Thett3 Tournament: Labor Unions are a net benefit to humanity

C1) Income Inequality is a detriment to humanityWith the existence of income inequality, the vast majority of humans are at a disadvantage. Having the majority of wealth and resources concentrated in the hands of a few will leave the majority controlling a very small amount of wealth and resources. To determine what is beneficial for humanity, we must determine what is beneficial to the majority of the humans in an economy. Con has contested none of these basic points. Con outlines 4 institutions that he says are necessary for economic growth. I have not picked apart each individual institution because I have refuted the premise on which they are all based. They are all directed at increasing overall gross GDP. I have shown that gross GDP is not a measure of human happiness and benefits. I have shown using my table of two economies how an unequal distribution of wealthj is detrimental despite a higher growth GDP. This makes the argument about Con's institutions irrelevant.Con argues that welfare and progressive tax systems also reduce poverty. I have not argued against poverty but rather against income inequality. Welfare programs do not provide income - they provide free money to the extremely poor and help them fulfill very basic needs. A progressive tax system is great but it is a small step towards reducing income inequality - it is not enough. Con also argues that Unions do not seek to reduce income equality without justification. That is indeed what they do. They help whoever they can help i.e. people in the Unions. A single Union cannot help the entire country but the concept of a Labor Union is to provide fair wages and working conditions for the people in that particular Union.Con claims that workers are based on their "productivity." The problem is the way productivity is defined. Businesses define what "productivity" ought to be paid what wage. Con's source does indeed show that wages have increased with "productivity." However, the goal of Labor Unions is redefine productivity. Labor Unions argue that the "productivity" of the worker is more than what businesses define it as and workers are being underpaid. This benefits humanity because it leads to higher wages for the working class. Union threat effect: Extend arguments here. Con argues that Unions only increase wages for workers in that Union. The Union threat effect shows that the wages of workers outside the Union also increase due to the mere presence of Unions. Pro has ignored this point but continues advocating that Labor unions only increase wages for people in the union while I have showed this competing evidence. C2) Public Labor UnionsCon claims that taxing the rich is pointless because the rich can hide money overseas. This misses the point I am advocating for. Just because loopholes exist doesn't mean the concept is refuted. The simple solution is to not let the rich hide money overseas. Tighten the law to not allow deductables and loopholes so that all of that money is taxed. A higher tax does not reduce incentive to work as long as it is done under a progressive tax system where part of the income is taxed at a lower rate and only the highest part of the income is taxed at a maximum rate. The assertion that there aren't enough rich people is irrelevant as the rich people that do exist hold a tremendous percentage of existing wealth. The top 5% earn over 30% of the nations gross income [1][2]. The distinction between management and laborers is very clear. There are various levels of management and businesses often a very clearly defined heirarchy. Pro's argument about actors and musicians fails to take into account that most actors and musicians are poor and must support their acting career with other jobs. Pro is only talking about the top few people in the industry.C3) Top down Economics doesn't work Pro assumes that firms will hire more the lower the wages. This is the same thing as assuming that excess cash on hand will be used to hire additional workers but that isn't necessarily the case. To assume so is to trust a corporation in good faith that they will hire more people when they get more money. This is an inefficient and naive method to increase employment. Regarding increase in prices, I am running out of time but I will point out that Pro has not contested that if a company increases the price of a product because Unions demand that they pay their working-class employees more, the extra money being paid by consumers is being passed onto the working-class employees and not upper management.Sources[1] http://www.economist.com...[2] http://taxfoundation.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.ehow.com...