Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.
This is such a broad and open topic since there isn’t a direct clash between two competing values. Creativity will be your friend here, so take the time to think of unique positions. This is also an incredibly one sided topic, so it will be important to have a well formulated framework.
Just governments – This is something that will be defined in your value structure and will be the focal point of your case. What does it mean for a government to be just? How do we determine if a government is just? These are questions you will need to answer.
Ought – Like all debate resolutions, ought means should. Along with defining what a just a government is, you will also need to determine how we figure out what a just government should do.
Living Wage – A living wage is the wage necessary for a person to meet his/her basic needs. Don’t make it more complicated than this. The intent of the resolution is not to debate what a living wage is. We’re not debating if the government should increase the minimum wage either.
Yes, Govenrments should
Side Score: 2
|
 |
No, Governments shouldn't
Side Score: 4
Winning Side! |
|
|
|
|
Sustainability is a human need that demands to be met. When the legal methods of obtaining food and shelter have been exhausted, citizens have no choice but to turn to criminal means. The links between extreme deprivation, delinquency, and violence, then, are strong, consistent, and compelling. There is little question that growing up in extreme poverty exerts powerful pressures toward crime. The fact that those pressures are overcome by some individuals is testimony to human strength and resiliency, but does not diminish the importance of the link between social exclusion and violence. If participating in the work force does not sustain a person, and a life of crime does, then most likely, a person would move to a life of crime. The impacts of violence in a country are numerous. The intimate relationship between poverty and crime create a cycle of instability. A living wage must be required by the government in order to stop this perpetuating cycle. (Ronald C. Kramer, professor of sociology and director of the Criminal Justice Program at Western Michigan University, Poverty, Inequality, and Youth Violence, July 13 2014 ) Sustainability is a key to life. Without a livable wage, many workers would not theoretically have life, and would then not allow them to participate in the work force. A living wage would greatly decrease the amount of people resorting to crime to receive basic resources. (Social Environment Contributes to Crime." Humanism by Joe. Joseph C. Sommer-Author, Attorney at Law, Humanist, 2009. Web. 17 Dec. 2014) Side: Yes, Govenrments should
|
A just government is one that protects the rights of all its citizens equally. This is done through laws, law enforcement and a legal system that provides everyone with fair criminal defenses and prosecutions, as well as fair and consistent decisions resolving disputes. Living Wage – A living wage is the wage necessary for a person to meet his/her basic needs. Having your basic needs meet is not a right. It is rather a responsibility we each carry. A just government is not responsible for guaranteeing the outcome of your pursuit of happiness, only your right to pursue. The links between extreme deprivation, delinquency, and violence, then, are strong, consistent, and compelling. There is little question that growing up in extreme poverty exerts powerful pressures toward crime. This is a perverted idea that attempts to excuse crime on the basis of poverty. If this were true most living in poverty would be engaged in crime. The intimate relationship between poverty and crime create a cycle of instability. A living wage must be required by the government in order to stop this perpetuating cycle. There is no causal relationship between poverty and crime. Some in poverty turn to crime. This operates against the rights of others. Millions in poverty all over the world do not turn to crime. Again this bogus notion is proven false by our own "War On Poverty ", which has provided food and shelter to millions of people for over five decades, while having no impact on crime. Side: No, Governments shouldn't
In searching for a causal relationship between crime and poverty, many have argued that poverty breeds crime; this is unsubstantiated. Some have argued that the causal direction is reversed, that crime breeds poverty (ie the legal system fails to protect property rights, thus economic progress is severely hindered). This position has not been substantiated either, but it is as strong/weak as its counterpart in this argument. If it is the case that crime breeds poverty, then a living wage would do nothing to curb crime, but would be an improper restriction on economic freedom. While a crime/poverty causal relationship hasn't been substantiated, the outcome of imposing a price floor has. A price floor above equilibrium will cause a surplus. In this case the living wage is the price floor labor is the quantity in surplus. This means that a living wage will force unemployment numbers up. Is it the role of a just government to increase unemployment? Side: No, Governments shouldn't
Equilibrium wage is what the wage would be if left entirely up to market forces. If the living wage is below what the wage would be anyway, there is no impact. If the living wage is set above what the wage would otherwise be, the impact is a rise in unemployment. The reason follows: A price floor (the price set higher than normal) on eggs would cause a surplus or overabundance of eggs in the store. People wouldn't buy them if they cost more than what can be justified with the money in your wallet. With a higher required wage, employers will hire less people unless or until it can be justified by the money in their accounts; their profits. This isn't even accounting for the companies that just go to where there is already a surplus of labor without a price floor, low wage developing countries. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Side: Yes, Govenrments should
|
