Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

I would also like to point out that my opponent mentioned a lot about objective reality, we need to not only look at morals in this debate, but pragmatic solutions as well. Former US Representative Ernest Istook was once quoted in saying, “Our economic freedom is founded on individual property rights; government should never be permitted to take those away. ” Our economic freedom is very important, and is even founded on rights so sacred that no one wants them taken away. Infringing on our economic freedom is an explicit example of a government being unjust. Consequently, I stand in firm negation of the resolution previously stated by my opponent. Please note: Value: Capitalism. Capitalism: an economic system to control personal and corporation economy rather than government regulations. Value Criterion: Quality of Life Quality of life: the daily activities that people undertake that have been enhanced by external factors. C1: The living wage ordinance hosts a pool of flaws. A: A living wage is indeterminable. Allison Schrager, economist and journalist, Huffington Post, August 4th, 2013 “Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that members of the upper middle class, both conservatives and liberals, aren’t well qualified to determine what’s an acceptable lifestyle for other people. ” Each individual, each family, and each community, are different. It is beyond anyone to be capable of instigating a just living wage. B: A living wage won’t create jobs. Brendan Buck, spokesperson, US House of Representatives, USA Today, February 18th, 2014 “Mandating higher wages has real costs, including fewer people working. With unemployment Americans' top concern, our focus should be creating — not destroying — jobs for those who need them most. ” A study taken by the non partisan Congressional Budget Office indicated that job loss was inevitable. The report explained that approximately 500,000 jobs would be lost. C: Inflation is an inevitable consequence. Report, Congressional Budget Office, February, 2014 “The real value of the minimum wage has both risen and fallen, as the nominal increases have subsequently been eroded by inflation. ” When the minimum wage has been increased, the benefits have been countered by dire levels of inflation. C2: A living wage ordinance would harm Capitalism and Quality of Life. When considering the implementation of a living wage, one must consider its harmful effects. With a rigid living wage, equality becomes too harsh. Individuals who fail to produce high productivity still would receive roughly the same pay as an individual who works hard, and this is mainly due to budget cuts. Capitalism allows for economic freedom, which enables corporations and even cities to mandate the wages of their workers rather than an ordinance. Quality of life is also lowered. Individualism and creativity are harmed because individuals aren’t able to receive ample rewards for high productivity. Because of this, a living wage ordinance should not be implemented. With this in mind, please move with me to my opponent's case, where his value is that of morality. However, we must understand that morality is not upheld through a living wage. Morality is harmed by the detrimental effects of a living wage. American Legislative Exchange Council, March 2014 "Raising the minimum wage favors those who already have jobs at the expense of the unemployed. While some workers receive a marginal addition to their wages, others- usually less educated or experienced- are left unable to find employment. " This isn't moral. The living wage fails to help the ones for which it is targeted. These people are still left with the problem of unemployment as competition increases. My opponent also standardizes the maximization of well being. These benefits do not not exist with a living wage. He says, to fulfill well being, that a living wage encourages economic growth. Unfortunately, the opposite is reality. David Neumark [Professor of Economics, U. of California, Irvine] ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, November 2013 "Moreover the larger report (Charles River Associates, 2011), of which our labor market research was one component, also studied how the real estate market in New York City was likely to be affected by the proposed living wage law. The real estate analysis suggested potentially quite adverse effects on real estate development in New York City owing to the coverage of the living wage law, to whom liability would have been extended, and the penalties for non compliance, which include repayment of the financial assistance received. Because labor markets and real estate markets are closely related, were these adverse effects on real estate development to occur, the labor market impacts could be worse than the relatively modest impacts suggested by our labor market analysis. " New York isn't the only area that can suffer from living wage laws. Kris Hart, THE WASHINGTON POST, September 7, 2013 "The District [of Columbia] has made so much progress in business development and local neighborhood revitalization. This conversation about a "living wage" is ridiculous and will only further slow our economy. Are all workers in the city to be paid a "living wage"? The Large Retailer Accountability Act reveals a lack of understanding among city leaders about fundamental economics. Jobs create jobs. Development creates better neighborhoods. " Instead of economic development, we find that local economies are stifled, and unable to be successful. My opponent also mentions how the economy is helped by a living wage. This is once again a false claim. His evidence is from the EPI (Economic Policy Institute), which is a Washington-based liberal think tank. This institute has been pushing for a raise in wages since its creation, and thus does not publish any findings of harm caused the living wage. On the other hand, the American Legislative Exchange council is an agency in which legislators and representatives hire to find, study, and compile research in order to either pass or deny legislation. American Legislative Exchange Council, March 2014 “The current proposal before Congress to raise the federal wage to $10.10 per hour would likely eliminate an estimated 300,000 jobs per year and lower the national gross domestic product by an average of $40 billion per year. ” The impact of the negative effects bear far more weight. 85,000 people might gain a job, but 300,000 others will lose theirs. My opponent brings up an argument that the living wage will sustain Social Security. While this may be true, we see little long-term benefits with a host of short-term problems. Implementing a living wage will overburden taxpayers. STATES NEWS SERVICE, January 14, 2014 “Finally, the report cautions that the cost of living wage laws may be passed on to taxpayers. "With higher labour costs for city contractors, there is the potential for living wage laws to result in larger city budgets and higher municipal taxes," Lammam [Fraser Institute, Canada] said. ” While partial Social Security could be preserved for the future, all taxpayers will suffer the brunt of the cost short-term, even the ones who don’t receive benefits from a living wage (employers paid above a living wage). My opponent also makes the claim that productivity will be increased. As I have already explained, that is false. Low productivity and high productivity will still have roughly the same pay due to budget cuts (C2). My opponent blatantly claims that a living wage solves for poverty. In actuality, it does not, and cannot. Forbes Magazine article, December 31, 2012, “As a poverty program, raising the minimum wage is like killing flies with a shotgun, not very well targeted. About 60% of the officially poor don’t work, so the only thing raising the minimum wage does for them is to make it harder for them to get a job if they ever decide to get one. .. Congress raised the minimum wage 10.6% in July 2009. .. In the ensuing 6 months, nearly 600,000 teen jobs disappeared. ” Unemployment was spiked. Without a job, people can’t escape poverty. Logic comes into play here. The most impoverished are the low-skilled, less-educated citizenship. When employers are required to pay a higher wage, they won’t look for those people to fill their jobs. Any applicants with experience, better education, and deftly skilled in multiple areas will automatically win the position over anyone else. This either leaves those people in poverty, or pushes more into poverty. My opponent explains that families can’t be supported with the current minimum wage. While this is true, I have already shown how the living wage cannot bring people out of poverty. However, the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) can. Richard Toikka (Economist, The Lewin Group) GEORGETOWN PUBLIC POLICY REVIEW, 2003 “Tax credits can target the assistance to families most in need rather than giving a wage boost to all low-wage workers, many of whom live in relatively high-income families. Recent research has shown that only about 15% of workers who might see a pay increase from a living wage ordinance live in poor families and only 12-26% of families who might see an increase in income from living wage ordinances are poor. The rest have other sources of financial support, such as a spouse, parent, or relative, who keep the families out of poverty. ” As I have shown, the EITC can better target and support the impoverished who really need the extra wages. By using tax credits, the government succeeds in helping poverty and fighting against the other problems resulting from poverty, as my opponent mentioned. It is a better and more successful solution than the harmful and immoral living wage.