A Full Employment Program Would Be Beneficial for the United States

I deeply apologize for not posting last round. I was not at home. Unless I had typed out my argument on my phone I wouldn't have been able to do it. It is often true that the forfeiting of a round means sudden death. However, I don't think this is entirely fair. Not posting a round has not effect on the legitimacy of my arguments(unless all rounds are forfeited), it simply means that my opponent earns the conduct vote. I urge the voters to give my opponent conduct but, please, still consider my arguments as having the same legitimacy as you would have if I had not forfeited that one round. Thank you. === RESPONSES === // Pro has not put forth a weighing mechanism. He cites reduction of poverty, boost to the economy, etc as positive effects, while a higher income tax as a negative. So what's the net benefit? You can't add poverty economy-taxes, because none of them are in the same units. He needs to present and defend a utility function.// Whatever causes the most amount of satisfaction for the most amount of people shall be considered what is most beneficial. Satisfaction has strong associations with financial security in this debate. //Pro specifies the USFG as his agent of action. He doesn't explain why this is a good choice.// Whether any other agent should be used has nothing to with this debate. This debate is about whether it would be beneficial for the United States Federal Government to implement a full-employment program as I described. Furthermore, The United States Federal Government is the most influential and powerful institution in the Unites States and is the source of the most rules and programs, so it is natural that this is what the resolution should be based on. Aside from whether one believes in the Unites States Federal Government and aside from whether someone believes in government at all, the opposition to my position must argue the status quo, not an alternative, as I have pointed out. //The Con position is that the USFG would be unlikely to implement his policy faithfully because it is inconsistent with their interests.// This debate is not concerned with whether the program would or would not be implemented or implemented faithfully, it is concerned with whether faithful implementation would be beneficial for the United States. // If another law to increase employment goes completely ignored, why would his be any different? Why do we need a new one?// I speak not only of a law but of a specific organized program. //Pro thinks that if everyone can get paid at least the minimum wage, it will alleviate poverty. However, the minimum wage is only nominal, so even though he's putting more money in the hands of consumers, he's decreasing companies' net revenue. There's no way companies can expand production. Its like taking water out of the deep end of the pool and putting it into the shallow.// The fact that it INITIALLY reduces revenue in no way erases the fact that it eliminates poverty. Also, whatever revenue lost initially will be regained because consumers will be spending more now that they have money to spend. Furthermore, you made a poor analogy. If you're going to argue that reallocating money towards the struggling away from the higher-ups is just like "taking water from the deep end and putting it in the shallow end" then you might as well say the opposite is true: that reallocating money away from the struggling and towards the higher-ups would be like taking water from the shallow end and putting it into deep end. This makes it clear how it is a ridiculous assertion. We are not a body of water, we are separate living, breathing individuals with needs that must be met for an enjoyable life. //Similarly, if you taxed poor people and gave it to the rich, nothing would change. Sure, the poor would have less money to buy stuff with, but the rich could lower their prices to achieve the same volume. Their profits would be the same because instead of getting money up front, they're just getting a portion of it automatically.// Nothing would change? This is one of the big problems with economics, business condition is often conflated with the total condition of society. Most people aren't businessmen. There is more to it than just business profits. This year has actually marked some of the largest profits ever seen from large corporations, yet the unemployment rate sores, the average American is suffering. [1] Income equality has a great deal to do with the overall well-being of a society. Denmark has the highest income equality in the world, it also has the happiest population in the world. [2] There are surely other factors involved in their happiness but I don't think this is any mere coincidence. //The increase in consumer spending is offset by the increase in taxes. So one would expect the net economic effect to be, at best, zero.// Not so. America has a progressive income tax system. [3] Even though, in it's entirety, the United States has a regressive tax system, the program I propose would be funded only through the income tax. A progressive income tax system taxes a higher percentage of income from the rich than from the poor. I think it's fair to say that essentially everyone who is unemployed and looking for a job is not rich, thus they would indeed benefit economically from the program. These people who would benefit from the program make up a much larger percentage of the population than those who would not. The "upper-class" make up about 1%. [4] //Since the new government jobs already pay minimum wage, and there is an infinite supply of government jobs, all minimum wage jobs in the private sector would disappear overnight. The only people working in the private sector would be those who can earn higher than minimum wage. As a result, the private sector would become crippled, and its real productivity would fall.// This is disingenuous, the vast majority of businesses are capable of raising their wages. The Unites States has a relatively low minimum-wage so the vast majority of businesses would still be able to stay in business, the jobs would not disappear. //Even if it doesn't destroy all minimum wage private sector jobs, the artificial increase in working conditions would also raise production costs for employers, increasing the price of goods and services. Higher prices for food and clothing is bad for other poor people.// You are forgetting that there is an expansion of public services. These public services are often free to use or at a lower price. Even if you were correct, they are better off than they were before. High prices money to spend > Low prices no money to spend. //Now Pro is trying to make his case on humanitarian grounds. According to the Red Cross, it cost less than $1 to save a life through vaccinations [5]. It is unlikely that this will scale, considering that there are not 350 billion people, but there are a myriad of deadly problems that would be very cheap to fix like Vitamin deficiency [6]. Considering that 25,000 people die every day from malnourishment [7], a full employment program for Americans [8] is not anywhere close to the most humanitarian use of money.// Obviously, in most instances this malnutrition is caused due to these people not having enough money to afford it(that, ignorance, lack of availability and intentional self-abuse are the only 4 options), and this is because most countries with higher malnutrition levels have such low wages and high unemployment. If people had money to spend on a proper diet than there obviously wouldn't be this problem. Most social-ills occur from poverty. A full-employment program would assuredly eliminate poverty. I have reached the end of my character space and will provide the rest of my post in the following link: http://www.debate.org...