azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Even in cases where there is great demand for workers than supply, there is a much great magnitude of demand (not in economic terms) for the job from the worker, than the employer.The two are inseparable and inherently bound to each other. The increase in demand for labor necessitates an increase in demand for laborers.You have to remember that the world is not ideal, people are not all knowing, and they cannot refuse to work simply because they aren't being offered enough.Indeed they can. And if another employer is offering more, they likely will.Employers are motivated by self interest, yes? Logically, they should want to pay the minimum amount for workers as possible.Yes. But the greater the demand for workers, the higher this amount is. And adding a minimum wage doesn't solve it. A minimum wage simply forces employers to A) Work at a loss/tiny profit margin and cause cost of their products/services to go up for everyoneB) to reduce their employment because they can't afford to pay all their workers minimum wage, especially if the work they do doesn't justify such a pay.-Here's the point again: When demand for labor outstrips the supply of laborers, wages will go up.One piece of evidence for this is the case of the BLACK DEATH. When it swept across Europe, massive portions of the population died. This results in the a decrease in the supply of labor. What happened? Income per capita shot up as wages INCREASED.-This is a necessary evil. I agree that it would be better if employees had the opportunity to work for less, but I do not see how they can have this freedom without it being abused by employers. There is no empirical evidence that this abuse occurs in the absence of a minimum wage.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

You have to remember that the world is not ideal, people are not all knowing, and they cannot refuse to work simply because they aren't being offered enough.But what if all employees are offering low wages? Not because of low supply/high demand, but because of collusive behaviour, abusive wage tactics, or misinformation. That's part of what the minimum wage is there to prevent.Work at a loss/tiny profit margin and cause cost of their products/services to go up for everyoneI see no major problem with this. John Rawls' theory of justice incorporates the idea of maximin: all inequalities must benefit those least advantaged in society. A minimum wage (arguably) benefits the least advantaged, therefore is justified.To reduce their employment because they can't afford to pay all their workers minimum wage, especially if the work they do doesn't justify such a pay.Agreed. This I can only justify with social security, along with training to increase skills and other such things to help them get back into employment.One piece of evidence for this is the case of the BLACK DEATH.This simply proves that supply and demand have an affect on each other. I'm not debating this. I'm saying that government intervention is justified on the grounds that it can benefit the worst off in society.There is no empirical evidence that this abuse occurs in the absence of a minimum wage.That's because there are very few countries with no minimum wage (are there any?). But it's only common sense that employees would try and pay the lowest price that they can for the work that they get, or else they are irrational and the entire free market is potentially broken. And that would force some people to take these jobs. Considering that at the current minimum wage in America, people working 40 hour weeks can still often earn significantly less than a typical 'living wage' - the cost of food & living & other general costs, unique to each city. In some cities, people would have to work over 120 hours a week to earn this. So yes, I would consider that empirical evidence that abuse occurs regardless of minimum wage.There's also no empirical evidence that abolishing the minimum wage would reduce unemployment. There is no country that has proposed such a motion in the recent recession, or even to lower it. That should be somewhat telling.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Wages would be sticky downward? What?Are honestly trying to argue that people will willingly work for less than the market rate? If one's wage goes down after the abolishment of the minimum wage, it's because they were being over-paid, not because of reverse-sticky-wages. Their wage stops dropping once economic equilibrium is met and unless you're advocating a labour theory of value (if you are then good luck to you...) I don't see how you can argue that the market rate is "unfair".
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Are honestly trying to argue that people will willingly work for less than the market rate?Yes. I don't see why this is so surprising.I've lived in India for over 3 years. Every single day, I saw people living in absolute poverty, 8 people in a slum, sharing beds, lucky if they had electricity, or any form of stable income. I can say with absolute certainty that if I asked them to do a job at a below market rate, they willingly do it, and be thankful for how lucky they are. This is why a minimum wage should be based on the productive capabilities of people, so that it allows businesses to hire almost everyone profitably, with the rest supported by social security methods, or trained into higher potential.If one's wage goes down after the abolishment of the minimum wage, it's because they were being over-paid, not because of reverse-sticky-wages.Why? If the minimum wage was abolished tomorrow, I am fairly sure that many employers would cut rates. The current workers are profitable at minimum wage. The minimum wage is there to protect workers from being forced into lower rates than they need to a) survive & b) deserve for their work.Their wage stops dropping once economic equilibrium is metNo, their wages stops going down when they can't live on those wages. If suddenly, all minimum wage jobs went down to 3 dollars an hour, what choice would those workers have but to accept this huge pay drop? Could they go somewhere else? Could they refuse, and wait until wages went up? No, they would starve and die if they listened to your logic. Low paid workers do not have the economic freedoms that your logic assumes that they do, they cannot go somewhere else, they do not have time to look for more jobs, they cannot collectively agree at a certain wage. This is why things like minimum wages are there to protect these workers from abusive employment.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

India has minimum wage laws too. So what you're telling me is that you saw rampant unemployment and poverty in a country with a minimum wage and therefore concluded that the minimum wage is good? Okay...Furthermore, If supply is high and demand is low, then price will naturally drop. Whatever it drops to is the market rate. If every interaction is voluntary, then whatever the cost comes to equilibrium at is, by definition, the market rate. If that rate happens to be shitty due to an over-abundance of workers, then that's where the market is.The current workers are only profitable at minimum wage because either barriers-to-entry have been put in place to allow the larger companies to raise prices without fear of competition or because they've decided to be under-staffed to cut costs. Whatever the market rate is is what they deserve for their labour. How exactly are you defining value to mean something else? Are you a marxist?You know, if you're hiring at $3 an hour and as a result there is a surplus of workers who don't want to work for you, I can start hiring at $4 an hour and expand my company while yours stagnates, thus running you out of business. This process will continue until the workers are being paid near the same rate as the product of their labour. Problem solvedWhat is someone's PoL is only $3.5 an hour? Then that job will be filled by people with low human capital, such as teens entering the workforce who don't even need a living wage. And since the wage is now at the market rate, the company can afford to hire more people, thus making the populace more wealthy overall. Problem solved again.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

This shouldn't even be a question. If there was no minimum wage do you think companies would pay at least reasonable amount to their employees, so they could have a decent life? Maybe a few but not the majority, it would literally be slavery, or even worse.There is more than enough money to pay triple the current minimum wages, globally. The only reason why it isn't so is greed.The easiest jobs (washing dishes, simple cleaning, simple physical jobs, etc.) should guarantee a decent wage (8-10 hours a day) per person. That means getting enough money for food, clothes, rent, also some money left over for hobbies and leisure time. No luxuries. That is not how it currently is; it already is part slavery.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

The problem is, if the minimum wage is higher than the market value of these "easy jobs", then many people will go unemployed in order for the employee's labour to be profitable. Unless you contend that people will willingly work for free, slavery won't happen. Hell, if it's voluntary, then it isn't slavery by definition anyway so you can put that fear to rest. Companies will pay the market rate. Competition amongst employers guarantees this as whoever is willing to pay the highest wage will get the most employees.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

If money is the means of acquiring sustenance, as it mostly is, then abolishing minimum wage would lead to slavery.Companies make the market, they determine the prices. Governments put taxes on them, increasing the prices. The outcome is that you might have enough money for food but nothing will be left for clothes, hygiene, and all else.Companies pay as much as they want, without minimum wage that would mostly be not enough to have even a barely decent life (as it already is with the current minimum wages). While the companies have more than enough money to pay triple the amount of a minimum wage. It is simple greed and obsession with money. Hoarding anything you will not use is just pointless, that is what most companies do. They hoard money they will never even use.Companies are far more eager to hire someone who asks the smallest income. Competition is for the smallest pay, and the longest work hours, if you want the job.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Absolutely companies want the best workers they can find for the lowest wage, but if they aren't willing to pay said worker near the same rate as the product of their labour, then they've left room open for their competition to swoop in, offer a higher wage, and steal their employees.When things are allowed to rest at the market rate, companies are price takers, not price makers.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Absolutely companies want the best workers they can find for the lowest wage, This debate is about minimum wage, not competition. If there can be competition that means it has nothing to do with minimum wage.What I was saying is that minimum wage is too small. If it were higher then all people would have the chance for a better life than the current salary can provide.When things are allowed to rest at the market rate, companies are price takers, not price makers.Companies make prices, they determine how much their products cost. As I have said companies have more than enough money to pay triple the minimum wage. That money is just sitting and doing nothing, it is not used. Hoarding anything with no justified purpose is very stupid.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Wrong. This debate is about competition, because competition is the reason why the abolishment of the minimum wage won't result in wage slavery. A company can charge whatever it wants for its products/services, but if someone else is offering a better service/good at a lower price, then they will get business and the other company will go bankrupt. Excess capital doesn't stagnate, it is either invested or becomes deffered consumption, where the banks loan it out to be invested anyway. This is very basic economics 101. If you don't know these things already, you have no business debating here.But, I have a question for you, why not just raise minimum wage to $1000/hour? won't that make the economy 100x better than it is now?
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

"Should the minimum wage be abolished?" Looks familiar, doesn't it?Minimum wage forces companies to not pay employees below a certain amount. If there was no minimum wage, people would have to work for a much lower salary, and most probably for longer hours a day. It would be slavery. Companies care only about one thing - profit. That means having their products as expensive as possible without people starting to nag too much and paying the employees as little as possible so they would also not begin nagging.A company can charge whatever it wants for its products/services, but if someone else is offering a better service/good at a lower price, then they will get business and the other company will go bankrupt.By that logic every service and product should already be free of charge. Just so they could "sell" it. The fact is that prices of products and services have only gone up, not down.Excess capital doesn't stagnate, it is either invested or becomes deffered consumption, where the banks loan it out to be invested anyway.Wrong. That money is never really being used. Moving it from one deposit to another makes no difference. It's a game of rich people. Normal people never see that money, not even slightly. There is money that is in circulation and money that is just kept and grown.This is very basic economics 101. If you don't know these things already, you have no business debating here.So stupid... If you cannot think for yourself then you have no business debating here. I look at the world as it really is, not base my opinions on some rules predetermined by some other people.But, I have a question for you, why not just raise minimum wage to $1000/hour? won't that make the economy 100x better than it is now?I have an even better suggestion. Why not remove all money from use and base our society on what really matters - people being smart enough to do things without having a stupid motivator called money to make them do things. In reality there is no need for money to make humanity work. Without it, assuming people would be smart enough, things would be much better.Money is used as a motivator for people to do things. Not just that, people actually live for money, they work for money. They don't work for something essential to get done, they don't work because it is required, they don't work because they like it. They work for money. That is extremely fucked up.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

That's the point. Lower the salary on people who are already earning more than the market value of the product of their labour and more people will be able to find work. You obviously don't understand supply and demand. Prices don't go down infinitely just because they started to go down. When supply is high and demand is low, price drops, but not to zero... I'm not even sure how to argue against this because I don't see any way for you to have logically concluded this.Moving money is the definition of using it. Money exchanges hands when one party values a good/service more than the money required to purchase said good/service. Furthermore, when you put money into a bank, the bank loans that money out. Did you not know this? Are you criticizing me for not being ignorant of various economic theories? that's a new one. What's next? Are you going to criticise biologists for basing their life's work off of Darwin's? Good lord...Way to dodge the question. Are you honestly advocating the removal of money from society? Are you a communist now? Spoiler alert, communism doesn't work. Do you not understand what money is? It's merely a medium of exchange. Without money, the only thing you will change is that bartering will now be more of a pain in the ass. Market forces will still apply as seen in the USSR. You simply can't and shouldn't try to remove capitalism from society. It ends in catastrophe.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Lowering the salary of some won't make more jobs.You obviously don't understand supply and demand...This debate is about minimum wage, not the whole economy.Moving money is the definition of using it.I didn't mean the circulation where it goes from buyers to companies to workers. The money that has been hoarded by companies will in most cases never be seen again. All because the owners are too greedy.Are you criticizing me for not being ignorant of various economic theories? that's a new one. What's next? Are you going to criticise biologists for basing their life's work off of Darwin's? Good lord...... So stupid. You clearly base all your opinions on what has already been made up, without first thinking on your own.Way to not use your own mind.Are you honestly advocating the removal of money from society?You gave me a stupid example. I gave one that could actually work, assuming preparations for a change that will never be made were to be made.Are you a communist now?Communist, fascist, nazi, etc. I use my own mind to figure things out, not base my opinions on views that have already been established. And I do not even care if what I come up with accords with some already existing views.Do you not understand what money is?I seem to understand it better than you do. It is a tool, a means, of getting things done, and it is constantly being abused.Without money, the only thing you will change is that bartering will now be more of a pain in the ass.You clearly cannot come up with alternative possibilities.This goes way out of the debate's topic.You simply can't and shouldn't try to remove capitalism from society. It ends in catastrophe.No, it wouldn't, assuming idiots weren't in control of the change. It would require a change of worldview, a change of the whole current human civilization. Something that will in most likelihood never happen. But who knows, perhaps one day in far far future humanity will come to its senses and fix the mess.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

When you are allowed to lower a workers salary to the market rate, you will have excess profit that can be used to expand your company, thus creating more jobs.Minimum wage doesn't exist in a vacuum. It affects the economy and if you don't first understand how the economy works then you won't be able to understand why the minimum wage results in unemployment.I don't think you understand. 97% of U.S. dollars are theoretical. They don't exist in paper form, only in banks. If this money is in banks, then it is being loaned out and is in circulation. I am using my mind. You're not as you don't seem to understand even the connection between the minimum wage and the economy...What you've come up with does coincide with already existing views -- and they failed. Miserably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1982â€“1991)#Dissolution_of_the_USSR #Dissolution_of_the_USSR) -- Maybe if you spent more time studying economics instead of trying to re-invent the wheel, you'd have a better understand about why what you're saying is wrong.if you understood what money is, you wouldn't oppose it.There are no alternatives. Either bartering is mediated by a uniform medium of exchange like money or gold, or everybody simply struggles to find other people who happen to be looking for the same deal they are. Every time a government tries to remove the "bartering" part of exchange, the economy collapses. A change in world view? A la Marx's theory of the emerging "new man"? Yeah, that doesn't happen. 71 years of coercive communism didn't see the rise of a new man. As it turns out, competition drives advancement. It's a lot like evolution in that regard. Take the competition out of evolution and watch the gene-pool degenerate, eventually causing the species to go extinct. You don't know it because you are wilfully ignorant of basic economics, but you are advocating the complete obliteration of behavioural modernity and everything that came with it.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

I am using my mind.Repeating what you have been taught is not exactly using your own mind. Think outside the box.You're not as you don't seem to understand even the connection between the minimum wage and the economy...Says who doesn't understand why a minimum wage is needed.What you've come up with does coincide with already existing views -- and they failed. Miserably.You have no idea what my views are like. This, what you read here, is simply a small part. There's far more to it, and I'm fairly certain my views cross many already existing ones.Russia? No wonder it failed, the leaders were total idiots, not to mention the intelligence of the people. Even presently that country is seriously messed up.if you understood what money is, you wouldn't oppose it.If you understood it you would oppose it.There are no alternatives.Yes, there are. Open your mind and think. Money is not necessary for the success of a civilization.A change in world view? A la Marx's theory of the emerging "new man"? Yeah, that doesn't happen. 71 years of coercive communism didn't see the rise of a new man. As it turns out, competition drives advancement. It's a lot like evolution in that regard. Take the competition out of evolution and watch the gene-pool degenerate, eventually causing the species to go extinct.As I've said, open your mind and think outside the box.Competition drives advancement? What advancement are you talking about? The use of money?Evolution? You do realize that we, humans, can and do create our own conditions? That we have abstract thoughts? That we can and in many cases do control ourselves, while animals are mostly driven by instincts and urges? We do not need competition any longer to survive. All we have to do is think, and act according to that.You don't know it because you are wilfully ignorant of basic economics, but you are advocating the complete obliteration of behavioural modernity and everything that came with it.Unlike you, and so many others, I do not blindly follow what has been shoved in front of me, I think first, for myself, and decide myself if it is right or wrong or if there are better possibilities. You cannot think outside the box you were raised into.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Being wilfully ignorant of the last 100 years of economics is not "thinking outside the box". You give yourself too much credit.The minimum wage is not needed. Asserting that over and over doesn't make it so.I know exactly what your views are like. You've outlined them clearly here. You are a Marxist communist. Don't blame Russia, the Russian people are fine, your ideas are bad. Or are the Chinese total idiots too?You're obviously very young. You shouldn't tell others they need to think when the farthest you've gotten is Marxism. Once again, these are famously debunked economic theories.Enough of this nonsense. You're obviously too lazy to read up on and study the history of economics and politics and you hide behind "thinking for yourself" as an excuse. Being knowledgeable about a topic does not make you less able to think critically about it, just the opposite. Your ignorance has lead you face first into the cement floor of economic theories.