Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
S.6 Raise Minimum Wage to Living Wage; RAISE IT
Topic Started: Mar 23 2015, 01:18 AM (2,215 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
 
Replies:
Wildeboden
Member Avatar
Down with the Bourgeoisie!
MOSCURO
Mar 23 2015, 04:08 PM
Was this inspired by my post on the RMB?
No I had a debate case lying in the file so decided to bring it here. Lol
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!
I say we move this to a vote.
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
 
Moscuro
Member Avatar
Comrade MOSCURO is Always Right
How about a Cap on how high prices can go? And a Cap on inflation? And a Cap on National Debt?
"The Great Questions of the day will not be settled by Speeches and Majority Votes, but by Iron and Blood."

-Otto Von Bismarck
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CDLand
Member Avatar
Senate President
As I understand it, this would be nonbinding correct as there's no bill?
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

CDLand
Mar 23 2015, 04:31 PM
The Rhein States
Mar 23 2015, 04:01 PM
CDLand
Mar 23 2015, 03:52 PM
A bill raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour (which I think is the standard for what people demand in a "living wage") would affect everyone. And if you tried to target the minimum wage by saying it only applies to people who are the primary source of income for their families, then you'd find a lot of businesses discriminating against these people and hiring teenagers instead.
Perhaps I shall throw this over another fence (dont know what I am saying here). CDLand, is it to your believe that businesses have rights and duties? In a SOCIETY everyone has rights and duties. Businesses are not different from humans, they are created by us and we run them. You talk about businesses as if they are run by robots and if they do not have duties and rights (probably not a strong way of saying this). According to what you have been saying is : that businesses do not have to have moral and ethical standards just like our society. That it is normal for businesses to discriminate and exclude while, when a human does the same as a business, we talk shame of him.
Businesses by themselves don't have any moral duties. You're right though, people have moral duties and rights. But there's a difference between a moral duty and a duty imposed by policy through the government. It may be my moral duty to donate 10% of what I make to charity, but I don't think the government should mandate that I do. Morality is personal and it's not to be imposed by fiat by the government.

And even if it were, I'm arguing that increasing the minimum wage is bad from a policy standpoint. It discriminates against people with low skills and is ineffective at targeting those it's trying to help.
Aha, we have left this topic, I have never said anything on imposing ethical and moral behavior by government. I have a business that wants to sell clothes. I want to produce as many clothes as possible and for the least amount of money, so I go to Bangladesh. I can produce a Tshirt for 1.50, these are correct prices, BTW. With, in the back of my head, the knowledge that massive amounts of people wont earn much and have no job security. Ethically and Morally, this is wrong. How would you like your job if they only wanted to pay you 1.5, no matter what you do as a job and with no job security at all?

This is a serious problem, caused by unethical and immoral companies (or as in victoria 2 'profeteering fat cats'). Where do we look for a answer? Government, but it is the behavior of companies causing the problem, they should solve it!

Another example. Who is responsible for the financial crisis? Here in Europe evreyone pointed to the banks, they screwed up, right? Yes... and no, the banks created large amounts of credit that was too large. The ddbt burden became too large (irrespinsible and immoral). Everyone participating in the economic system, so, all of us, never asked question about the system. Never taking the time to ask questions. Bankers and humans (call them consumers) alike, did not take responsibility. But insinuating that businesses, that obviously bring problems and harm and some good things, do not have any responsibility to society. Wanting the benefits but not the costs, is irresponsible, immoral and in longer terms destabalizing for economy and society.

If nobody takes responsibility and if responsibility does not go to those that only want to take the benefits, nothing will change. How you want to change the system does not matter anymore, communistic, socialist, libertarian, liberal, christian democrat. The system will then always fail because nobody takes responsibility and there is no trust, who could you trust? (Trust is necessary for a societ)
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
 
CDLand
Member Avatar
Senate President
MOSCURO
Mar 23 2015, 04:48 PM
How about a Cap on how high prices can go? And a Cap on inflation? And a Cap on National Debt?
No to a cap on prices because that would just lead to shortages. Yes to a cap on the national debt.
John Newman (LP-Buxton)

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

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moscuro
Member Avatar
Comrade MOSCURO is Always Right
How would it lead to shortages?
"The Great Questions of the day will not be settled by Speeches and Majority Votes, but by Iron and Blood."

-Otto Von Bismarck
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wildeboden
Member Avatar
Down with the Bourgeoisie!
The Rhein States
Mar 23 2015, 04:50 PM
CDLand
Mar 23 2015, 04:31 PM
The Rhein States
Mar 23 2015, 04:01 PM
CDLand
Mar 23 2015, 03:52 PM
A bill raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour (which I think is the standard for what people demand in a "living wage") would affect everyone. And if you tried to target the minimum wage by saying it only applies to people who are the primary source of income for their families, then you'd find a lot of businesses discriminating against these people and hiring teenagers instead.
Perhaps I shall throw this over another fence (dont know what I am saying here). CDLand, is it to your believe that businesses have rights and duties? In a SOCIETY everyone has rights and duties. Businesses are not different from humans, they are created by us and we run them. You talk about businesses as if they are run by robots and if they do not have duties and rights (probably not a strong way of saying this). According to what you have been saying is : that businesses do not have to have moral and ethical standards just like our society. That it is normal for businesses to discriminate and exclude while, when a human does the same as a business, we talk shame of him.
Businesses by themselves don't have any moral duties. You're right though, people have moral duties and rights. But there's a difference between a moral duty and a duty imposed by policy through the government. It may be my moral duty to donate 10% of what I make to charity, but I don't think the government should mandate that I do. Morality is personal and it's not to be imposed by fiat by the government.

And even if it were, I'm arguing that increasing the minimum wage is bad from a policy standpoint. It discriminates against people with low skills and is ineffective at targeting those it's trying to help.
Aha, we have left this topic, I have never said anything on imposing ethical and moral behavior by government. I have a business that wants to sell clothes. I want to produce as many clothes as possible and for the least amount of money, so I go to Bangladesh. I can produce a Tshirt for 1.50, these are correct prices, BTW. With, in the back of my head, the knowledge that massive amounts of people wont earn much and have no job security. Ethically and Morally, this is wrong. How would you like your job if they only wanted to pay you 1.5, no matter what you do as a job and with no job security at all?

This is a serious problem, caused by unethical and immoral companies (or as in victoria 2 'profeteering fat cats'). Where do we look for a answer? Government, but it is the behavior of companies causing the problem, they should solve it!

Another example. Who is responsible for the financial crisis? Here in Europe evreyone pointed to the banks, they screwed up, right? Yes... and no, the banks created large amounts of credit that was too large. The ddbt burden became too large (irrespinsible and immoral). Everyone participating in the economic system, so, all of us, never asked question about the system. Never taking the time to ask questions. Bankers and humans (call them consumers) alike, did not take responsibility. But insinuating that businesses, that obviously bring problems and harm and some good things, do not have any responsibility to society. Wanting the benefits but not the costs, is irresponsible, immoral and in longer terms destabalizing for economy and society.

If nobody takes responsibility and if responsibility does not go to those that only want to take the benefits, nothing will change. How you want to change the system does not matter anymore, communistic, socialist, libertarian, liberal, christian democrat. The system will then always fail because nobody takes responsibility and there is no trust, who could you trust? (Trust is necessary for a societ)
Sue em. Sue the corporations that are stopping the minority of low wage workers from being able to join in on the pursuit of happiness.
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!
Wildeboden
Mar 23 2015, 04:56 PM
The Rhein States
Mar 23 2015, 04:50 PM
CDLand
Mar 23 2015, 04:31 PM
The Rhein States
Mar 23 2015, 04:01 PM
CDLand
Mar 23 2015, 03:52 PM
A bill raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour (which I think is the standard for what people demand in a "living wage") would affect everyone. And if you tried to target the minimum wage by saying it only applies to people who are the primary source of income for their families, then you'd find a lot of businesses discriminating against these people and hiring teenagers instead.
Perhaps I shall throw this over another fence (dont know what I am saying here). CDLand, is it to your believe that businesses have rights and duties? In a SOCIETY everyone has rights and duties. Businesses are not different from humans, they are created by us and we run them. You talk about businesses as if they are run by robots and if they do not have duties and rights (probably not a strong way of saying this). According to what you have been saying is : that businesses do not have to have moral and ethical standards just like our society. That it is normal for businesses to discriminate and exclude while, when a human does the same as a business, we talk shame of him.<br />
Businesses by themselves don't have any moral duties. You're right though, people have moral duties and rights. But there's a difference between a moral duty and a duty imposed by policy through the government. It may be my moral duty to donate 10% of what I make to charity, but I don't think the government should mandate that I do. Morality is personal and it's not to be imposed by fiat by the government.<br /><br />And even if it were, I'm arguing that increasing the minimum wage is bad from a policy standpoint. It discriminates against people with low skills and is ineffective at targeting those it's trying to help.
Aha, we have left this topic, I have never said anything on imposing ethical and moral behavior by government. I have a business that wants to sell clothes. I want to produce as many clothes as possible and for the least amount of money, so I go to Bangladesh. I can produce a Tshirt for 1.50, these are correct prices, BTW. With, in the back of my head, the knowledge that massive amounts of people wont earn much and have no job security. Ethically and Morally, this is wrong. How would you like your job if they only wanted to pay you 1.5, no matter what you do as a job and with no job security at all? <br /><br />This is a serious problem, caused by unethical and immoral companies (or as in victoria 2 'profeteering fat cats'). Where do we look for a answer? Government, but it is the behavior of companies causing the problem, they should solve it!<br /><br />Another example. Who is responsible for the financial crisis? Here in Europe evreyone pointed to the banks, they screwed up, right? Yes... and no, the banks created large amounts of credit that was too large. The ddbt burden became too large (irrespinsible and immoral). Everyone participating in the economic system, so, all of us, never asked question about the system. Never taking the time to ask questions. Bankers and humans (call them consumers) alike, did not take responsibility. But insinuating that businesses, that obviously bring problems and harm and some good things, do not have any responsibility to society. Wanting the benefits but not the costs, is irresponsible, immoral and in longer terms destabalizing for economy and society.<br /><br />If nobody takes responsibility and if responsibility does not go to those that only want to take the benefits, nothing will change. How you want to change the system does not matter anymore, communistic, socialist, libertarian, liberal, christian democrat. The system will then always fail because nobody takes responsibility and there is no trust, who could you trust? (Trust is necessary for a societ)
Sue em. Sue the corporations that are stopping the minority of low wage workers from being able to join in on the pursuit of happiness.
Lol crappy argument but screw it
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
The Rhein States
Mar 23 2015, 04:50 PM
CDLand
Mar 23 2015, 04:31 PM
The Rhein States
Mar 23 2015, 04:01 PM
CDLand
Mar 23 2015, 03:52 PM
A bill raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour (which I think is the standard for what people demand in a "living wage") would affect everyone. And if you tried to target the minimum wage by saying it only applies to people who are the primary source of income for their families, then you'd find a lot of businesses discriminating against these people and hiring teenagers instead.
Perhaps I shall throw this over another fence (dont know what I am saying here). CDLand, is it to your believe that businesses have rights and duties? In a SOCIETY everyone has rights and duties. Businesses are not different from humans, they are created by us and we run them. You talk about businesses as if they are run by robots and if they do not have duties and rights (probably not a strong way of saying this). According to what you have been saying is : that businesses do not have to have moral and ethical standards just like our society. That it is normal for businesses to discriminate and exclude while, when a human does the same as a business, we talk shame of him.
Businesses by themselves don't have any moral duties. You're right though, people have moral duties and rights. But there's a difference between a moral duty and a duty imposed by policy through the government. It may be my moral duty to donate 10% of what I make to charity, but I don't think the government should mandate that I do. Morality is personal and it's not to be imposed by fiat by the government.

And even if it were, I'm arguing that increasing the minimum wage is bad from a policy standpoint. It discriminates against people with low skills and is ineffective at targeting those it's trying to help.
Aha, we have left this topic, I have never said anything on imposing ethical and moral behavior by government. I have a business that wants to sell clothes. I want to produce as many clothes as possible and for the least amount of money, so I go to Bangladesh. I can produce a Tshirt for 1.50, these are correct prices, BTW. With, in the back of my head, the knowledge that massive amounts of people wont earn much and have no job security. Ethically and Morally, this is wrong. How would you like your job if they only wanted to pay you 1.5, no matter what you do as a job and with no job security at all?

This is a serious problem, caused by unethical and immoral companies (or as in victoria 2 'profeteering fat cats'). Where do we look for a answer? Government, but it is the behavior of companies causing the problem, they should solve it!

Another example. Who is responsible for the financial crisis? Here in Europe evreyone pointed to the banks, they screwed up, right? Yes... and no, the banks created large amounts of credit that was too large. The ddbt burden became too large (irrespinsible and immoral). Everyone participating in the economic system, so, all of us, never asked question about the system. Never taking the time to ask questions. Bankers and humans (call them consumers) alike, did not take responsibility. But insinuating that businesses, that obviously bring problems and harm and some good things, do not have any responsibility to society. Wanting the benefits but not the costs, is irresponsible, immoral and in longer terms destabalizing for economy and society.

If nobody takes responsibility and if responsibility does not go to those that only want to take the benefits, nothing will change. How you want to change the system does not matter anymore, communistic, socialist, libertarian, liberal, christian democrat. The system will then always fail because nobody takes responsibility and there is no trust, who could you trust? (Trust is necessary for a societ)
What do you mean when you refer to a company? Do you mean the company's walls or its meeting rooms? No, you mean its people. Thus the moral obligations rest on people, not companies.

I do not agree that companies hiring labor in Bangladesh is a moral problem so long as the labor is not forced. Why? Because no one forced the workers of Bangladesh to work in the factories. The reason they work in the factories is because it's better than the alternative, which is to be unemployed and starve. The government could mandate that businesses in Bangladesh raise working standards but then it would be too costly to employ Bangladesh workers and the business would move elsewhere. So the government then harms the very people it's trying to help.

John Newman (LP-Buxton)

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

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