Raise the minimum wage.

"What I was trying to say there is this: 1. You said even if the farmer with McDonald's as their only customer raised prices, other prices elsewhere wouldn't rise. 2. I assumed you meant this was because only the McDonalds farmer raised their prices. 3. But my point was that other farmers (ones that supply to grocery stores), in fear of McDonald's turning to them because their prices are lower and then ordering millions of dollars of beef from them, they will raise their prices." Okay, that makes more sense. And I see where you're coming from, I really do, it's just you're relying on not only the motivation of the producer, but also the compliance of the consumer. And raising the price isn't entirely bad; if a farmer has more income from what he sells, it would allow him to use those profits to expand his farm and produce even more of whatever the product is, allowing him to expand his business and, what with the increased revenue, even bring down prices after a while. But, of course, this is an entirely hypothetical situation. "I can point to many stories of corporations who are not greedy. For example, the entire show Undercover Boss. The CEOs of large companies go undercover and find people inside their company who need help and they help them! They are not always looking only for a profit. As I said, that assumption is irrational and unfounded. And that since that assumption is not true, it is very possible McDonald's is not power-hungry and greedy." The whole show "Undercover Boss" is meant to boost the popularity and public relations of the companies they portray, making them more popular and getting the company more money. If you want to see shows about what real corporations are, look into a documentary about the food industry called "Food Inc." It gives copious amounts of evidence and research into how large corporations have destroyed the average American's health, as well as the economy and food industry, all for the sake of profit. "And the essence of capitalism is that people can work and make money for themselves and then give that money freely to anyone they choose, not to get rich by being greedy and power-hungry." That's the INTENTION of capitalism, similarly how totalitarianism's INTENTION was to be a fast way of governing that needs not to pander over the nuances and frivolities of issues and actually get things done, but obviously intention oftentimes falls short of reality. "Private sector jobs may take up 80% of jobs, but definitely not anywhere near that percentage of the poor. Many people in the private sector are not poor at all. Your original point was that raising the minimum wage would help poverty but you have failed to show how the minimum wage affects the statistics of poverty you gave. Many poor people are unemployed. And raising the minimum wage won't help the unemployed. Since they are not employed they won't get a raise. In fact, it would make it harder for the unemployed to find jobs because it would cost the employer more money so they'll think twice before hiring them. Therefore raising the minimum wage won't help many poor." The minimum wage in France is $12.50 (2). However, they still manage to keep a very low poverty rate, at only 13.5% of the population (1). The minimum wage in Australia is a staggering $15.20, with a 13.9% poverty rate. Why do these countries, who have minimum wage that are double that of America, have lower poverty rates than our 16%? To me, that information strongly suggests that the minimum wage has some correlation with the poverty rate. And if that isn't enough credibility, economists agree that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 could possibly reduce the number of people in poverty to 4.6 million (3). Also, it's simple deductive reasoning that if you pay 20% of the private-sector working class under $10 an hour, that may correspond to poverty rates. Also, most of your "facts" seem to be abstract theories. Hypothetically, if the minimum wage were raised, employers could be more stringent about hiring, but is there any evidence to suggest this? "I told it. If the $7/hr people started making $10/hr, the $10/hr people would rightfully demand a raise as well." Ah, see, but my "simple economics" suggests that employers would not be cooperative with these workers' "demand" for a raise. Like I said above, you are treating a personal theory like you would a fact. "...since they are doing more work that the minimum wagers for the same wage..." Where have you pulled the assumption that job salaries are priced by their difficulty from? "Many companies have pay scales linked to the minimum wage. Meaning by their rules if the minimum wage goes up, everyone is shifted up. My friend works at one." Since you neglected to give any research supporting the assertion that "many companies" have this sort of system, I had to take the initiative to do it myself. I found no sources saying that companies did that. "So yes, you didn't say we should have a $22 minimum wage, but $21.72 (which isn't that much of a difference)." I apologize for the confusion, I in no way meant that I personally wanted a $22 minimum wage when I pointed out this fact. Making such a dramatic change in such a short period of time is not what the economy needs at the moment. "The wealth inequality that you point out can also be called poverty. And I have proved above, much of the poor are poor due to things other than the minimum wage." The wealth inequality that I point out is not poverty; this also impacts middle-class citizens. Poverty is a result of this inequality, however, as you have 90% of wealth concentrated into the hands of an elite upper portion of the population, and the rest left to be distributed among the lower and middle classes. "Yes but this original point was about women and minimum wage jobs. The majority of these worker were probably male because, as you said women make up 47% of the [workforce] so [obviously] men make up 53%. So this stat it not relevant in this case." The majority of these workers were male if you constitute a majority as 53% of them... "First of all I think you are misreading the article. The Continental Congress was meant to be temporary. I quote: "Some Continental Congress delegates had also informally discussed plans for a more permanent union than the Continental Congress, whose status was temporary. Benjamin Franklin had drawn up a plan for 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.'" (emphasis added). If the words "of... Perpetual Union" in the name aren't enough to prove that it was not meant to be temporary, I don't know what will. The Oxford English dictionary defines perpetual as "Never ending of changing" (1). If it were meant to me temporary why would they call it "Articles of... Perpetual Union"?" I was not taking all of that information from the article. The Articles of Confederation, though entirely irrelevant to the premise of a minimum wage, were a deeply flawed system, and the founding fathers most likely knew this when they ratified it. It was written in a time of war to create unity among deeply divided states and was later replaced with the Constitution. So, in conclusion, I believe the minimum wage should be raised for several reasons. The first of these is that it will reduce the wealth inequality by having more money circulating in the lower classes, which will subsequently reduce crime rates as high rates of crimes like thievery and homicide have been proven to be associated with high wealth imbalances. Raising the minimum wage would also reduce poverty rates, allowing the US government to stop shelling out billions of dollars in welfare, food stamps, Medicare, and other federal programs to corporations that don't pay their workers enough to cover the costs of necessities. Also, the fact that the minimum wage is as low as it is actually shows that we are paying workers less than what they deserve for the work they are doing, as it has been proven that the minimum wage has gone down while production rates skyrocketed. Increasing the minimum wage has not been associated with any job loss and no tests or studies that have been conducted have said that it would result in any job loss (4). My opponent has relied entirely on theoretical arguments that have little factual evidence and are often in contrary to what actual research has proven, whereas I have attempted to the best of my ability to provide sources and information that backs my arguments. All in all, the benefits of raising the minimum wage definitely outweigh any possible complications. Sources: (1) http://www.inequalitywatch.eu... (2) http://www.politifact.com... (3) http://www.washingtonpost.com... (4) http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...