Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

As for his value of morality, my opponent claims that morality should come first, before any other value. While true, it is vital to understand that a living wage isn’t moral. The policy itself isn’t sound. Doug Bandow, senior at Cato Institute, Special Assistant to Former President Ronald Reagan, January 13, 2014 “Government [living] wage-setting is immoral. It simply is unfair and wrong for politicians to posture as philanthropists while arbitrarily forcing other people to pay higher salaries. ” It is crucial to understand that upholding morality is definitely not going to be found with a living wage, as it actually doesn’t help the moral problems that should be fixed (Ex. : poverty, unemployment) Furthermore, my opponent completely ignored evidence I gave in argument to his value in the previous round from the American Legislative Exchange Council (or ALEC). Preserving capitalism is the moral superior over a living wage. Because a living wage is immoral and would harm capitalistic freedom, we must negate the resolution. My opponents next argument was vulgar and very unprofessional. However, I must explain how capitalism is very important. He argues that we should be fighting capitalism rather than feeding it. This is flawed on many levels. First, we need to understand that capitalism is an old concept and has worked well in the United States. Its relative of Laissez-Faire economics also allows for free market rather than complete government rule. With a living wage, and without capitalism, we find our governments becoming very socialistic. These concepts have failed miserable in the past. Just ask Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Secondly, many corporations cannot afford to pay their workers more, contrary to my opponent’s claims. ALEC, March 2014 “Businesses cannot afford to pay employees more than those employees produce on the aggregate… Most minimum wage earners work for small businesses, rather than large corporations… Small businesses often push profits as low as they can go to stay open. Minimum wage earners employed by large corporations would also be affected, because these corporations are under tremendous pressure from shareholders to keep costs low. ” These logical reasons show that businesses are not able to pay a living wage without it creating for them a host of problems. My opponent attacks quality of life from multiple angles. However, he assumes all of these attacks under the premise that a living wage is actually a moral system. As he said, morality should be of utmost priority. If the living wage is not moral, quality of life is not enhanced. External factors (in this case a living wage) mandate the quality of a life. If a system causes problems and doesn’t solve them, the immorality harms quality of life. Also, quality of life is relatively the same as well-being. I will use them synonymously in this round. Armstrong Williams, journalist, Washington Times, July 20, 2014 “Economist Thomas Sowell sums it up well: “The net economic effect of minimum wage laws is to make less skilled, less experienced or otherwise less desired workers more expensive — thereby pricing many of them out of jobs. ” These problems are immoral, and caused by a living wage. Thus, quality of life is harmed. My opponent also claims that “implimenting” a living wage will help, and close the income gap. There are 2 problems with this. First of all, “impliment” is not a word. Secondly, while the income disparity might be closed a little, a living wage would push more people into unemployment. We can refer back to Thomas Sowell’s conclusion, that many people will be out of jobs. That number can total up to, or even exceed, 500,000 (CBO Report). My opponent then states that my claim that a living wage will harm the job market is false (using another vulgar slang). He says it has no impact. I would like to point out that this contradicts his previous claims. In his first round of argumentation, he uses evidence from Covert[6] that claims it will result in more jobs. He is inconsistent in what a living wage will do for the job market, thus his argument falls without merit. I have proven through multiple pieces of evidence that it will actually result in more unemployment. (ALEC, Congressional Budget Office [CBO]) My opponent claims that he has fulfilled both frameworks. However, that is false. In fact, the negative side has better proven that the living wage is immoral, will not maximize well-being, will harm quality of life, and ultimately won’t preserve capitalism. Thus, both frameworks are better upheld by negating the resolution. From this point forward, my opponent uses no new evidence to back up his claims. My opponent declares that a living wage is determinable. He says that the cost of living in Montana is “probably gonna” be different than in California. That is exactly the issue. Because of the differing costs of living, there is no just or moral way to implement a living wage. That makes a living wage indeterminable for a just government, and goes directly against the resolution. My opponent asserts that my argument of inflation has no warrant. My evidence did directly correlate to inflation and the raise in wages, and explained how it was the cause of the problem as well. To quench my opponent’s thirst for better evidence, I will acquiesce with a more explanatory piece. Debra Burke [Professor of Law, Western Carolina U. ] GONZAGA LAW REVIEW, 2010-2011 “Finally, the increase in labor costs [living wage] can spur inflation and undercut the real minimum wage, precipitating an endless spiral. ” My opponent claims that my second contention has no warrant, because it is my “say so. ” It actually does maintain warrant. It is the logic of morality. Furthermore, it has already been proven by the negative side of the problems and results of a living wage prove again and again to go against capitalism and preserving a good quality of life. My opponent also states that I have no warrant in saying that a living wage is immoral. To counteract this, I will assume my opponent thinks that living in poverty and unemployment is morally right. Regardless of what he might think, it’s not. Mark Trumbull, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, August 20, 2013 “Economists David Neumark of the University of California at Irvine and William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board, surveyed studies that have been done over the past 2 decades, [and] they found the evidence weighted toward the view that boosting the minimum wage has at least modest negative effects on job creation. ” My opponent also says that there will be economic growth, and when I provided 2 pieces of evidence that showed how a living wage would stifle local economies, he professes they have no warrant. Yet he still provides no verification as to why they have no warrant, and simply states himself that they are useless. No evidence is provided to show why his stance is right, while I provided 2 pieces of evidence. He also tells us to prefer his evidence, with no real reason as to why. Furthermore, the evidence he used was from 2011, while the evidence I used was published in 2013. He tells us to prefer 1 piece of old evidence over 2 pieces of new evidence. I will provide him with a 3rd piece of new evidence. Nancy Ploeger [President, Manhattan Chamber of Commerce], THE NEW YORK TIMES, January 3, 2012 “(Editorial, Dec. 26) did not mention New York City's own failed experience with a so-called living-wage law: the Kingsbridge Armory in the Bronx. Rather than a bustling retail center creating thousands of jobs, the armory sits embarrassingly empty after politicians demanded wage requirements more than 2 years ago. Today, no serious plan is in sight for Kingsbridge, and the community is deprived of good jobs. ” My opponent avows that I did not make any argument to his evidence from EPI other than saying it is liberally based. This is not true. Refer back to the evidence I brought from the ALEC directly after his EPI evidence from Covert, where it adequately responded to his statistics. He also says that “implimenting” a living wage can only potentially increase taxes. That is true. But that extra money to pay those raised wages has to come from somewhere. To compensate, there will be 1 of 3 things happen. 1) taxes will be increased to pay for wages, 2) companies will raise the price of their products, or 3) the company will hire less and fire more. Either of the 3 choices are immoral and a detriment to the economy. He declares that a living wage will create jobs. He says he has “truckloads” of evidence, yet barely mentioned the creation of jobs except with the EPI, which I have countered with ALEC and CBO. He also says that I didn’t respond to how a living wage will lift people out of poverty. In actuality, I explained that a living wage would do no such thing. CBO, Feb. 18, 2014 “Those earnings [of a living wage] would not go only to low-income families… Just 19% of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29% would accrue to families earning more than 3 times the poverty threshold. ” He also states that the EITC hasn’t shown to fix problems in which a living wage is designed to do, and that there is no reason why he can’t “impliment” it along side the living wage. He again uses vulgarity in his argumentation. Here is what the EITC will do fix those problems that a living wage cannot. “A refundable tax credit for low-income households that phases out as income rises, helping the working poor without imposing a harmful mandate on employers. ” It will actually allow those people money without potentially costing them their chance of a job. Secondly, a living wage can’t help low-income families, (as I have shown) so there is no reason why it should be implemented in the first place. The next round is voting issues only, no new arguments or evidence. (Rd.