Liberalism Is Not Good for America (Economics)

Hopefully we can have a good set of contentions/discussions and be able to come to some conclusion. Opening:Let me start off by stating that the minimum wage was ordained in 1938 at 25 cents per hour, which adjusted for inflation would equal to over $4 today. Minimum wage jobs are by no means meant as a career. A minimum wage job, for the most part, demands a low skilled worker, which usually equates to the younger population. These people know willingly that they are making little money, and that they have no skill or education to make more money. They still decide to have a family, and then demand higher wages to fit their inadequate decision making. First Point:Firstly, raising the minimum wage on a federal level would result in the loss of over 500,000 jobs. In an economy that is getting more dependent on the skills of a worker, which almost always equates to their level of education, minimum wage jobs are in decline. We have technology that can very well replace minimum wage workers, and these machines have already sprung up in cities that have increased their wages tremendously. Raising minimum wage inadvertently forces small business to cut jobs as well as hours for those that remain. It also drives up prices tremendously, as employers have to pay more money to their workers, which cuts back on overall profit. The main argument that you can, and that you will make is that people who work these jobs cannot afford necessities. Most "necessities" are created by people who work minimum wage jobs. These products would increase in cost, as the employers have to match wage costs with increased profit. This not only hurts the company, as it creates unnecessary and unwarranted competition that is legislated by a supreme ruling body, but it also hurts the employees. Private businesses and industry is already raising wages. Many businesses pay more money then the required minimum, such as IKEA, which is a multi-billion dollar company that employs dozens of thousands of people. Second Point:It's also not clear that it's constitutional. The Supreme Court, in its opinion in the 1923 case Adkins v. Children"s Hospital of District of Columbia, made a strong argument that a minimum wage was a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of contract embedded in the Fifth Amendment"s language about due process and the deprivation of liberty and property: "To the extent that the sum fixed exceeds the fair value of the services rendered, it amounts to a compulsory exaction from the employer for the support of a partially indigent person, for whose condition there rests upon him no peculiar responsibility, and therefore, in effect, arbitrarily shifts to his shoulders a burden which, if it belongs to anybody, belongs to society as a whole. " First, many people who live in poverty do not work, and would thus be unaffected by an increase in the minimum wage. In addition, workers who earn the minimum wage are generally not the primary breadwinners in their households. They are secondary earners " an elderly parent earning some retirement income or a spouse with a part-time job. Or they are young people living with their parents. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that while workers under age 25 make up only about 20% of those who earn hourly wages, they constitute about half of all workers earning the minimum wage or less. Raising the minimum wage is therefore an ineffective anti-poverty proposal. Sources: [1]. http://www.politifact.com...[2]https://www.aei.org...[3]http://fortune.com...[4]http://www.salon.com...[5]http://www.bloombergview.com...[6]http://www.forbes.com...[7]http://www.slate.com...Now I shall begin my 2nd argument, which will revolve around an increase in taxes, government standards, and subsidies, as well as overarching gov. involvement in the private sector, or the loss of jobs as a result of it. First Point (taxes): It's quite evident that an increase in taxes is both philosophically immoral and economically unsound. It's also quite evident that taxes amount to double the damage to the private sector - first, it halts the facilitation of economic growth, as well as growth in the job market by giving less disposable income to both the middle class and the wealthy, and second, public subsidies are detrimental to the current private market that has not yet been destroyed by higher taxation. From a philosophical standpoint, higher taxation can only be achieved through government coercion and the initiation of force, which is detrimental to the continuation of any free and just society, especially one that that abides by the United States Constitution. When government initiates force to its citizens, it is thereby tyrannical, and out to be destroyed. As stated by Thomas Jefferson, "if a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so". A common Libertarian ideal, which is an aspect for the side I am arguing, is the denial of an unjust law. This equates to the following, that if a law happens to delve into anything other than the liberties espoused to you, which are Life, Liberty, and Property, than that law is unjust, and therefore is not a law. From an economic standpoint, which is more logical, as it commits no fallacies - the raising of taxes aids the lessening of private sector growth, which has a direct correlation with the lessening of overall economic growth. This has quite a negative effect on the overall economy, as well as the disposable incomes of the individuals who help to facilitate consumer demand. As it can also be seen, the wealthy and the middle class (which is where most of these tax burdens are directed towards) already pay quite a lot in taxes, and are the structure of the national tax income. These are some statistics that I have posted up above in the form of graphs and data structures, to help facilitate the movement of my argument. For the case of characters, I shall move onto my next argument. Direct Gov. Involvement (Subsidies, Social Programs, etc)One of the most fruitful misconceptions as to the two most highly sought after social programs (Free health care and free education) is unfounded and illogical in nature. First Point:I want to state that health care costs have risen as an effect of government regulation and intervention in the market. It's common logic that the point of a business is to profit from the product or service that it provides. In this profit, it can only acquiesce funds by selling a product or providing a service which is affordable and of some level of quality. What occurs when government gets involved? First, when government regulates the businesses, the cost of production increases, so the only feasible way to remain in business would be to increase prices. When prices get to a level in which the common people can no longer acquire the product or service provided, then they get restless, and the gov. takes note. One of the easiest ways to show economic illiteracy and blatant denial of facts is to present a case in which one states that health care costs rose just because of the private sector, and this rise was not fueled by the government. If a system is stable, and the interactions and exchanges are voluntary, then the system will remain functioning for quite a long time. Need I remind you that health care has been private for the past 230 years, and no problems arose until government got involved. There is a dilemma, and is almost law, called Fiduciary Responsibility, in which if there is an opportunity, regardless of your personal beliefs or morals, you are required to take this opportunity, in order to please your shareholders. This means, that if the government in willing to subsidize a business, regardless of the CEO's beliefs, they have to take these subsidies, as that is their Fiduciary Responsibility. In the case of health care, if prices rise as a result of taxation and regulation, as well as a result of Cronyism, then the people will petition the government. When government decides to come into the private market to subsidize free health care, or free housing, or free education, quality will automatically drop, competition will automatically cease, and prices will automatically rise. If the businesses understand that the gov. is willing to pay for the consumer, and since the government is much wealthier than any individual and also has significant legal power, these businesses will increase prices, which will make more people have to live under gov. subsidies. When this occurs, these companies can have a steady supply of guaranteed income that they did not have to compete for. This is bad for the people, this is bad for competition, and all the liberals who say it are bad for America. Sources:[1]. http://www.cato.org...[2]http://www.pewresearch.org...[3]http://www.forbes.com...[4]http://taxfoundation.org...[5]http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...[6]http://www.multibriefs.com...[7]https://mises.org...