Shark v. SolonKR, Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

I thank Solon for accepting. I affirm the resolution, which states Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage. For deciding what a "just" government "ought" to do, we need to understand what constitutes "justice". Justice is based on doing what is just - making decisions based on what is right and what is wrong. Thus, I value morality; prefer this value as justice, by definition, makes fair decisions based on what is right and wrong, and it is morality that makes those distinctions. We now move into moral epistemology, which answers the question: "What is moral?" My epistemological framework gives the answer. The universe is causally closed and entirely natural, so desirability is the basis for morality. Pappineau 2007 argues: "In the middle of the nineteenth century the conservation of kinetic plus potential energy came to be accepted as a basic principle of physics ... the conservation of energy does imply that any such special forces must be governed by strict deterministic laws: if mental or vital forces arose spontaneously, then there would be nothing to ensure that they never led to energy increases ..." Thus, physicalism is affirmed as true, since all mental states are explained by matter. This means that it is matter that must be the epistemological ground for morality. There are no side-constraints in nature. Suffering is a mental state that we have reason to avoid. Sayre McCord 2001 writes: "the evaluative starting point is … each person thinking "my own happiness is valuable," … this fact about each person is taken as evidence, with respect to each bit of happiness that is valued … Each person … ha[s]… reason to think … there is the same evidence available to each for the value of the happiness that another person enjoys as there is for the value of one's own happiness. … happiness is such that every piece of it is desired by someone, … in taking ourselves to have reason to see the bit we value as valuable, we are committed to acknowledging the value of all the rest." Consequentialism is the only option. Respecting the rights of others without respecting consequences means we are free to make any choices. Human moral worth - and rationality - both entail consequentialism. According to Cummiskey 1996: "If I sacrifice some for the sake of others, … I do not deny the unconditional value of rational beings. Persons may have …unconditional …worth” …but persons also have a fundamental equality that dictates that some must sometimes give way for the sake of others … The concept of the end-in-itself thus … dictates that one maysacrifice some to save many." Bostrom 2012 writes: "there is a great option value in preserving ... our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanity ... is ... the best way ... to increase the probability that the future will contain a lot of value ... if something is not known to be objectively safe, then it is risky ... we may be uncertain about whether or not X would really be bad. But we can say that if we are not sure whether or not X would really be bad (but we are sure that X would not be good), then X is bad in ... the subjective sense relevant to decision making ... we have reason to prefer that X not occur ..." This mandates utilitarianism - we seek to reduce anything undesirable and maximize benefit. Moral obligation - expressed in terms such as 'ought' - is based on moral desirability. Thus, my criterion is maximizing benefit and minimizing harm. Contention 1: Poverty leads to increased suffering, and living wages reduce povertyA) Poverty causes death. According to Dr. Sandro Galea, et al. 2011: "The number of deaths ... calculated as attributable to low educationR13;245,000R13;is comparable to the number caused by heart attacksR13;192,898R13;which was the leading cause of US deaths in 2000 ..." The same study demonstrated that poverty caused upto 30% of the deaths in the U.S. in 2000. Furthermore, the UNICEF claims: "More than 30 per cent of children in developing countries – about 600 million – live on less than US $1 a day. Every 3.6 seconds one person dies of starvation. Usually it is a child under the age of 5. ... Poverty hits children hardest. While a severe lack of goods and services hurts every human, it is most threatening to children’s rights: survival, health and nutrition, education, participation, and protection from harm and exploitation. ... Children who are not immunized or who are malnourished are much more susceptible to the diseases that are spread through poor sanitation. Poverty exacerbates the effects of HIV/AIDS and armed conflict. ... Poverty contributes to malnutrition, which in turn is a contributing factor in over half of the under-five deaths in developing countries. Some 300 million children go to bed hungry every day. Of these only eight per cent are victims of famine or other emergency situations. More than 90 per cent are suffering long-term malnourishment and micronutrient deficiency." O'Neill 2006 writes: "The fact that poor people around the world have shorter and harder lives is the result of human design. This phenomenon is called 'structural violence.' " B) Poverty results in economic collapse. Crain and Sherraden '14: "stagnant incomes led consumers to take on debt in order to finance rising costs ... Politcal pressure rose on government to increase access to credit, and when it complied, consumption rose ... [T]he Wall Street bubble, financed by the dramatic increase in consumer debt, eventually burst." C) Living wages reduce poverty. First, they increase employment. Shulman '13 writes: "in 12 states with minimum wages higher than the federal level...employment rose more than in states where the federal level was standard. This finding held true for small businesses as well...Workers' increased buying power leads to new purchases, which boost the entire economy--and that creates more jobs..." Second, they increase disposable income. Brenner and Luce 2008 argue: "[r]eal wages rose nearly 25 percent for affected workers, and real annual earnings rose by roughly 60 percent ... we also saw evidence of a shift to more full-time, higher-wage jobs ... We found clear evidence of sharp reductions in the incidence of poverty among workers covered by the Boston living wage ordinance, and we attribute as much as one-half of the reduction in severe poverty and one-third of the reduction in poverty to the law." Contention 2: Living wages help the economyA) The minimum wage helps the economy as it increases consumption substantially. Aaronson, et al. 2011 finds: "household income rises on average by about $250 per quarter and spending by roughly $700 per quarter for households with minimum wage workers ..." Carroll et al. 2013 found that there is more consumption with lower- and middle- income families if there is a living wage. This is affirmed by multiple other studies. B) Living wages reduce income inequality. Stiglitz argues: "There are four major reasons inequality is squelching our recovery. The most immediate is that our middle class is too weak to support the consumer spending that has historically driven our economic growth...Second, the hollowing out of the middle class since the 1970s, in a phenomenon interrupted only briefly in the 1990s, means that they are unable to invest in their future, by educating themselves and their children and by starting or improving businesses..Third, the weakness of the middle class is holding back tax receipts, especially because those at the top are so adroit in avoiding taxes and in getting Washington to give them tax breaks...Fourth, inequality is associated with more frequent and more severe boom-and-bust cycles that make our economy more volatile and vulnerable ..." Mishel '13 adds: “A higher minimum wage wouldf help address growing inequality, particularly as it affects lower-wage women...For workers overall more than half (57.0 percent) of the increase in the 50/50 wage gap [between median-wage workers and workers at the 10th percentile in wages] from 1979 to 2009 was accounted for by the erosion of the minimum wage ...” Conclusion: Living wages (1) minimize harm by reducing income inequality and poverty, and (2) maximize benefit by boosting consumption and aiding the economy. Thus, under a utilitarian framework, just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.