Resolved: A just government ought to require employers to pay a living wage

With nothing new to rebut, I'll take this chance to further examine my opponents claims and attempt to create a better understanding of some of the more in depth realities of this issue in full. When looking at china's GDP and wage growth, you see a collation in trends. From the 1970's to the early 1990's, china (being a phenomena in this analysis) had seen a Rural wage increase of .1% whereas the real growth rate of china's GDP was 4%. In the late 1990's, china began to increase their wage beyond that of their productivity, and their GDP and GNP skyrocketed since, as both trends continue to incline at a constant, and unchanging rate, whereas, before hand, their GDP and GNP, looking more closely in the time line, appeared, more, to almost stagnate. This is a phenomena non the less, but still important to take into consideration when considering my opponents interest in communism. This in mind, we must understand that China is (in title) a communist state. The reality is, as with most modern things, that this is much more complex than taken at face value. China is heavily (almost entirely) dependent on outside sources for economic growth. China has been dubbed the "trading capital of the world" by some, and rightly so when considering. China, more than a communist state, is a mix between communism and socialism, as communism would not be sustainable undergoing isolationism, thus, ironically, forcing the nation to be capitalistic on the global scale. Where the government has full control over what jobs are available, the opportunity is still capitalistic in nature, allowing the citizens to choose their work force, and socialistic in practice, as china has opened it's doors to imported and exported goods as a means to economic growth. In the end, this proves the fact that no communist nation could sustain itself based purely in communist beliefs. Reality shows the true collation with the economic prosperity is the socialist nature obtained by this government and it's capitalistic way of providing for it's citizens. The communist value is minuscule at most. Now, on to more developed economies. When looking at the U.S. compared to the U.K., you see some very telling statistics. The U.K. has had a steady minimum wage growth since 07' of 17% met with a GNP growth of 16% also steadily growing, with a momentary collapse of -6% from 08' to 09' when their minimum wage appeared to momentarily stagnate. In this you can see the trend of the wage growing at a higher rate than the GNP, as well as a stable, steady paced economy. The U.S., on the other hand, had a minimum wage growth (In the Bush years), after stagnating, of 40% from 06' until 09'. Up until 08' we see a GNP growth of 19%, then, until the end of Bushes final term, the rate dropped to -4%. As to pin point my opponents claims about job growth more thoroughly within the same parameter, we can also see collating trends with job growth and minimum wage. Beginning again with the U.K., we see (again) the minimum wage growth of 23%, and we see the unemployed persons rate overall go down with a -27% unemployed persons growth rate. During the time that the minimum wage stagnates, however, the unemployed persons rate skyrockets with a 53% growth rate during the time. We see a similar flow of events from the U.S., but with much scarier implications, as it spans over a much vaster amount of time. Again, while the U.S. minimum wage stagnates, and the GNP grows, our unemployed persons rate falls (from 01' to 07') by -3% (growth rate), but in the time after, as we see the GNP fall by -4%, we see the unemployed persons rate rise by 119%. Put simply, Productivity is wage, and wage is productivity. When a wage is given, that is an employers productivity as well as an employees wage, and, when the employee pays a business for a good, their wage then becomes their productivity as well as the businesses wage, and the cycle continues. In understanding the U.K.'s economy, it's important to understand the patterns between the three margins given (GNP, Wage, Unemployed persons). The minimum wage and GNP rates grow at a substantially similar rate, and growth is practically constant (other than the slight hiccup in 09') that was met with a skyrocketing unemployed persons rate. It is seen in correlation to the years preceding (07' and early 08') as the minimum was significantly lower than that of the GNP. In the time that the two graphs show similar, the unemployed persons rate begins to drop again. The U.S shows a far worse series of events as the wage stagnates as the GNP grows. As the two margins separate further, the eventually are unable to sustain each other, and the country nears another recession as the GNP drops and the unemployed persons rate rises exponentially. To counterbalance this, the federal government raises the minimum wage, and, when the GNP and minimum wage meet again, the GNP begins to grow. This shows that one can not survive with out the other. A minimum wage is needed to grow along side the GNP in order to sustain the economy. This comes back to the reality that your productivity is another's wage. When the GNP (representing a nations productivity) reaches a place that the wage can no longer provide to, the average citizen is no longer able to exert their productivity, and, so, the GNP drops exorbitantly, and, so, employers are no longer able to provide for their employees (as productivity has fallen) and are forced to commit to layoffs and other measures leading to growing unemployed persons. This displays a necessity for an ever growing minimum wage and, as we are at risk of another fall, a major rise to meet the needs of counterbalancing the mistakes that have been made. https://www.aeaweb.org... https://www.google.com... http://ieconomics.com... http://ieconomics.com... http://ieconomics.com... http://ieconomics.com... http://ieconomics.com... http://ieconomics.com...