SHOULD THE BE A MINIMUM WAGE

I am very sorry Britt but I was out of town (I had the same problem with another debate). I hope me being late to post my argument does not spoil the debate. I suggest that since none of us posted a real Round 2 argument we do not count Round 2 and go on as if the debate had only 2 Rounds and continue our debate that promises to be a great one! Message to voters: If my opponent accepts this suggestion Round 2 should not be taken into consideration when voting. I will post my next arguments regardless of your choice. __________________________________________________________________________________ Fist of all I would like to say that after careful consideration, I have decided that limiting the debate to reality would be disastrous for my debate and because I am aware that minimum wage is indeed necessary in some countries, I am forced to regretfully deny my opponent's request because I agree with him and find it difficult as a rookie to play the devil's advocate. I negate: there should not be a minimum wage "I am not familiar with any cases of a minimum-wage labourer being either fired or not hired because the current rate of minimum wage was raised" - You may not ,but it does happen and its very simple: Imagine yourself as a restaurant owner and you need 10 waiters and have , you may hire 10 teenage waiters for 3.0$ an hour, but if the law forces you to pay 6.0$ an hour you are forced to hire only 5 waiters, thus 5 jobs are immediately lost and 5 teenagers don't have a job! Don't forget that the minimum wage applies only to those who are lucky and skilled enough to get a job, while the less qualified stay unemployed "I infer that most employers, according to you, would start labourers below this mark, as it is the cost that is the issue of primacy here. Certainly, they could hire more workers... that work for less than it takes to live, the purpose of working. Unemployment would be at an all-time low, but poverty would be at an all-time high. Interesting..." "We tyrants, tycoons, captains of industry, CEO's, presidents, moguls, barons, dukes, princes, and other excellent and successful people should give the little people SOMETHING - at least enough so that we won't go to the guillotine. Understand that we do not OWE them anything, but it is in our own self-interest to give them enough bread and pocket change to distract them from their unimportant and, for the most part, useless (their only true use is to generate profit for us) lives." "Even if the minimum wage were set at $0.005 (two zeros on purpose), it MUST exist. Otherwise, employers could pay workers absolutely nothing, and they would be slaves or serfs." "By the time that lower prices "eventually" came into sight, the gap between rich and poor would be a true chasm, and half of the new workers that were hired would be either homeless because they can't afford even the cheapest of rent or dead from starvation because they can't afford food. Civil strife would erupt, etc." - All these arguments are similar so I would like to discuss them as if they were one. My opponent in these arguments has forgot to consider one basic fact: The power of the working class in the market and the world, workers only offer their labour if they want to, either us "dukes", as you say, like it or not. Workers are not hired against their own will! For example if the minimum wage is reduced to 0$ that doesn't mean that an employer can pay whatever he wants. For example if an employer offered 0.5% an hour for a waiter would anyone want the job ,no matter how desperate they were? Obviously not. Consequently workers in a market such as the one in the US can not be exploited because they have a will of their own. In one of the above arguments my opponent has stated that:"Unemployment would be at an all-time low, but poverty would be at an all-time high." Above I have proved that poverty would not be high because of the power to chose your place of employment. So Unemployment would be at an all-time low, period. "Certainly, many minimum-wagers are students or other young people, but certainly many are not." - False. Numbers show that 95% of people who work for minimum wage are workers in training, teenagers, students and part time workers and many of the remaining 5% don't intend to stay there. This category of workers are people who want to gain experience, some extra money and learn the values of work while doing so. They are willing to work for much less than the minimum wage and because of the minimum wage laws, many of them cannot find jobs. So minimum wage may help few people trying to support a family (5% of the people who work for minimum wage), but it will hurt those who have 95% of minimum wage and an extra 5.5% of the population of the USA, the unemployed adults. Simply, there will be less low skilled jobs for those who actually need them. "Inflation outpaces the rise in minimum wage by football fields at a time" Wrong. Inflation in the US is low because we have one the most competitive markets in the world and even if it was high, thousands of jobs would still be lost, as I explained above. "Minimum wage exists in its common form as a way of protection for workers - especially the least qualified. It is in place as a shield from exploitation by employers" Sure that is its intention but its results are that the many lower qualified workers end up unemployed. The remainder of my opponent's arguments have already been addressed Why There should not be a minimum wage: 1.) The minimum wage hurts small companies. Every time the cost of hiring increases, small businesses have more expenses, given one or two bad months (that are almost inevitable in business) and these businesses will fail to produce enough funds to pay their expenses, thus go under. 2.) Without the minimum wage, many businesses would be more efficient. For example if a restaurant can hire waiters for 3$ an hour it can hire 20 students who are desperate for a job, but if it is forced to pay 6$ an hour it can only hire 10 waiters. Would the costumer get his/her order taken faster in the first or the second situation? 3.)The minimum wage costs the economy thousands of jobs. This is explained in more detail above. 4.) Minimum wage causes many businesses to use machines are exploited and many workers lose their jobs to machines. Imagine that you are a manufacturer that is suddenly forced to pay 7$ instead of 4.5$ an hour for each worker in your factory would you believe that replacing the workers with machines was more urgent and worth the investment more or less than before? 5.)As I already explained, many young workers lose their potential jobs and the experience of work. 6.)The minimum wage limits our choices. We can say no on our own, we do not need the government to tell us what we can do and where we can work and limit our choices as employers or workers, we are free people! 7.) A free market has the power to adjust itself. For example if employer X offers an unacceptable wage for a job, no one will will be interested, so he will have to raise the wage in order to hire someone to do the job, thus a minimum wage is not necessary, it just limits people and businesses. Taking all the above into consideration we realize that minimum wage is not needed in a competitive market like the one in the US. This is because workers have a voice of there own and don't need others to say no for them. A competitive and free market has the power to adjust itself without the help of the government. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen, back to you, britt Alex ("liberty")