Capitalism Cannot Exist Without Unequal Opportunity For Wealth Attainment

I will now make my opening arguments. Capitalism is characterized by the existence of businesses that want to make profit. In fact, profit attainment is the priority of these businesses. Whenever these businesses have the opportunity to increase their profits without inciting a reaction that might endanger the operation of their enterprises (and in turn threaten their profits) they seize that opportunity. As both I and my opponent agree that, in the form of capitalism we are debating about, with employees rather than just business- owners in some businesses, we both agree that some businesses must have, as an effect of employment, wages being paid to the employees. Employment is, by definition: em·ploy·ment əmG2;ploimənt/ noun the condition of having paid work. As capitalism necessitates labor, so does it necessitate profit. One of three things can be happening to a business at any time during its existence:1. The business is losing more capital than it is gaining 2. The business is losing as much capital as it is gaining 3. The business is gaining more capital than it is losing, and thus making profit. As ALL business owners are vying for profit (capital losses and/or no capital gains are considered inadequate), it naturally follows that they will use a system in which they will receive profit. Because businesses of the type we are discussing require wage-labor, and are trying to receive profit, the cost of the hired labor must be less than the market value of the good or service in order for the business-owner to receive profit. Thus, instead of the good or service being produced by workers being purchased in its complete form from the workers by the business- owner, the business-owner purchases the workers' labor from them in order to produce a good or service that will be sold for more, generating profit for the business-owner. Already the shadow of inequality looms over the equation. Consider this: If all of the workers decided to work for themselves, without exploitation by others, or become business-owners, exploiting others, would capitalism still exist? Of course not. The existing business- owners would have no more business! Their workers would be included in the "all" that decided not to work under anyone else, and the existing business-owners would be forced to work for themselves in order to survive. POINT ONE: CAPITALISM REQUIRES THE EXPLOITATION OF AT LEAST SOME WORKERS, I. E. THE PURCHASE OF THEIR LABOR RATHER THAN THEIR GOOD OR SERVICE BY THE BUSINESS- OWNERS. The workers' wages' stance must always be, in comparison to the stance of those of the business owners, less, in order for the business-owners to make profit. Profit can be represented by the following equation:"Profit is greater than capital spent"Capital being all of the non-human resources used in production, including money, some capital is spent on resources that indirectly contribute to production as well as those that directly contribute to production. Some capital, in the form of money, must be expended in order to purchase the human labor that is required for production. Thus, the total capital expended in production must be lower in value than that of the value for which the good of service that is produced is sold. In accordance with the statement above, it also follows that the total amount of money earned by the workers for producing a good or service must be less than the total amount of money earned by the business owner for selling the good or service. POINT TWO: AS LONG AS BUSINESS-OWNERS ARE MAKING PROFIT, AND HAVE PEOPLE WORKING UNDER THEM, THOSE WORKING UNDER THEM ALWAYS EARN LESS MONEY PER PRODUCT OR SERVICE THAN DO THE BUSINESS- OWNERS. Taking both of those points into consideration, considering "wealthy" is a relative term, and in conclusion, I say thatNOT ONLY IS THERE UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN CAPITALISM, THERE IS UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL TO BECOME WEALTHY. If there were, the economic system in use would surely not be capitalism. Sources:Oxford Pocket Dictionary of English . http://heartland.org...I now hand the argument over to my opponent. I thank them again for accepting.