Thett3 Tournament: Labor Unions are a net benefit to humanity

C1) Income InequalityCon has addressed none of my points about income inequality. He emphasizes what he calls are his institutions of growth. To see which outweigh, consider what "net benefit to humanity" means. Pro has not contested that in order to truly benefit humanity, we must benefit all or at least the majority of humans in an economy. To do this, we need to reduce Income Inequality. Unions are very effective at reducing this by increasing the income of society's lowest earners.I have not critiqued economic growth itself. I have shown that there is a higher value to uphold (income inequality) in order to determine whether something is a benefit to humanity. Con says that standard of living has increased. Scientists and researchers who invent new things are often not at the top of the food chain in a corporation but somewhere the middle. In order to incentivize new discoveries, the people who make these discoveries as well as people who make it possible through their labor should be rewarded. I don't disagree that part of the credit must go to the managers but currently, a disproportionate amount of incentives are given to management. Incentivizing inventors and working class people isn't going to stifle the improvement in standard of living. Con has now completely ignored the point about the Union Threat effect for several rounds. Unions increase the wages of the working class not only within the Union but outside the Union as well. Furthermore, the distinction between management and laborers is clear. I have pointed out that most actors are poor. I don't know why Con said I didn't. Con is talking about a select lucky few who make it big. Their wages are far above the Union minimum so Union bargaining is irrelevant to them. Unions do protect people like aspiring musicians from being pushed into signing abusive long term contracts. Con says that desirability of income inequality is questionable. However, we must note that if the rich are getting rich faster and poor are getting rich slower, the money has to come from somewhere. Inflation must be taken into account where goods become more expensive over time. If the rate at which the money that comes from the poor is not fast enough, they will soon find it difficult to buy products. C2) Public Labor Unions The point about corruption merely talks about what is wrong with the government officials. Unions haven't told them to be corrupt. I have not argued that corrupt and incompetent teachers need to be fired. If they truly are corrupt or incompetent, it should be possible to prove it. Unions simply are an obstacle to carte-blanche firing and equalize the negotiating table putting individuals and corporations on a level field. Con doesn't address my point about the relative ease in filling a position compared to the difficulty in finding a new job. Unions nullify that by making it difficult to fire an employee putting both sides on a level playing field.The rich pay taxes because of the societal benefits they have recieved in order to become rich in the first place. Balking at the idea of increasing taxes for the rich based on how much they are paying now doesn't change the fact that they can still be taxed even more with little effect to them while improving the economy. C3) Top Down Economics The entirety of Con's argument rests on the premise that top-down economics works. It is not a strawman. All his institutions are based on the premise that as the rich get richer, their wealth will trickle down and poor will also get rich. I have refuted this multiple time throughout the debate explaining why it doesn't work because of the assumptions it relies on. As I have pointed out, Con's arguments about "productivity" are based on - nothing. Unions seek the redefine what "productivity" means. Saying that they are paid according to productivity does not address the argument that "productivity" is defined too low and is defined in a way that benefits corporations more than workers. Con does not argue against this - he merely argues that workers are paid according to "productivity" the way he defines it. Con's argument about Cost-push inflation is a bare assertion and I have already addressed the unemployment issues. Con has not refuted that increased prices are passed on to managers. There is nothing "artificial" about Unions increasing wages. If the majority of humanity decides that their wages are too low based on their standards, they will unionize to solve that problem.