees. this would raise unemployment levels which would cause 500,000 people to lose jobs. according to ProCon.org raising minimum wage would increase the price of consumer goods. so, if you look at the big picture, raising the minimum wage would put us in the same position in the economy as we are in now except in a deeper poverty. also any low skilled workers who were looking to get a job would have a harder time getting hired because companies would have to pay more, so paying someone who is a risk wouldn't be beneficial to the company. in an online article called, "The balance", the author states that an increase in minimum wage would give an incentive for employers to invest in automated processes and technology to take human employees place. so once again many americans would be out of work.

all in all, people will always have their own beliefs on whether minimum wage should be increased or not. although before choosing a side you should take a look into the benefits and the downsides of raising minimum wage. our economy could be greatly affected by this and all of our lives will feel the affects as well

1 point

Chris Barber

My debate is on the welfare system and how it needs to be fixed. The welfare system in this country is a joke. There are way to many people that take advantage of the system that was designed to protect our sick, disabled, elderly, and children. People should not get financial aid if they don't need it and are perfectly capable of getting a job. The way the welfare system is set up now costs the working tax payers too much of there hard earned money. We hand out food stamps, free health care, housing vouchers, and disability payments to people that don't need or deserve it. If we continue to do this these people will become dependent on the government and will never try and better their situation.

Welfare doesn't fix the problem. We need to work on setting limits for people and giving them employment training, education, drug treatment, and crime prevention strategies. People should not be able to receive welfare if they are on drugs. Instead of passing out free money, we could set up special cafeterias that serve breakfast, lunch and dinner and are open 7 days a week. They only eat what is provided for them and if they don't like it they can find a job. When you loose a job and collect unemployment you can only do so for a maximum of 26 weeks, but people collect welfare for years. If we took the welfare away people would be forced to get jobs and the tax payer could keep more of the money they earn.

1 point

The debate on whether or not the minimum wage rate of $11/hour in California should be raised is an ongoing argument. More than 55% of people, according to isidewith.com, believe that the minimum wage rate should be increased due to various reasons. On the other hand, others, like myself, believe that the minimum wage should not be raised more. The reason being is that minimum wage was not created to support entire families nor will help the majority of the workers. In reality, it may harm various small businesses and companies, leading them to seek other paths in continuing to be successful which may include having to lay off their workers. This in turn will increase the already high unemployment rate in America.

Firstly, back in 1938 during The Great Depression, minimum wage was first introduced to the people. According to minimum-wage.org, the reason why the bill was passed in the first place is because many people across the U.S were working hours on end in horrible factory conditions, only to be paid a small amount for all the work they had done. As the years passed, however, it is reported that Congress has increased the rate 22 separate times. Currently, times have changed and we as a society have been able to advance a lot more than in past decades. Education is encouraged more, and many teens and young adults have paths planned out for themselves to go to school and ultimately be able to acquire a well-paying job. The problem that we are facing now is that more and more people are choosing to stay in the minimum wage workforce instead of attending college. Fast food and retail jobs are meant to be teens' first jobs and it gives them the opportunity to be able to gain work experience. Yet there are about 2% of people out of 13,000,000 votes, as stated on isidewith.com, that believe that it should be raised to a living/family wage. This wage was not created to support a standard 4-person family. It was meant to gain experience and knowledge of the workforce and as the years pass, people are forgetting this. This leads me to my next point that if minimum wage is indeed raised, teens and young adults, who are supposedly the primaries in this field may be shut out and not be able to get jobs to gain experience. The reason being is that employers do not want to pay someone a higher rate if they have no experience. By doing so, it will raise the age and experience requirement higher than ever. Teens usually opt for a fast food job, such as McDonald's, to be able to earn some money on the side as they obtain their degrees in college not to support entire families.

Secondly, an extra issue that will be presented to mainly teens is that by raising the wage, it may discourage them to pursue an actual education since there are no degree requirements to work at a fast food or retail job, other than at some your high school diploma. This will cause the dropout rate to also increases because teens will notice that they will be earning fairly the same amount as a person who has gotten a four-year degree. Ultimately this will discourage future generations from becoming successful and sadly, a mass amount of our population will be uneducated. According to heritage.org, 49.5% of minimum wage earners are 24 years old or older. As stated on this website, the reason why this wage was geared more towards young adults is because they are not responsible for supporting an entire family and most of them are enrolled in school. The percentage of people older than 25 are usually not enrolled in college classes and are married/have a family to support. This leads us to another issue that is presented is that many companies may begin to invest into robots or technology if the minimum wage rate does become too high, leaving many unemployed. By investing, they will not need to worry about paying extra workers and will begin to rely solely on robots. For example, if a factory has 100 employees that work a 10-hour workday and they need to give them $15 an hour, that means the company has to pay $15,000 per day to employ these 100 people. Now if they choose to invest in machinery and robots instead, they will not have to worry about the daily costs and their investment will be long-term. Another issue that mainly small businesses and companies will face is that they may not be able to afford to keep as many employees hired if it does go up. This may cause many businesses to go out of business, which again will make the unemployment rate skyrocket.

Although many believe that it is not the smartest idea to raise the minimum wage, others do strongly side with the fact that it in fact should be raised. If the wage is raised, however, it will need to be raised more every year to prevent inflation. On lfda.org, they bring up a point about how "it's not just young people or those just entering the workforce who are paid minimum wage. Three out of four minimum wage workers are over the age of 20." But this further supports my argument since many of these workers are only settling for these jobs and are not using their position as stepping stones to move on to a better paying job. They are planning to stay in this position for a majority of their lives. A point from thebalancecareers.com that does strike a positive is that by raising the minimum wage rate, it will not give employers room to discriminate against gender or race since everyone will be paid the same rate. As a country, it has been seem time and time again that women and men are paid on different scales, usually resulting in the man being paid more. In terms of race, African Americans and Latinos have also experienced their share of discrimination in terms of pay rates. By raising it, however, everyone will have their fair shot at being fairly successful as minimum wage workers. In my opinion though, I believe there are a handful more of cons than pros.

In conclusion, minimum wage should not be increased and the jobs in this field should go back to being mainly meant for teens entering the workforce and gaining experience. People in their mid-20s and older should try or continue to obtain their degrees so they are able to have actual careers that will be able to support themselves and their families comfortably instead of barely getting by every month.

minimum-wage.procon.org

www.isidewith.com/poll/965649

www.minimum-wage.org/articles/history.

www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents.

" https://www.lfda.org/issues/minimum-wage-increase?gclid=CjwKCAjwur7YBRA EiwASXqIHHAyHI4gwdSdLJjdniE4TASL5cMPoxm6Iyc7erUB-eWfZNiTYS26bhoCUN4QAvD BwE

www.thebalancecareers.com/pros-and-cons-of-raising-the-minimum-wage-2062521.

0 points

Equal pay has been a conflict for many years and is still standing. Rosie the Riveter was the start of the Equal pay revolution for women. According to sources currently women only earn 79% of men's average hourly wages. Women face "The Pink Tax" which overprices everyday items including feminine hygiene products which are a necessity and not an option. That being said it is much harder for a women to earn money to pay for overpriced items whereas men pay less for the exact same items.

Men being paid more for the same job a women can do for the same labor of hours is unfair and discriminating against the female gender. Women should be paid the same amount especially since there are some single mothers and they need that extra income to be able to support themselves and their family if necessary. If the problem was vice versa and men had to pay more, especially for hygiene products and got paid less for the labor of work, men would be as outraged and us women are.

In conclusion, Equal pay should be taken seriously and it's not a joke from women complaining, Equal pay's is a motion that should be effective immediately.

here are the sources i used:

https://www.isidewith.com/poll/935311236

http://time.com/3774661/equal-pay-history/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-real-gender-pay-gap/2016/04/24/314a90ee-08a1-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418dstory.html?utmterm=.7246ceb8a3b9

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8a42df04-8b6d-4949-b20b-6f40a326db9e/the-pink-tax---how-gender-based-pricing-hurts-women-s-buying-power.pdf

https://www.infoplease.com/equal-pay-act

xMathFanx(1722) Disputed
3 points

Equal pay has been a conflict for many years and is still standing...ccording to sources currently women only earn 79% of men's average hourly wages

There is no "Equal Pay for Equal Work" problem. There is different pay for different varieties and amount of work. What is so astonishing about this continually be cited as a "women's issue" is that it shows that men (on average) are far more ambitious in the workforce, work longer hours, perform more arduous and/or productive jobs. Women (on average) choose different career paths then men which pay less and choose not to work as many hours as men (on average). Ironically, this is high evidence that women have the luxury/privilege to attend College for majors that they are genuinely interested in (e.g. such as English Literature, Art History, ect.) because they are not expected to be the primary financial producer in their life while men are mostly expected to be the primary financial producer if not the sole producer if they are coupled. Therefore, men have to choose their majors wisely and do not have the same privilege that women do in Higher Education and thus career paths (women also have Affirmative Action in Higher Education).

There is nothing holding a woman back from going to school for Engineering, and getting paid a high salary if they are willing to work for it. In fact, there is Affirmative Action in an effort to try and get women into STEM.

Please consider listening to the Psychologist and Author Warren Farrell and his various books, lectures, ect. One that is relevant for this topic is "Why Men Earn More". Also, please consider watching "The Red Pill" documentary from Cassie Jaye

carissa831(2) Disputed
1 point

The issue that women are arguing is that they don't get paid the same amount as men for doing the SAME job. It's not about women choosing jobs that are more "feminine." Men push women to believe that they cannot do the same jobs as them because they are not strong or "manly" enough to do so. Men clearly have a higher privilege than women do, especially in the work force. Just recently, Catt Sadler with E! News quit her job because she noticed that her male co-worker, (who has the same job as her) was getting paid TWICE her salary for many ongoing years. Sadler made it clear on her website, "There was a massive disparity in pay between my similarly situated male co-host and myself. He was making close to double my salary for the past several years." and "How can I remain silent when my rights under the law have been violated? How can we make it better for the next generation of girls if we do not stand for what is fair and just today?" An unfair pay caused a hardworking woman to quit her job. If "there is no "Equal Pay for Equal Work" problem", then why did this happen? Women and sick and tired of trying to fight for equality. Men cannot say that the wage gap doesn't exist when they're the ones who aren't affected by it, since they're the ones getting paid more! Where are your sources?

Supporting Evidence: Catt Sadler Article (www.bbc.com)
MadelineE123(2) Disputed
0 points

What shows that men are more "ambitious" in the workforce? Women are just as ambitious, hardworking, and can do the same arduous jobs. No matter which position of job and what type of job, the woman will always be paid less. According to http://time.com/3774661/equal-pay-history/ women have always been paid less in the same jobs that a man is doing.

travissummer(2) Disputed
1 point

i disagree with your argument although you do have very good facts in your debate. you are not wrong about women being taxed on certain items which can be seen unfair by anyone who pays attention. although there are many reasons that men are payed more for the jobs they do, let me explain why. to start this off women are very strong individuals who are half of the reason we have some of the things we have today. but there are just some jobs that women are incapable of doing where men have to step in and do the job. many jobs like construction, heavy equipment, certain jobs in the military, and so on, women just can not get the same amount of work done. im not saying that women are any less than men, just that women do no carry the same traits as men. there are certain things in this world that separate men from women for a reason. if we were treated equally, females would not be able handle some of our day to day jobs. this is why i disagree with your argument on equal pay for men and women