Raising the Minimum Wage

Disclaimer: I apologize in advance to 'pro'. And the readers. I guess neither of us win any points for conduct... http://www.heritage.org... This article actually goes further and points out 36% percent are teenagers earn minimum wage. 1/3 isn't nothing to sneeze at. Also it's the highest amount. It's one of the highest amount is the majority all other age groups don't factor. College age may be a bit higher or around the same depending on the source. But many college kids are living at home. So once again they should not fit into poverty. All other groups are smaller than 20 percent. Its not contradicting anything. So if that's all you have your misguided. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... College kids living with their parents and teenagers do not fit into poverty line. And more than likely make a much larger majority if you add the two numbers. College kids working minimum wage jobs have gone up 71%. And over a third live at their parents. Your debating teenagers should be in the poverty line even if they live with rich parents? They don't pay income taxes or most taxes which is how you are determined to be poor, middle class. etc. http://www.forbes.com... This article says, 1.1 percent of workers in minimum wage are over twenty five. Case in point. And also agrees with my other article 36% percent teens. 55% college kids. Quote from article: "63 percent of workers who earn less than $9.50 per hour (well over the minimum wage of $7.25) are the second or third earner in their family and 43 percent of these workers live in households that earn over $50,000 per year" So once again. No, thinking poor teens, automatically mean poor family is completely misguided and wrong. QUOTE 2. "Well that"s an arrogant assumption that families living off of minimum wage jobs are greedy and "want more money no matter what." This is just an atrocious opinion that cannot be argued on since it is an opinion." QUOTE Not being able to argue means you have absolutely nothing to debate. So you don't have any counter points and that is not how one wins a debate. But since I have to bring it up... http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us... Your saying people aren't going to ask for increases when it is increased. I've already proved that wrong. Because... Minimum wage of 2009 8.00 Minimum wage of 2010 8.25 Minimum wage of 2014 8.70 Minimum wage of 2015 9.15 It goes up every year, people are always debating wanting a higher minimum wage. It's already going up, and people are still not satisfied. So I proved your statement, flat out slanderous and incorrect. People are greedy its a damn scientific fact. I'm saying it's a non-problem and increasing it by too much is only causing more problems for the teen just trying to get some job experience. http://dailysignal.com... This is another article pointing out, the price hikes have hurt workers. QUOTE: Minimum wage jobs cannot be done by everyone, I am 13 years old and in Junior High. I cannot go work at McDonald's at a minimum wage job, this is false. The only reasonable point made in this argument is that businesses will make employees work longer. I feel like you never read any of my argument, if you would have you would have noticed that businesses will hire more employees to keep up with increased sales. Your argument can be rebutted with my arguments. I admit that I looked at a website that showed both sides of the argument. Is that so bad? I assume that you only looked at websites that supported your position, which is biased. Also if you would have looked at the website, it had increased employment as a pro. So I did not contradict myself, looking at a website that has both sides of the story is not contradicting one"s self." QUOTE. You completely, absolutely missed my point! everyone can do that job when they become old enough for hiring! Even then a 13 year old SHOULD be able to flip a burger, do basic math, and put things in a fryer and basic cleaning. Denying it is ridiculous. You also get trained once your hired in. Other jobs you have to already know most of what your doing or you'll be fired very quickly. "You can create your own opinion but you can't create your own fact." My many links, point out the facts, its not biased if it's true. Your ad hominem attacks, claiming my links are wrong most likely not looking at any of them, gets you nowhere and would discredit you in any real debate. Your own link contradicted over a fourth of your original argument. So you have very little left if your not denying it. QUOTE "I feel like you never read any of my argument, if you would have you would have noticed that businesses will hire more employees to keep up with increased sales. Your argument can be rebutted with my arguments." QUOTE Your argument was literally was 150 words, trust me I read it all. The cat in the hat has more words in it and that's a doctor suess book. It was as bare bones as a complex debate could get. Your OWN link AGAIN shows jobs will be lost. THEY WON'T HIRE MORE, THEY WILL FIRE MORE. You have to actually counter or prove anything wrong. In fact you own link is STILL proving you wrong. My link was always correct. My only issue was not bringing up just how tiny the problem truly was which I corrected. Quote This again makes the assumption that minimum wage workers are greedy, same argument which I have already defeated. Quote You've countered nothing, the point in having another round is too bring up new facts and links that help proof those facts. It's common sense. Would you rather work as sewage cleaner or a walmart greeter, both have the same pay. Don't bother lying...and in a more accurate statement. People who work a cash register want 15 for the minimum wage. A small engine machine makes that. Why would anyone want to work on dirty engines, when they could do basic math for the same price...You spin that and argue it, I'd love to see it. Quote Con then comes up with different numbers. I already had numbers and percentages from reliable resources, then my opponent tries to rebut this with different numbers. Confusing. Quote. These number come from my own articles, ones you most clearly did not read, they're not different from what I described. It came from the NEWS. It was broadcasted on t.v. And I already posted a link discrediting huffintongpost. In Conclusion: You gave no added information. At all, making me having to repeat everything I said. You didn't change the fact your own link proved YOU COMPLETELY WRONG. You countered absolutely nothing I said. Littered your argument with constant ad hominem attacks. 'My links are biased, I can't read 100 words, etc etc" And you officially have pissed me off and wasted my time.