Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 15
S.6 Raise Minimum Wage to Living Wage; RAISE IT
Topic Started: Mar 23 2015, 01:18 AM (2,202 Views)
Wildeboden
Member Avatar
Down with the Bourgeoisie!
Because implementing a living wage will maximize the most amount of net benefits, I affirm the resolution that, “Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage”Since the resolution uses the term ought, which means moral obligation, I value morality. The only way to achieve morality is through utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the moral theory that is based on maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number. Thus my value criterion is maximizing the most amounts of the net benefits.
Use Utilitarianism when creating policies because:
a. Government policies entail tradeoffs
b. public action is required from the inability of individual action to achieve certain morally desirable ends.

A. A living minimum wage brings people out of poverty.
According to Dube, an economist, an immediate increase in the federal minimum wage is projected to reduce the number of those living in poverty by around 6.8 million.

B. A living wage will boost consumerism.
raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power.¶ Increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by July 1, 2015, would give an additional $51.5 billion over the phase-in period to affected workers, who would, in turn, spend those extra earnings. This projected rise in consumer spending is critical to any recovery, especially when weak consumer demand is one of the most significant factors holding back new hiring. Cooper and Hall '13

Raising the minimum wage means minimum wage workers have more money to expend which means more money ripples throughout the economy as minimum wage employees are able to spend more. -Halvorsen '14

C. Consumerism is good.

Consumerism is fast emerging as an environmental force affecting major business decisions as consumers become more aware about their rights. A broad recognition and growing acceptance of consumerism makes the firms more consumer‐oriented rather than product‐oriented. It is noted that consumerism tends to serve as an opportunity for those corporate managers who are able to identify and anticipate the consumer’s problems.

FOR THESE REASONS:
Article 1
Section 1. Raise the minimum wage to $10/hr
Edited by Wildeboden, Mar 28 2015, 10:05 PM.
National Role-play Committee Chairman|UEA Founder|EBank Co-Founder|Admiral of the People's Navy|General of the People's Army
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Join the Communist Party!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wildeboden
Member Avatar
Down with the Bourgeoisie!
Overview:
A. I am running this debate on Utilitarianism, which states we must maximize the greatest amount of net benefits.
B. We do this by raising the minimum wage to a living wage, which is a wage that is able to support a family.
C. Living wage supports consumerism, which is beneficial to the economy.
D. Therefore, living wage supports economy.
Vote yes to implement living wage.

I think I did this right.
National Role-play Committee Chairman|UEA Founder|EBank Co-Founder|Admiral of the People's Navy|General of the People's Army
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image
Join the Communist Party!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CDLand
Member Avatar
Senate President
Well now here we have two issues which are, in my mind, very different: we have the ethical debate over utilitarianism and the policy debate over minimum wage.

I. Utilitarianism
"The Greatest good for the greatest number of people" This is an idea that I think sounds better in theory than in practice. Who is it that determines what is good? And how much latitude should the authorities be granted in implementing the "greatest good"? The only way utilitarianism could be implemented in a political context (rather than a personal morality) is if the political authority claims total power over the lives of every individual by claiming a mandate from the majority of people. But then, how far can they take their power to provide for the greater good? Can 51% of the people enslave the 49% by justifying that the proportional loss of freedom by the 49% is less than the benefits of their labor provided to the 51%? Can the same 51% define what is "good" and justify their slavery by saying that forcible labor is "good" for the 49? You see, utilitarianism tries to take nebulous concepts like "good" or "utility" or "happiness" and turn it into a system whereby individual freedoms can be violated at whim all in the name of the greater good.

I'll post my thoughts on minimum wage tomorrow but feel free to respond to this.

Edited by CDLand, Mar 23 2015, 02:28 AM.
John Newman (LP-Buxton)

First President of the Allied States
Winner of the "Last to Post Wins" Contest!!!!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Rhein States
Member Avatar

Let's make it more complicated.

Consumers, even those who say that they are aware, do not know much about where products are produced, what is in the product and who has negative effects (habitants of a regions where the raw material is produced, factory workers with tiny wages, Child Labor, etc.)

Most companies, lets take clothing as a example, have taken 'steps' to solve these issues. They call it 'Fair Trade'. A investigation team was send by multiple countries to see whether this 'Fair Trade' was truely fair. They discovered that factory workers didn't benefit from Fair Trade their wages where just as high (so low) as before. Secondly, many children were still working in street factories. A list of companies that produce their products 'Fair Trade' are H&M, G-Star, Cool Cat, just add all the major companies here. Consumerists in Europe and Amerika believe that these products are 'Fair Trade' but in fact they are just as bad as they where before!

How come that people who call themself consumerists and think about what they buy still buy products that are produce in the 'good ole fashion' way? The answer to this is very simple, society is stupid! They believe what a big company tells them immediatly and do not ask questions, "People aren't bad, right?". This way more abuse by those companies can be done. 1. It is 'Fair Trade' so it is normal that prices are higher for these products 2. They are looking even further for cheaper production, so the companies can expand their profits.

A study in the USA showed the difference between New Jersey (minimum wage) and Philidelphia (no minimum wage). The study concentrated itself around the border of the 2 states. The study showed that people living in New Jersey (with minimum wage) where better of then those living in Philidelphia (no minimum wage) but they stressed the fact that there was still a amount of people in poverty. How did that happen? The minimum wage pushed up the prices for production, so businesses raise their prices a little bit and the bottom (which should be raised out of poverty) actually stays in poverty. Yes, you can make less people poor but it doesn't solve the problem completly.

Concluding, humans just take everything for granted, even if big corporations, who only care for your money, are lying to them. People love to be deceived. Why ask questions if it is much easier to take someones word for it? Please scrap part C because that would imply that people use their brains and that isn't true!

Poverty is not completly solved with raising the minimum wage, there will still be a part who stay in poverty, even with higher wages. Secondly, the long-term effects have not yet been studied. Companies can find loopholes, tax credits, etc. that may influence the minimum wage.
Edited by The Rhein States, Mar 23 2015, 07:02 AM.
Functions:
- Director of Recruitment (March-April 2015)
- Director of Communications (March 2015)
- Secretary of Foreign Affairs (April-May 2015)
- Owner of: Allied Public News Corporation, Rhein Industries and EasyBank
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ILTrains
Member Avatar
I'm hungry
YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!
*Liberalism Intensifies*
Although I know that this isn't the final solution I think that this can be a good start.
Prime Minsiter
Senator
Former Governor of Buxton
Former Secretary of the Interior
WA Delegate


Eye-El in a Nutshell
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CDLand
Member Avatar
Senate President
II. Living Minimum Wage
First of all, no one has a right to any set wage. In a free society, people are able to trade their labor in return for what someone else will pay for that labor. As long as the exchange is mutually agreed to, there is no need for intervention by any third party. Why? Well aside from the fact that such intervention infringes on the individual rights of both the employer and employee, such intervention does not lead to a better result for either party.

a. Target
Who is it that you're targeting by raising the minimum wage? Poor people? Well, yes. But who are these poor people? A good deal are teenagers or college age students who are still dependent on their parent's incomes but are taking a job to gain employment experience and skills. Is it necessary that these people receive a living wage? Absolutely not. Only 23% of minimum wage workers make at or below the federal poverty line.

b. Unemployment
It's very simple: when you raise the cost of something, you get less of it. If you raise the cost of employing lower skilled people, you get less employment of lower skilled people. This is borne out in two ways: higher unemployment and lower business success ratios. You may help one person by raising his wage, but at the same time you harm another person by lowering his wage to $0. You are depriving teenagers and low skilled individuals of the ability to step on the bottom rung of the skills ladder.

c. Consumer cost
I fail to see how raising the minimum wage facilitates a consumer society. By imposing more costs on business, the businesses pass on the costs to the consumer, thereby causing prices to rise and consumerism to fall.
John Newman (LP-Buxton)

First President of the Allied States
Winner of the "Last to Post Wins" Contest!!!!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristantia
Member Avatar

I don't have any evidence for this, but doesn't a living wage reduce crime?
Edited by Tristantia, Mar 23 2015, 03:11 PM.
Posted ImageTristan Barbett (Communist-Buxton)
* Member of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, Interior Design, Energy, Environment, and Social Services
* Founder of the Communist Party of the Allied States
* Former Secretary of The Department of Internal Affairs
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CDLand
Member Avatar
Senate President
Maybe but I don't think poverty is all that much related to crime. Otherwise we should have seen a big spike in crime during the time of the Great Recession.
John Newman (LP-Buxton)

First President of the Allied States
Winner of the "Last to Post Wins" Contest!!!!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ILTrains
Member Avatar
I'm hungry
But equality is related.
Prime Minsiter
Senator
Former Governor of Buxton
Former Secretary of the Interior
WA Delegate


Eye-El in a Nutshell
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Togiak
Member Avatar

Isn't it true though that if you give someone more money they spend more? But again isn't it true that companies will then raise the prices since people are making more? I think inflation will catch up with this living wage bill and make the proposed new wage unlivable itself.
Harry Reid (IDP-Northeast)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Failed Legislation · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 15