Should Minimum Wage Be Raised To 15 Dollars

Point A: "A job that requires no skill or risk should not be paid like a job that requires skill."I have two primary arguments to this:1. All jobs must must sustain, or there is no purpose for the job in the first place.If a job pays a wage that cannot sustain a family or even an individual, the job serves no reputable purpose for the society. If an inhumane act enhances society, it is counter-inuitive. A job that consistently pays an inadequate wage cannot be just. The societal welfare, as the primary value, can only be upheld if justice is kept.Editorial, THE NEW YORK TIMES, October 12, 2014"As for New York City, $13.13 an hour is well below the self-sufficiency standards that budget experts use to gauge how much families need to meet basic daily expenses. These standards show that a family in the Bronx in 2010 with two adults and two young children needed each adult to make at least $15.69 an hour; higher hourly minimums were needed in most of Manhattan and the other boroughs."2. Many individuals cannot afford college.My opponent trys to allude to the notion that individuals should pursue college rather than entering the workforce. However, many individuals simply cannot afford the expense of college. By no fault of their own, a substantial quantity of individuals are in poverty. Thus, they cannot afford college. Discriminating the job market against those who are poor is unjust and immoral. Therefore, we should raise the minimum wage to compensate for such disparity.Point B: "People have an opportunity to go to college whether it is through a 529 plan or debt and this can allow them to receive a skilled job"I have three primary arguments to this:1. Once again, many individuals cannot afford college.As I have explained multiple times before, some people cannot afford college. In case my opponent fails to understand this, I will provide another credible source as evidence to back up my claim.Mark Trumbull, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, November 6, 2014"This is not a partisan issue for working folks, but a practical one," said Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project (NELP). "People understand that $7.25 is not nearly enough to make ends meet."If people are in poverty, and can only achieve an education worthy of a fast food job, they should be justified to have a job. They are citizens and human beings just as everyone else is, and should be able to get a job that pays them enough to sustain themselves and their family.2. People exist in poverty by no fault of their own.There are people who are in poverty by no fault of their own. Often times, this is a result of either a lackluster parent or past economic trouble/recession. Because of these complications, they are often left in poverty, and are not plausibly able to help themselves in a reasonable manner. They need a job. But they often find they are worse off than before getting the job. They don't receive unemployment, but have to work for little pay, that often is less than welfare. This results in a vast populace "fudging the system" so to speak, or not working. This is in no way beneficial to the government when we have people taking money, without doing anything to help the circulation and production of more money (bettering the economy).3. Fast-food workers do more than fill drinks.Although most fast food jobs are not difficult, they also are jobs that skilled workers would not want. If we didn't have these people working these jobs, we would be without the benefits of hamburgers and french fries. However, we must ensure that these people can make enough money to get out of poverty, as the status quo does not provide.Michael Lerner, TIKKUN, Spring 2014"At the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, a full-time worker makes only $15,080 in a year--well below the poverty line for a family of three."Plus, these fast food workers also a) cook food, b) wait on customers, c) work the cash register, d) run the drive-thru, e) clean the tables, and finally d) clean the restrooms. These jobs, especially the dirty ones, warrant at least a livable wage.Point C by my opponent has already been covered.Point D: "How is it that we are able to grow our economy with increased wages."I have three main arguments to this point:1. Extra earnings = extra spendingIf people have more money, the nature of man will spend it for him.Bryce Covert, Economic Policy editor, Think Progress, December 19, 2013"Because low-wage workers are much more likely to spend extra earnings, raising their wages can boost economic activity when consumer spending is low. The report finds that 27.8 million workers would get a raise with a higher wage. Author David Cooper looked at this boost in spending while accounting for any increased labor costs for employers and potentially small price increases for consumers and still found that an increase would give growth a bump. Other studies have found that raising the minimum wage would be good for growth, such as one from the Chicago Fed."As we can see, we have credible evidence and studies that support the notion that economic growth will be found when distributing higher wages. 2. More distribution of money creates a more open marketWith more money circulating through the system, we find other countries more willing to trade, as they see individuals in our country are doing well and sustaining themselves. This will also allow a more diversified field of study for individuals wishing to enter the job force. It also encourages a more open job market, giving incentive for people to work. If they know they will have enough to sustain themselves, and perhaps a bit more, they will be more willing to work.3. Outsourcing is solved As I have already brought up evidence to prove, raising wages will combat outsourcing. I will once again bring up that piece of evidence for crystallization and clarity.Rachel Harvey, Bachelor of Science in Foreign Science, Georgetown University, University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2003“The living wage movements responds to the trend of outsourcing, in which governments contract out government services to private firms. The private firms pay lower wages in order to have the lowest bid and win the government contract. Thus, by contracting out work to private companies, the city saves money at the expense of low-wage workers.Living wage advocates reason that, because low-wage workers’ wages fall so far below the poverty level, these works must turn to the government for support. However, with a living wage, these workers could have supported themselves.The living wage campaign aims to halt this process and prevent workers from living in poverty and having to rely on the government programs in order to survive."If we use this system, it is bound to be not only beneficial, but better than the status quo.My opponent has failed to refute or even argue any of the points that I brought up. That leaves me with the following arguments still standing:1. A living wage hosts vital economic benefits.a. Living wages bolster the economy and doesn't result in unemployment.b. Higher wages ensure quality jobs2. Inflation is not a reasonable counter to higher wages.3. Higher wages will uphold societal welfare and is pragmatic.