Wage labor is a form of slavery that helps to maintain and perpetuate classism

To begin, Pro refers to the definition of slavery that includes "A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery." However, this is irrelevant as my opponent has to prove that wage slavery is in fact slavery and deserves to qualify as such. That is in fact the purpose of this debate. To rely on semantics or definitions is almost moot, as the entire point of the debate is to prove the terminology is valid. To automatically accept the definition as appropriate would be committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. Pro can't say X is true because of Y and Y is true because of X [1]. In this example, Pro is assuming wage slavery is slavery (X) by definition (Y) because the definition (Y) of slavery includes wage slavery (X). In fact, I've already pointed out in the last round how the term "wage slavery" is misleading from the start, as it implies Pro's position is automatically correct just because the word slavery is contained in the name. Don't fall for it. While I won't quote the phrase "wage slavery" throughout this debate, please note it should be. More importantly, this argument commits the fallacy of a false equivalence [2]. An example of a false equivalence is the following: P1- Marijuana and alcohol are both drugs. P2- A 1/8 ounce of pot costs about the same as three bottles of booze. Conclusion- If you think one should be legal, you should think the same of the other.or P1- Both slaves and wage slaves have employers. P2- Wage slavery and slavery both refer to the lower economic class.Conclusion- Wage slavery is the same as slavery. The premises do not logically follow. As such, please extend my arguments that: 1. Slavery is working against one's will with the threat of violence; not so for low-wage workers2. An employment contract signed voluntarily indicates an exchange with presumed mutual gainsPro claims that the presence of an employment contract is irrelevant, because many times those contracts do not include benefits, paid holidays, paid vacation, etc. for their employees. This is entirely irrelevant argument. While employment contracts can and do outline those provisions for the jobs in which they are offered, I never implied that they are (or should be) offered to every employee. Not only would this be an undue hardship on certain employers, particularly small businesses, but it would make it harder to even establish new businesses in the first place if they had to have so much capital to start in order to be able to afford these employee benefits. In other words, Pro is advocating to make it harder for small businesses or "the little guy" to create a new business of his own. Instead, he suggests that only big corporations or the people rich enough to start new enterprises in the first place should be able to do so. His position perpetuates classism more than Con's, as it makes it harder for innovative entrepreneurs to get started (or automatically puts them in loan debt). Next Pro suggests that because an employer creates the schedule, that employees have no control over accepting that schedule and thus qualify as slaves. That is a ridiculous and untrue claim. Most employees outline a time of availability in which the employer works to schedule their shift (for instance, a HS employee could not work during school hours). Second, employees do not have to apply for jobs that operate during the hours or days which are not suitable to their needs. Third, if one was scheduled to work at a time they couldn't or didn't want to, they could simply quit or not show up and therefore do not count as slaves. Slaves are forced to work against their will. Pro makes multiple references to chattel slavery, though that is completely different than wage slavery. The two are not even close let alone synonymous. With chattel slavery, workers are legally owned throughout their lives, and may be bought, sold or otherwise exchanged by owners while never or rarely receiving any personal benefit from their labor. It refers to the civil relationship in which one has absolute power over another's life, fortune and liberty [3]. As such, please extend my other arguments: 3. Wage laborers are NOT the employer's legal property; they are not forced to work4. Wage laborers are NOT legally owned and cannot be bought or sold 5. Employers do NOT have absolute control over the wage laborer's life, fortune or libertyPro describes Wal-Mart as an employer of slaves. However, a Wal-Mart employee can quit thanks to the legal concept of at-will employment, which is the labor policy of the U.S. [4]. Furthermore an employee does not have to apply to Wal-Mart in the first place. The managers at Wal-Mart nor the Walton family or their shareholders can buy or sell their employees and demand they work at Wal-Mart in particular. Next Pro argues that voluntary employment is technically coerced because some people are poor or don't have many options. That's too bad. Just because someone has little skills or little opportunity does not mean their employers are slave owners. It simply means those laborers need to acquire more skill or pursue different paths that lead to more opportunities. Again, nobody is arguing that this is easy or that classism and it's repercussions do not exist. My opponent notes that some people have a harder time finding good jobs because of factors working against them including their sex, age or race. First, I will point out that while this is true, it is not absolute. For instance while many fields are dominated by men such as firefighters ($43,000 median salary), others are dominated by women such as nursing with a whopping 90% of American nurses being female [5] and earning a median salary of $65,000. Some fields are dominated by particular demographics, but that does not make people slaves. Moreover, consider immigrants of generations past who once found it hard to find work, such as early 20th century Italian-Americans. The article "Italians in America: From Discrimination to Adoration" details how initially being Italian was considered low-class and came with a lot of racist stereotypes; in fact Italians were not considered white [6]. After awhile, the perception of this group changed and Italian-Americans no longer face as much persecution. So, one's fate is not automatically determined for life by their profile. The real reason this is a moot point, however, is mostly in part to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits the legal discrimination of employment on the basis of things like sex and race [7]. Over the years, innumerable lawsuits and laws have been established to protect most undue discrimination as the best the law can police (even though I personally disagree with this law in general, but I digress). Coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Please refer to my #3 point - employers do not use force or threats in the process of buying or hiring their employees. This of course dismantles my opponent's argument that "the claim that wage labor is 'voluntary' on the part of the laborer is considered a red herring, as the relationship is only entered into due to systemic coercion brought about by the inequality of bargaining power." As you can see, it's not a red herring and the argument stands. Pro argues that because the minimum wage is so low, small wages must qualify as slavery. He also claims that because the boss schedules the hours of the employee's shift, that their pay is at the boss' discretion and therefore counts as slavery. These are bad arguments. First, note that Pro completely dropped all of my last round's points regarding the subjectivity of a "liveable wage" and extend them. Second, if the amount one is paid determines whether or not one qualifies as a slave, what if one was self-employed (or a salesman) and only earned $10 per day because their product didn't sell? What if one was a contracted Sony musician, wrote a song but nobody paid for it on iTunes - was their labor "slavery" because they earned so little? Clearly not. Slavery is determined by the voluntary nature of the labor exchange; not the amount one is paid. My opponent points out that part-time workers typically do not form unions. That is true, but they have the legal right to. Moreover you don't need official unions to employ the processes of collective bargaining and negotiations.Pro concludes by suggesting Americans are "literally being worked to death." I would caution against accepting the word literally, as we are all literally dying the second we are conceived as our death is inevitable and influenced by a plethora of factors. Nevertheless Pro posits that Americans have to work 60-70 hours per week to survive which is a claim he has not proven. One needs basic food, water and shelter to survive and if I can prove that one does not need to work 60+ hours to either afford or have access to these things, then this argument must be dropped (it's also an obvious appeal to emotion and a waste of character space). I have a few characters left to finish my last round conclusion: In R2, Pro ended by saying wage laborers have "little opportunity" for advancement. That stands contrary to slaves with virtually no opportunity for advancement. There is far more upward mobility with people working for wages than those without and whom are considered legal property. Please also extend my other argument:6. Many low-wage employees work because they want to, not because they have to.[1] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[2] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...[4] http://www.ncsl.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.lifeinitaly.com...[7] http://www.archives.gov...