Thett3 Tournament: Labor Unions are a net benefit to humanity

Introduction: PRO has introduced the new concept that labor unions are for workers while the money should be taken from management. However this ignores a few problems: a) The difference between management and workers is vague and ill-defined. A supervisor or manager can engage in labor work as well, and still be considered management. Is graphic design considered management or labor? What if it is a graphic design company? b) Management does not necessarily make more money than “labor”. Actors, musicians, and athletes would constitute labor yet make more money than their managers. Since PRO wants, income equality, their unionization would not bring about income equality, especially since actors already are unionized[1]. Receptions are considered management but obtain low wages. c) Management serves a purpose of organizing labor, R&D, marketing and so forth that generates revenue. These are necessary and are not waste. d) As stated previously from my McDonald’s example, there simply is not enough management pay to increase the pay of low-level workers which make of the majority of workers. Arguments: In my first round, I made arguments in favor of trade unions. PRO has not directly responded to them. I am not sure if PRO conceded these points or has just forgotten to respond, so I will list them just briefly. I listed four institutions that promote economically growth: a) Businesses rewarded for increasing productivity, b) people having a strong incentive to start a business, c) A government free from corruption, d) Investments in capital occurring. I noted that everyone considers monopolies on production to be bad, yet labor unions create a monopoly on labor, which would also be bad. Workers are paid based on productivity, since businesses compete for workers and the amount of wealth is scarce. Labor unions can only increases wages through decreasing supply or increasing demand. Decreasing supply causes unemployment and/or for non-unionized workers to find areas of work that decrease their standard of living. Trying to increase demand through taking profits undermines the profit motive businesses need. Labor contracts also make it difficult to restructure labor to make them more productive. Unions can also achieve these higher wages through corrupting governments to support their businesses. As a final note, the more people who can achieve a better lifestyle if they can join the workforce instead of starting their own business, will undermine the institute of “strong incentives to start a business” that promotes economic growth. My full argument is again in Round 1. I have also provided strong empirical evidence for these claims. 1) Income Inequality I noted that there were more efficient institutions that could be used to solve the problems of income inequality that PRO does not dispute. While PRO agrees that labor unions goals are not to increase income inequality, but for its own member he states people can join a union for higher wages. Yet under the condition that unions increase wages through decreasing supply of workers, this is incorrect. I do not respond to “union threat” because it’s the same argument as “unionization”, so any argument against unionization also goes for the union threat. It is incorrect to assume that lower prices correspond to lower salaries. This is operating under the zero-game fallacy. Productivity, by definition, increases the total wealth. To use an example, using a sewing machine instead of hand sewing increases productivity without causing workers to be paid less and prices come down as well. When Henry Ford invented the T-model which was the first car affordable to the middle class, he was able to increase productivity, increase pay, and reduced hours all at once[2]. None of his workers were unionized. In addressing the argument of unequal bargaining power, this is not as unequal as PRO thinks since there are unemployment benefits, charity, welfare, and family and friends support. There’s no real threat of starvation which can be used as bargaining power. Unemployment arises because of the failure of wages to decrease. An employer bargaining for a low wage because the employee is desperate is an easy way to obtain a high turnover rate. After all, there’s nothing stopping the employee for searching for higher paying salaries once he or she has a job. Turnovers are bad since employers have to worry about higher training costs. This was the reason why Henry Ford increased salaries, because it was cheaper then the costs of turnovers. This was also a time where social safety nets were weak. Top-down Economics I do not assume that profits will be used to create jobs. I do assume however, that the lower the wages, the more a firm will hire. This is because workers are paid based on their productivity, and if a worker is less productive then his/her wage, he/she won’t be hired. However, productivity and profits are not the same. Yes, labor unions can contribute to unemployment, but not for the reasons that PRO thinks. A tax cut with low job growth does not demonstrate that my principle is incorrect, because I do not subscribe to this view. PRO does not demonstrate how labor unions reduce unemployment, while I demonstrate they can, so PRO’s arguments on the benefits of low employment are points in my favor. The effects of cost-push inflation only work if the demand for a good is inelastic, meaning that consumers are still likely to pay for it, even if prices increase. Fast food is an inelastic good. Using a website like debate.org would be an example of an elastic good, since if debate.org started charging users for debates, the number of debaters would dramatically decrease. Poorer people tend to buy stuff from people that make lower wages. Wealthy people go to a fine-dining area with a well-trained chief, while poor people will go for fast food. Therefore, increasing costs on minimum wage jobs leads to higher prices on people who work minimum wage. It’s self-evident that higher prices harm the poor since higher prices means less disposable income. Finally, while in the short-run, there might not be labor cuts, this does not mean that it will not happen in the long-run. Since fixed expenses like the building, cooking supplies, and so forth have already occurred, it would still be worth it to utilize it. However, once these materials start depreciating, it would not be worth it to maintain it, thus workers have to be laid off. Public Labor Unions The idea of taxing the rich not generating enough revenue does not defy logic. First, there simply are not enough people with high incomes. Second if you tax people too much then people will have less incentive to work. Third, as tax rises, one can hire a tax accountant for deductibles and loopholes. Finally, the rich can hide money overseas. PRO thinks that teachers need protection due to the difficulty of finding a new job. However the difficulty in finding a job corresponds to the difficulty of firing a teacher. This is based on the logical analysis that the more teachers are fired, the more openings there are for new teachers. The idea that a building is needed to keep employed teachers from teaching demonstrates the absurdity of the teacher termination system. Furthermore, as stated previously, the taxpayers and the public are in danger of government, not public officials as history has shown. PRO does not respond to this. Public workers exercise the power of government monopoly. Thus public workers who are difficult to fire are just as much danger to the public as politicians. Also extend argument that public unions block reform which PRO has not disputed. My link on spending vs. test results is shown below: http://mjperry.blogspot.com... [1]http://www.sagaftra.org... [2]http://tinyurl.com...