What would be a strong academic argument

[in venere veritas]

to counter a libertarian whom believes in the abolition of the minimum wage?

[WingDinger]

1. That fascist sympathizer, Henry Ford.

To sell cars, he must create customers with enough cash, to buy his product.

[in venere veritas]

6. I will have to use this one

Thank you :]

[morningfog]

2. It is a a race to the bottom. As it is, the minimum wage is

below poverty standards. Only a simplistic-thinking social darwinist would not see this.

Where is the "strong academic argument" to even consider this an actual discussion?

[in venere veritas]

4. His argument is

that minimum wage hurts teenage employment. He argues that employers do not see teenagers as worth minimum wage so they avoid hiring them as much as possible. It hurts them in the long-run because not landing them that first job(because gaining the experience of being in a work place is crucial to future employment and learning how a work place works) will hurt them in the long run. He further argues that companies will not pay slave wages because they will be unable to attract employees so "the market" will set the wages "fairly." Furthermore, exploitation won't occur because monoply laws prevent companies from working together to control the price of wages so they will compete for workers(which contradicts libertarian philosophy of cutting regulations anyhow).

My issue is I have a very timid type of personality so I'm terrible at debating.

[morningfog]

7. If one is arguing to abolish minimum wage, it is disingenuous to use

"monopoly laws" to defend what would be the natural outcome.

His argument also makes a lot of assumptions. If someone is to decide between slave wages and no wages, why would they not take slave wages? Indeed, they already do. Undocumented workers work for slave wages. Prisoners work for slave wages. Many, many people work for minimum wage which is, as I already said, poverty level.

The next assumption is that these jobs would go to teenagers. With high unemployment, companies will still hire the highest quality for lowest rate. The pool of potential employees would be no different than the current make-up. Teenagers would still be less desirable.

[in venere veritas]

11. I greatly appreciate your help

with this.

[joeybee12]

16. He's wrong right off...where does he get his "facts" that employers

avoid hriing teenagers...the opposite is true...look at most retail outlets, restauarnts, fast food places, etc...yeah they're avoiding hiring teens...tell him his premise is wrong.

[in venere veritas]

19. He trys to argue that "fact"(as in right-wing reality)

by showing statistics that teenage unemployment is higher than other age groups. I don't actually know the statistics though. I was thinking the same thing as you. It doesn't make sense.

[Boojatta]

22. I don't think that this is an argument against minimum wage.

His argument is that minimum wage hurts teenage employment. He argues that employers do not see teenagers as worth minimum wage so they avoid hiring them as much as possible. It hurts them in the long-run because not landing them that first job (because gaining the experience of being in a work place is crucial to future employment and learning how a work place works) will hurt them in the long run.

Does your debate opponent agree that there is minimum wage legislation that applies to nannies, agricultural workers, and people who work at jobs that customarily provide gratuities (e.g. waiters and waitresses)?

If the answer is "yes", then admittedly minimum wage legislation allows for the possibility that there is not necessarily a one-size-fits-all minimum wage level. In particular, there could be a lower minimum wage for people who have little workplace experience.

If the answer is "no", then please post in this thread some details about any information that is provided along with the "no" answer.

[in venere veritas]

28. My assumption is that he

is arguing against a "one size fits all" minimum wage. He did not focus on portions of the market unaffected by the minimum wage nor did he mention portions of the market affected by lower minimum wage levels. I hope that answers your question.


Also, I deeply apologize to everyone posting on my discussion if I'm not providing clear enough information or if I sound ignorant. I'll admit that I am ignorant on the topic, but that is why I'm asking for help from my fellow liberals.

[cthulu2016]

3. It is not a natural law that the economy will

automatically provide a subsistence wage. When this was unregulated, during the industrial revolution, workers sometimes worked for below subsistence, meaning that they worked for a wage that would delay starvation, but not prevent it.

(This was a big point about 18th-19th century wage slavery. A slave works for subsistence. A wage slave will accept even less than that.)

Since the free market will regulate population by having people starving in the streets one might ask whether that is part of the libertarian utopia.

It may well be...

[in venere veritas]

5. Personally

I think its all abour profits for them and screw everyone else.

[Boojatta]

24. Good point!

It is not a natural law that the economy will automatically provide a subsistence wage.

[bongbong]

8. Several

1) You're an idiot if you think the "free market" does anything but make the 99% poor

2) if there should be no minimum wage, what will stop people from working for $1 a day? If he says "fine", then tell him he's an idiot because America isn't SUPPOSED to look like a poor version of the slums in a third world country

3) Tell him to grow up. Libertarianism is appealing to people who can't comprehend the ultra-complex interplay of the global economy.

[in venere veritas]

10. Unrelated, but I noticed your avatar is Oklahoma

thats where I live :]

1. Anyway, I'll need to explain why it makes the 99% poor.

2. His argument is monopoly laws will prevent that. Companies will have to compete for labor.

3. The guy has a master's in business. He is around 40. If he hasn't grow up by now its probably not going to happen.

[surrealAmerican]

14. On your point #2:

Companies only "compete" for labor when labor is in short supply. When there are more unemployed workers than there are jobs (like now), workers compete for jobs, driving wages down.

[jwirr]

15. This is someone elses arguement and I do not remember who but there has never been a libertarian

nation in history and the closest we have today is Somalia.

[bongbong]

21. Get educated

1 is discussed in many economics textbooks. If you're really interested, I can point out some textbooks that prove my point.

2. Are you KIDDING? Loopholes & bought politicians will quickly make swiss cheese out of those laws.

3. Yep.

[in venere veritas]

25. Yeah

I am interested. Thats why I'm asking my fellowe DUers for help. I do want to get educated. I would be glad to be directed to resources.

2. That is his argument, not mine. I happen to agree that corruption has essentially made those laws meaningless.

[Boojatta]

23. Re "monopoly laws will prevent that"

2. His argument is monopoly laws will prevent that. Companies will have to compete for labor.

Some Marxist-Leninists have said that their economic plan will fail unless they can change the economic system of the whole world. Is your debating opponent also taking that kind of position, or is he proposing something that he thinks would be feasible in America if implemented only in America?

Also, is your debating opponent focus exclusively on jobs that cannot be moved offshore?

Consider wage levels in China at current exchange rates. I presume that the "monopoly" argument is that people can start companies in China and get all the employees they need by offering wages that are higher than the prevailing wages in China. Okay, if you can design and market products as successfully as Apple, then you have a business model. However, that's not a very interesting conclusion. If you want to provide manufacturing under contract to Apple, then how do you persuade Apple to pay you more than Apple is currently paying to Foxconn?

[in venere veritas]

26. I'm not exactly sure

if he was arguing on a global or purely American scale. So, unfortunately, I cannot answer that. I'm sorry of I'm not being clear enough.

[Bruce Wayne]

9. The economic prosperity of the high-wage high-tax 1950s vs.

the stagnant, boom and bust cycling economy and growing economic disparity of the low-wage, low-tax 2010s.

Another way to argue with a libertarian is to take a baseball bat, fuck up his shit, and steal his wallet. When he calls the cops on you, point out that he's a hypocrite for wanting government assistance.

[in venere veritas]

12. I like that second one

[spooky3]

13. check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage

[MineralMan]

17. I'd just give the libertarian the finger and walk away.

It's a waste of time arguing with them.

[renie408]

18. +1

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. lol. is there a weak argument to defend the minimum wage?

[spanone]

27. people have to eat.