Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Let me start off with this, whenever I disagree with you it doesn't make me ignorant or closed minded and I'm not indoctrination you, its called a debate.I meant that you were indoctrinated. I'm not that familiar with the word yet... and its correct use.Money is not needed for an economy, however, eliminating money would push humanity back to the barter system which would severely complicate and hurt trade.They would get what they need, for free, no bartering. Some people produce the raw materials, the material is shipped to factories where it will be used for products, products go to shop-like places where people can receive them. The consumption of products would be recorded to know how much raw materials are needed and how much must be produced (with slight overproduction, just in case). Same with food. The same happens currently also, there is no point producing far too many products, otherwise your profits would go down.Your asking for an economy based on what people need to survive, similar to a distribution center. In this system (doesn't matter if you want it to happen or not) it would be run by a large organization or government, when a government controls everything and what you get is based on your work then you are forced to work for them.It's common sense even currently that if people do not work everything will fall apart. The only difference is that currently they work for money which can provide them sustenance, they are basically working for sustenance. Not because they are needed. They are forced to work even currently, without really knowing they are required to. If there was no money people would know, if they didn't work, that it would all fall apart.Money is like a game of let's see what happens, what it does, how it moves. It could be used better, but it isn't because it gives many option to abuse it, and many people are too stupid to not abuse it.You need resources to generate money, exactly, thus to the point I made before which you didn't get, I am not saying resources come from money, if they did not have money there were likely no resources to create money from.You are saying with no money there could be no resources, even though that is not true. You don't need money to get resources. Resources are always there, you simply have to go and get them.Again, thats what you want to happen, but it will work either of these two ways (or a mix of them): Either there is a massive state that supplies, regulates and distributes all these products and you have to work and serve them to get your share or you have to trade other resources to get what you want, if you dont have what they want then your out of luck where as with money the transaction is simple, they give you a resource and you give them a medium for trading resources.Not only what I want, it's what would happen if it were done correctly. There is no need for a massive state, simply have more communication between people and places (there's communication even currently, no point ordering something that wouldn't be used, it'd be a waste of money).With money, if you don't have enough for something you need you don't get it. If you have too much, that's unused resources that could be used for something else, to speed up human progress.Without money the transaction would be even simpler, there would be no money involved.You didn't explain it, you stated that there would be less problems cause there would be no money, you never countered anything else.I did, somewhere...There would be no worrying nor struggling over acquiring money to get the necessities. There would be less greed as there would be less means for expressing it. There would be far less unused resources (money that just sits and does nothing) and thus progress would be faster. Stealing from other people would be quite pointless as you could simply go and get it for free. No starvation, no poor people.There wouldn't be a private sector, the main distributor of these products would likely be the government, if it wasn't it would probably be a large corporation or organization.That's what you have been taught about moneyless society, and it is wrong (I'm not talking about dictatorship or something similar). The truth is, there has been no big moneyless societies on Earth (so claiming it does not work is foolish, as there are and have been no examples to base the claim on, only logic that says it would work, if you manage to think objectively). There would be a "private sector" and there would be communication between all parties (as also is currently), to keep things working properly and to prevent far too excessive use of resources (no point producing things you cannot get rid of). Private businesses start small and grow if there is a demand or need for it.You didn't explain, you just said that trade was not needed for survival.I did explain it, somewhere up there. And again in this response.Naive? I'm not the one who thinks that eliminating money will solve most of the problems in the world and eliminate most of the negative parts of human nature.It would solve many problems as I have explained, and again in this response, again.Human nature... It would lessen the negatives.SO me supporting my idea is prejudice but you thinking that your little fantasy will work and it will better the world even though it is clearly flawed isn't?You have been taught to think it won't work, even though it has never been tried. Trying something is doing it for at least a short time, and that has never happened. You have been prejudiced, it seems.As I have explained (more than once) it would be better, there would still be issues but less than there are currently.The economy is trade, the regulation of resources and products on a massive scale is called state distribution. If there is no trade, there is no economy.Trade is swapping one for another. There would be no trade. A "shop" needs new delivery of goods? They send an order to the factory, plantation, etc. Some raw materials are needed? It will arrive on that day. Products are produced and shipped to the location. No trade. Or you call "trading" the thought of making something and receiving the materials for it it? Or you call people working because otherwise nothing would work trading, they trade their workforce for continuance and advancement? That's happening currently also, even though they usually don't think about it, they think about the money they get."An economy consists of the economic systems of a country or other area; the labor, capital, and land resources; and the manufacturing, production, trade, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of that area." - from wiki Taking capital and trade out changes almost nothing. It would still be economy, simply a little different.Do you even know what money is?I live in a money based society... Because of that I use money. How could I not know what it is?Allow me to explain to you what money is, for a while there was no medium of trade, we used the barter system, if you wanted food you traded for something the other guy wanted, obviously this system had its problems. Eventually people decided that silver and gold were valuable medals and they should be used as medium to simplify trade and it worked great, but people wanted to keep their money safe, so banks started popping up, now instead of having to run to the bank every time you wanted to buy something they would give you a bank note that you could use as legal tender. THAT is what money is, it is not just some tool used to rule people and be greedy.First thing, we don't live in the past. Second, are you really so naive to think that money is working just great with no issues caused by it at all? Yes, it makes trade simpler and also provides many options for abuse that are actively being utilized. You do know that we are advancing, not staying the same, that means that one day, like it or not, money will be gone (as I've explained it would be better then the current way). Assuming we get that far...They shouldn't have to lower their profits, stop expansion and hurt their business because your not happy with it. This whole "earning more than you need" thing is bullshit, alright someone made more than you and have some to spare, they shouldn't be forced to give it up because others were to lazy to earn it or were unable to.If they don't they're simply greedy. Expansion? I'm not talking about the money used for that, I'm talking about that which never sees any use. With no money, if there was a need or demand for expansion then you'd get it.I've said something about not using resources that are available, it is stupid and pointless. They could be used for something, for progressing others or anything.You don't get it do you, just because you say "in my little fantasy there would be less corruption because there would be no money" doesnt mean it will work out that way, I don't think your some evil bastard trying to ruin the world, I think you believe what your doing and saying is right, but that doesn't mean it work that way because when you look at it in a realalistic way its a lot far from what you want it to be.You think this because you don't include all the aspects. You base it on current views and values (because you've been taught so, everyone is but not all adhere to it), I don't. That's why you fail at seeing how and why it could and would work. there are resources, strength, intimidation, fear, authority, sex, false hope, propaganda, ect that can get you to power, destroying money would not put and end to this, it would just change how they get to power.All that you listed comes from the person. What resources if there is no money? Strength? No one can give someone else strength. Intimidation? The same. Fear? The person must cause that. Authority? I'm fairly certain we were talking about getting to the place of power, not already being there. Sex? Something one would have to use the body for. False hope? That's lying. Propaganda? The same. There would be no easy way - something money provides.It would change how they could get to power, it would make it harder, much harder. It would require much more than simply buying people off.Again, money doesnt promote greed, power promotes greed because greed is a want for power.Money promotes it because it makes it easier to acquire.Someone one making more than you and living better than you isn't flawed, your lumping anyone with a higher income than into the same catagory as Africa and Carribean politicians who live in Palaces next shacks and destroyed houses, there is a difference.The difference is that some don't have enough for a decent life and some have far more than they will ever need. No money, there would be none of this.They are usuing it, the assumption is that anyone who makes more than you just puts it in the bank, thats called saving there nothing wrong with it but regardless most rich people don't do that, they reinvest their money into the economy.I'm not talking about saving some for hard times. Or something more expensive?No money, there would be no need for any of it. 'Cause everything's free. And hard times? Only ones that could exist would be related to some disasters.If they reinvest it back into the economy then why do they always have a lot of it? And why is that amount usually increasing, not decreasing, or keeping at a certain level?people who had lots of money would just get lots of resources.The point of that would be? Just hoarding things for no real reason?You think people were perfect little angels and were far less greedy until simplified trade? Really?Back then people also weren't as smart as they are now (they're still quite stupid as a whole but not nearly as much). You think people never change, you think they never become smarter?Its not free, 1. you had to work it 2. was it free to make? Did no labor, resource or time go into creating it?Currently, for some product to exist, someone has to work to create it. Currently you get paid for that job, and then you pay to use that product. Might as well just create them for anyone to use, without fussing with money. In that sense nothing is ever free, even survival itself is not free, you have to work for it.so long as there are enough resources to make the product.You think there wouldn't be enough resources?again there are many other ways that are much easier to get into power.Money is the easiest way. All you have to do is pay people.When you say "no money, all you can use is yourself" you say it like money is the only way to power.How can you misunderstand "no money, all you can use is yourself"? You can do it currently also, but that's not the easiest way. Acquire money and it gets much easier.Corrected? You were wrong, thats not really a correction.I weren't wrong."Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power." - from wikiI, for one, do not care about keeping something like that just for myself, neither do I want more than is necessary or practical. Because it would be pointless and stupid.Well your not showing any signs of it, you seem to think that people are little angels and that currency is what causes them to be evil.You either misunderstand what I say or you simply pick the parts you like. I'm fairly certain I've mentioned the word "less"...Yes, and greed is a characteristic that humans have!Then why is it in contradiction with me? Or you think I'm not human? That would explain.I'm trying to explain to you that your system is flawed.I'm trying to explain to you that your beliefs are flawed.they're going to use it to their advantage and corrupt it which happens in ALL systems made by humans.Yes, in all systems, and as I've explained a bit, there would be less.