Just governments ought to require employers to pay a living wage

The highest value in today"s debate round is quality of life. Quality of life is defined asDaily living enhanced by wholesome food and clean air and water, enjoyment of unfettered open spaces and bodies of water, conservation of wildlife and natural resources, security from crime, and protection from radiation and toxic substances. It may also be used as a measure of the energy and power a person is endowed with that enable him or her to enjoy life and prevail over life's challenges irrespective of the handicaps he or she may have. (business dictionary). We ought to value Quality of Life because our quality of life is not in a prime state without the money to pay for basic necessities The criterion that best supports my value is Joseph Fletcher"s philosophy of utilitarianism. His philosophy states that we should do what is the thing that would be the loving thing to do. Love is defined as A strong feeling of affectip.ion and concern toward another person, as that arising from kinship or close friendshHis philosophy supports quality of life best because it would be loving to help their standard of living. Also, in his philosophy, he states that ends matter most, so we must help these people because in the end once a living wage is enforced, people will have a better quality of life. It supports my side of the resolution because having a living wage is the loving thing because it gets people out of poverty and reduces crime which is an ultimate act of love for the majority of people. Contention 1: Minimum wage isn't sufficient The Virginian News, November 23, 2014 A new report from the Alliance for a Just Society found that most full-time workers in the U.S. do not earn enough to support a family with children. Think about that, you are a full time worker, and not getting paid enough to have an acceptable life. I would be pretty mad that I am working my tail off and can"t even have an acceptable life. Only 26 percent of all full-time workers in Virginia earn a wage that will allow a single working parent with two children to make ends meet, while only 57 percent of workers in the state earn enough for a single adult to make ends meet for themselves. Just imagine, you are a single adult working hard with two children and you can"t even put food on the table for your children. To me, there is no greater source proving that we need a living wage than the face of hungry children. Then, if you are single with no children you can"t even pay for your food and shelter. This needs to be stopped. "It was surprising to me just how consistent the inequities are across the board," said Ben Henry, one of the researchers who put the report together. "Nationally and by state the research found these inequities. Normally you see some outliers." The report defined a living wage for a single adult as earning $18.57 an hour. This means in Virginia, a single adult earning minimum wage is $10 under a sufficient life. That may mean not being able to pay rent. This might mean not being able to pay for water. That means they may not be able to pay for food. A family of two adults (of which only one is working) with two children needs to make $33.95 an hour to earn a living wage. In Virginia, the minimum wage is just $7.25, less than half of the living wage an adult needs just to sustain him or herself. "The numbers themselves are staggering, but we look at these outcomes as deeper systemic problems," Henry said. When the minimum wage can"t cover basic needs, are quality of life is basically non-existent. We are clearly not living a life that is worthful without a sufficient living wage. Also, looking through my criterion, we should give people a living wage because it helps in the end and is loving. It is also not right, according to my criterion, to keep a minimum wage because with a minimum wage people can"t buy basic necessities as this evidence just proved. .Contention 2: Living wage reduces poverty. Tamara Vrooman, (The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia);June 18, 2013 Tuesday;ISSUES & IDEAS; Tamara Vrooman; Pg. A11;Tamara Vrooman is president and CEO of Vancity, Canada's largest community credit union.) We also know that the benefits of paying a living wage extend far beyond the individual employee. I believe employment should lift you out of poverty and paying a living wage - one that reflects the actual cost of living - is an important and achievable poverty reduction strategy for many employers. Tamara Vrooman is president and CEO of Vancity, Canada's largest community credit union. Poverty is not a prime state for quality of life. This proved that living wage could help lift people out of poverty. Seeing as lifting people out of poverty is loving we should do it to achieve a higher quality of life which should be highest valued. Lifting a person out of poverty is loving because this would be a show of affection and concern. We need to show concern and affection to our neighbors and community. We need to lift them out of poverty and help them Contention 3: Living wage reduces crime. Fernandez, Holman, Pepper "14, (Jose, Thomas, and John. Professor of Economics, University of Virginia " Medical Economist, Professor " Department of Economics University of Virigina "The Impact of LivingR08;Wage Ordinances on Urban Crime."Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society) To summarize our primary findings, we observe that living wages have a modest negative effect on property-related crimes. The Model 5 estimated elasticities on property crimes suggest that a 1 percentage-point increase in living wage relative to the effective minimum wage results in a 0.05 to 0.15 percent drop in property-related crime. Likewise, the results found when using a simple living-wage-indicator variable in our most restrictive Model 5 suggests that a policy that caused a roughly 50 percent increase in the wages for some fraction of low-wage workers is associated with a 8 percent reduction in burglaries, a 6 percent reduction in car thefts, a 4 percent reduction in robberies, and a 3 percent reduction in larceny. . We cannot have good quality of life with all this crime because as stated in the quality of life definition a lack of crime is necessary in a good quality of life, since quality of life ought to be highest valued, we ought to do whatever we can to improve. This means getting rid of crime. According to my criterion, getting rid of crime for an enhanced quality of life is the most loving thing to do, so we ought to get rid of crime. We are showing no love allowing crime to go on. I will now go on to attack my opponents case His value can't stand because when we value utilitarianism we are allowing to harm the minority. This is making society crumble. His criterion can't stand because it is no fair to allow the minority to crumble, but a living wage wouldn't. His first contention can't stand becuase we are decreasing poverty and crime with a Living Wage. A minimum wage isn't sufficient as I have also proven. These are all major benefits that will overcome that cost. His second contention can't stand because we would have the money to afford it with a living wage, so his second contention is irrelevant