Minimum Wage should be abolished.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! First of all, your entire R1 was plaigarized word-for-word from this uncited source: (http://www.balancedpolitics.org...), so that alone should be grounds for your disqualification. From this point forward I have absolutely no desire to hear what you have to say since your arguments are not your own. I'm assuming your rebuttal would have also been taken directly from that site. If Joe Messerli from balancedpolitics.org wants to debate me on this subject, he can challenge me. You have now lost all credibility to me as far as being a debater on this site -- no wonder you mysteriously closed your previous accounts. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I were debating Joe Messerli, here's what I would say: 1. Economists acknowledge that having a minimum wage affects supply and demand. Joe writes, "For example, imagine a janitorial job was advertised for hire. If the wage is $100 per hour, thousands of people would want the job. If the wage was $1 per hour, you probably wouldn't find anyone to do it. Conversely, if the government forced the employer to pay at least $7 per hour, the employer might decide not to hire a janitor at all, instead opting to have other staff pick up the duties." While this may be true, it does not apply to the argument regarding minimum wage, because we see this happening in this country all of the time - especially when the economy is bad like it is right now (even though we have a minimum wage). When companies are slow, they will fire employees and other employees will to in turn pick up the slack. Thus this concept of "supply and demand" of jobs does not only apply to the minimum wage, and should therefore not be grounds for abolishing it... unless of course these economists agree that we should abolish the act of firing people all-together when a company is struggling, which obviously would never happen. Further on this point, Joe writes, "Just because there is no minimum wage doesn't mean companies can pay whatever they want. Would you work a dishwashing job that paid 25 cents per hour? Would anyone?" Well Joe, I personally would not wash dishes for 25 cents an hour; however, a completely impoverished individual or AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT might actually work for that low wage. Therefore abolishing the minimum wage would only mean that illegal citizens will continue taking jobs from Americans. Thus Joe's point about outsourcing really has no relevance; who cares if foreigners are doing American jobs in other countries or on our own soil? In fact I'd rather they stay in their respective countries and do our jobs, that way at least our tax dollars won't be paying for their stay. 2. Joe's second point makes absolutely no sense. Even when he expands on this point later on the site, his claims still make little to no sense and is dripping with hypocrisy and misinformation. If my cheating opponent wishes to elaborate on Joe's point via his own reasoning or perhaps from another plaigarized source, perhaps I'll continue debating it. For now I simply deem it undebatable as it contains absolutely zero validity. 3. Again, Joe provides absolutely no argument when it comes to his third ridiculous contention. He provides no proof to back up his claims. For instance, he writes, "If you allow businesses to pay smaller entry wages, they will offer more opportunities to jobseekers with no experience." That is completely ridiculous. If I own a McDonalds and I need 10 employees and pay them $10 an hour, having only to pay them at $5 per hour doesn't mean that I'll hire ten more employees. It means I'll keep the 10 employees I need and already have, and instead pocket the profit. This again helps business owners (the wealthy) but not the ones who are holding these low wage positions. 4. Joe elaborates on this same exact point with his fourth contention; however, I have already refuted it in my previous example. In fact he uses McDonalds in his very own example: "Say a McDonald's franchise has a budget of $70 per hour to pay worker wages (without considering benefits and taxes). If that McDonald's must pay $7 per hour, it can hire 10 workers. If it must only pay $5 per hour, it can hire 14 workers. If you go to get a burger, in which situation are you more likely to get it faster?" -- Here he is assuming that more workers = more efficiency. It's simply not true. In fact, many times more workers = LESS efficiency. This point is null and completely void. 5. Ah, good ol' outsourcing. This contention is COMICAL to say the least. Here Joe is trying to scare us into abolishing the minimum wage because to not would supposedly mean outsourcing American jobs according to his logic. Well FIRST of all, if we get rid of the minimum wage and pay a rate of say $2 an hour for any job, he is right that no American would probably accept those wages given the cost of living. Therefore only one who could not legally find work would accept such a position, meaning LESS JOBS FOR AMERICANS. This is rooted in absolute truth ~ today we see many immigrants performing jobs for much less than an American citizen would work for. 6. I'll admit that Joe's 6th point about hurting charitable organizations sounds convincing. However this is simply distorted logic. If a charitable organization hired STELLAR employees (even paying them much HIGHER than the miniumum wage), those employees who excel at their jobs would be able to use their creativity and available resources to generate even more of a profit than if just volunteers were working there without pay. 7. The minimum wage can drive small companies out of business, eh? Well so can competition - should we eliminate all of that? What my opponent is suggesting is that we should interfere with capitalism. This is wrong. In the business world, it's survival of the fittest. Many small companies are able to offer great services and/or products that draw them a lot of revenue and profit. In that case, the minimum wage is not a big deal. Further, what Joe is suggesting is that it's not okay to let a business go under, but it IS okay to pay a worker a miniscule salary and watch entire families as well as the economy collapse. More about this later. 8. Here Joe is attempting to blame the minimum wage for machines taking over jobs previously held by humans. The truth is, no such relationship exists. Employers us machines instead of humans for a number of reasons, including safety, efficiency, quality and cost-benfits not regarding the minium wage, but in the sense that they won't have a machine calling out of work sick, or worry about paying a machine any benefit, etc. Consider the fact that machines have been used to replace human labor in the United States since the Industrial Revolution back in the late 1700s. Meanwhile, the minimum wage wasn't established until 1938... so something doesn't add up. 9. It's absolutely perfect that Joe brings up the cost of living in OPPOSITION to the minimum wage. I agree with him that it varies in different parts of the country. However the minimum wage VARIES IN EACH STATE so this argument really has no value. Plus, the minimum wage encourages workers to migrate to parts of the country where they can establish a decent life making less money, instead of contributing to the over population of cities where they will struggle. 10. My opponent... or Joe... should elaborate if they want me to touch on this point all-together. 11. And finally, the US isn't imposing on people's rights by mandating a minimum wage. They are simply looking out for the rights of the individual, the same way corporate welfare looks out for the well-being of big business. I'd love to elaborate further on this point and many of my own; however, I wasted characters earlier by pointing out my opponent's dishonesty. Grr.