Question: Does Reducing the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Lead to Job Creation?

Comparing Ronald Reagan's and Barack Obama's Economic Policies

In this debate, we will examine the economic policies of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. My argument is that Ronald Reagan's policies were more effective in stimulating economic growth than those of Barack Obama.

Reagan's economic policy, often referred to as Reaganomics, consisted of four main components: a restrictive monetary policy, a significant tax cut, a promise to balance the budget through domestic spending restraint, and a rollback of government regulation. Reagan's policy required restraint in domestic spending, which was upheld during his administration. Annual percentage increases in domestic government spending only grew by 1% during the Reagan years, significantly lower than the 3.5% increase during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Reagan's tax cuts, particularly the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, were designed to spur savings, investment, work, and economic efficiency. Critics argue that the tax cuts caused higher deficits, but the evidence suggests otherwise. The Reagan tax cut was phased in over several years, and by 1983, personal income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54% by 1989 (28% after adjusting for inflation). Reagan's 1986 tax cut brought the top rate down from 50% to 28%, significantly lower than the 70% rate when he entered office.

In contrast, Barack Obama's economic policies, particularly the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), have been a disaster for the American economy. A survey revealed that 77% of businesses reported an increase in healthcare costs following Obamacare, causing significant problems for the health of the American economy. Additionally, there are still many legal issues surrounding Obamacare, including challenges to the requirement that insurance cover contraception and the legality of delays in requiring employers to provide insurance.

In terms of foreign policy, Reagan's policies were focused on defeating the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He supported the fall of the Soviet Union by funding various countries and organizations that opposed Soviet influence. Before Reagan entered office, the United States lost several countries to Soviet influence, including South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Grenada, and Nicaragua. However, under Reagan's leadership, the United States won several key battles against Soviet influence, including victories in Bolivia, Honduras, Argentina, Grenada, El Salvador, Uruguay, Brazil, Guatemala, and the Philippines.

In conclusion, Ronald Reagan's economic policies were more effective in stimulating economic growth than those of

Prices for goods will reduce to reflect the reduction in labor costs. When you just look at the retail cost, then you are not seeing the entire picture. You forget that cost to produce and transport of the products used in the fast food restaurants will be reduced as well. There is many levels of labor spending for a product that is sitting on the shelves in retail. So we could expect the cost of the product wholesale price to go down due to the cost of labor for 1. Transportation, 2. Warehouse, 3. Production, 4. Cost for labor from the energy companies. Price for labor for oil companies. You are only looking at this from one view. Product cost would reduce in the same way it would in the retail environment. The price of a hamburger in 1953 was 15 cents, and the minimum wage was 75 cents The price of kelloggs corn flakes when the minimum was $1 cost 2% of the hourly wage, and now its 3%. I retract about the strength of the dollar. New point. With a lower wage, companies will have the opportunity to make the job market competitive for a higher wage. You will be paid for what the company believes you are worth. New Point. With lower competitive wages, the US will be able to bring manufacturing back to the US. The high minimum wage does not make the products made in the US competitive with imports. Most countries have a lower minimum wage. In Conclusion The problem is unemployment, not minimum wage. Lowering the minimum wage will stimulate the job market. http://www.forbes.com... John T Harvey is an economics professor at Texas Christian University, Phd in economics. http://americandigest.org... Contains a picture of McDonald's menu with prices http://www.tvhistory.tv... Retired Engineer that collects information on American History as a hobby http://www.foodtimeline.org... Lynn Oliver Food Historian and Librarian http://www.dol.gov... Robert I. Lerman Professor of Economics at American University http://aspe.hhs.gov... Government Website

Thank you very much for your argument. My opponent makes his case by saying, "study after study has shown that raising the minimum wage does not have a negative effect on employment." This is simply a falsehood. Many reputable sources have found the disastrous effects of raising the minimum wage that I presented in round 2. I will show a few here: 1. A study done by the Southern Economic Journal, under economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser, found that raising the minimum wage has absolutely no positive effect on poverty. "When we then simulate the effects of a proposed federal minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $9.50 per hour, we find that such an increase will be even more poorly targeted to the working poor than was the last federal increase from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour" (1) This study found no change in poverty, one of the studies more favorable to my opponent's side. Many find quite the opposite of what he claims. 2. A study by renowned economist David Neumark shows that a minimum wage hike actively kills jobs. "Minimum-wage leg- islation will increase wages at the cost of modest but significant reductions in employment". (2) Neumark did not elaborate on whether the unemployment out-weighed the wage gains, but it does not matter. Even if raising the minimum wage had no effects on poverty whatsoever, that implies what this study does; that some people are getting paid more, while other are laid off. This supports my argument, because while minimum wage employees may struggle to get by, they are much better off then those without jobs. (See "True Poverty", Round Two) 3. A third study, reported by the Daily Caller, report a University of Massachusetts study, led by Professor Bob Pollin, finds the same. He says "[Minimum wage] not a cure-all to poverty. In fact, the biggest source of low-income poverty is that people don't have jobs at all." (3) The study also finds "no statistically significant evidence that a higher minimum wage helped reduce hardship" Indeed, despite my opponent's claims, studies almost invariably show either no or a negative effect due to the hiking of the minimum wage. My opponent says of Republicans expectations of the minimum wage, "But such dire predictions have never materialized". However, history shows they have. 63% of states with minimum wage above the national average are suffering unemployment above the national average. (4) As reported by the Wall Street Journal, 300,00 unskilled teen workers lost their jobs following the 2008 minimum wage hike. (5) And check out this chart, comparing Alaska's economic growth after the recession, before and after the minimum wage hike: http://www.epi.org... As you can see, Alaska's post-recession job growth was phenomenal compared to the rest of the country, until the minimum wage hike, where a noticeable difference in growth is perceived, where growth should have been accelerating as the recession grew farther away. My opponent cites the "multiplier" effect, which states that the additional money workers would get from a minimum wage increase would be used to grow other business. This, of course, is a roundabout effect. The same money is stunting job growth and leading to layoffs. WIthout the hike, money is already in the hands of job-makers. In conclusion, raising the minimum wage kills jobs, and does not in any overall way reduce poverty. Getting paid 7,25 an hour may be tough, but getting paid absolutely nothing is a whole lot worse. I look forward to my opponent's next argument. (1) http://www.people.vcu.edu... (2) http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu...- (3) http://dailycaller.com... (4) http://reason.com... (5) http://online.wsj.com...

In this round I will counter my opponents main arguments and conclude my argument. My opponent and the rest of the democrats seem to be failing the American people in terms of economics. Their new healthcare law, "Obamacare", is supposedly intended to make it easier for Americans to attain access to health insurance and to help alleviate the costs a little. However, we have witnessed the exact opposite. My opponent claims that "Another thing that you fail to mention is that the way Obamacare works people who earn more pay higher rates, while those who earn less pay less." If that were a fact then there wouldn't be countless incidents of patients that come from ordinary middle and working class families that end up paying hundreds more in medical costs than they would've under their original health plan. Those who made the law have had a very long time since its passage to ensure that everything is in working order and that there won't be problems however the roll out of the program was an utter and complete disaster. The website wasn't working, people couldn't sign up, some people's personal information wouldn't go through to the companies, and have i mentioned higher premiums yet? The law is also complete damaging small businesses and individuals as well. The law is essentially forcing everyone in the US to purchase health insurance whether they want to or not, whether they can afford to or not. If you refuse to participate then you will be forced to pay a fee anyways. Where is the liberty in that? How is that helping Americans get cheaper high quality healthcare? I don't think it is doing that at all. As to the progressive tax system. I do agree that everyone be paying fair taxes. However is a 70% tax rate fair? President Obama called on Congress to allow a tax hike on families and businesses making more than $250,000. New and higher taxes will not create jobs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "higher marginal tax rates do reduce economic activity." President Obama"s tax hike plan will hurt the ability of small businesses to innovate, invest, and hire. " The Economy is Weaker than When All Tax Rates Were Extended: At the time of the 2010 tax rate extension, GDP growth was 3.1 percent and President Obama said that raising taxes "would have been a blow to our economy." GDP growth over the last four quarters has been 2.0 percent. " One Out of Four Employees Works at Businesses Hit: Businesses employing 25 percent of the American workforce would be hit with higher taxes. " Majority of Small Business Income Affected: An estimated 53 percent of all business income reported on individual tax returns will be affected by the President's tax increase. " One Million Small Businesses Caught: Approximately 940,000 small businesses would be hit by President Obama"s tax hike. " America"s Competitiveness Hurt. Raising the dividend and capital gains rates will result in a 68.6 percent integrated dividend tax rate (the highest among industrialized countries) and a 56.7 percent integrated capital gains tax rate, second highest among these nations (behind Italy). Such a high rate will drive investment and jobs overseas. In addition, Democrats continue creating expensive government funded programs that really don't help all that much even though the deficit is extremely high (one of the highest in all of American history) and the debt is spiraling out of control. What do they do about it? Simply raise the debt ceiling and hope that the debt will miraculously decrease. When ever the debt reaches the fiscal cliff Democrats simply eliminate that dilemma in raising the debt ceiling. Well, how is that supposed to lower the debt and increase the national economy and economic growth? The answer to that is that it won't. My opponent also claimed that the high deficit of 2009 was caused by Bush (typical statement by a Democrat) but my opponent failed to recognize that the Democratic party controlled both houses of congress from 2007 to 2011. And it is congress's job to make the budget and approve it, so the Democrats made the budget and approved it with their political power in 2008, Bush simply just signed it. The Republican plan is different. It will stop the losing of millions of jobs under the Democratic plan and create millions that have already been lost. It will lead families back on a path of family prosperity and self sustainability once more and get the US economy going again. Some Food For Thought in the posted you tube video: http://www.youtube.com...

1. If children are rich because of their parents, They are not legally obliged to jobs, So therefore they would inherit money or be spoiled, But they don't have a job themselves. 2. Different jobs and different companies give different pay. All industries get different pay, And it all depends on demand of the job, And how much the employer pays. For example, Renovators and construction is probably more common than programming computers and tech and stuff like that. 3. The rich are the ones who can get more money, Therefore being able to use that money to pay more and expand jobs to people. With more money, The rich and business owners are able to make more jobs for more Americans. "And I'm saying a proportionally even amount of money should be taken from everyone, Not a bigger percentage from the rich, That isn't fair. " So your saying everyone should be taken away the same percentage of money and not a bigger percentage from the rich? That's sort of what you were trying to argue against. I am for this.

Premise I: Burden of Prove.Pro blatantly misreads my case. I didn't say the resolution was "x"... I said that, to affirm the resolution, Pro must answer "x". My cases addresses the resolution, whereas I have shown that Pro did nothing to prove the resolution.To restate Pro's arguments...P1) The people are on Welfare.P2) Welfare costs X amount.C) Increasing MW would decrease Welfare costs.As I said, Pro most prove that increasing the minimum wage would impact those in P1.Argument I: Demographics of Minimum WagePro puts out a claim, but does nothing to quantify it. He claims that more people are on/near Minimum Wage, but doesn't say how many more. 3%? 5%? Pro doesn't answer this. As for the opening few sentences about state minimum wages, there is no relevance. This debate is about federal minimum wage, and only 2% of the working are at the US federal Minimum Wage.If Pro CAN'T prove that most Minimum Wage workers are in poverty, then he fails to prove his case, as his whole case is about how increasing wages decreases welfare costs. However, by conceding all of my arguments, he has conceded his own case. If most minimum wage workers aren't in poverty, then increasing minimum wage does little to impact welfare costs.More importantly, Pro concede the following cases:- The average household income for Minimum Wage workers is $50,700+ a year. - 87% of those effected by Minimum Wage increases were not poor. - 56% lived in households earning more than twice the poverty rate.- Raising Minimum Wage would only affect 0.0043% of those on welfareBy conceding these points, Pro can not prove that raising minimum wage would decrease welfare costs. If increasing minimum wage doesn't decrease poverty, it won't decrease welfare spending.Argument II: Effect of Minimum WageA) Prior CasePro's only argument is a blunt display of information with no detail, no context, and no variables being accounted for. My studies have accounted for all variables and context that may alter, and distort, the conclusion. Pro has not accounted for these. Nor does his employment increase account only for employment rates among minimum wage workers. As such, we must assume his analyzes is not valid. In fact, just accounting for the employment of the youth alone shows us a far different picture, where unemployment amoung teenagers correlates perfectly with the increasing/decreasing value of the minimum wage (1). This alone shows how important these variables are.My studies are based on reviewing minimum wage increases that have happened (one of my studies even dealing with the 1997 amendment), and found, after clearing all the variables that distort Pro's assessment, that the increase hurt employment. Pro's assessment also fails to account for disemployment. Pro may notice that I often talk about disemployment, not unemployment. Increasing minimum wage doesn't have a sudden, immediate effect. It can take a year or two to find the effects in place. Increasing minimum wage can decrease employment in the long-term by decreasing the rate of additional employment.... Called disemployment.A study by Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen found that, for every 1% increase in the Minimum Wage, there is a 0.12% increase in disemployment... Sometimes as high as 0.92% increase. To increase Minimum Wage to Obama's proposed $10.10, we'd risk seeing an increase in unemployment by as much as 9% (2). Another study, by Nuemark, backed up this claim (3). Later, Nuemark redid his evaluation, and found that with new variables accounted for, there was a similar disemployment rate (4).A review found that in 2011, McDonald's hired 64,000 Americans, but in Europe (with it's higher MWs), they replaced workers with 7,000 self-serve computers. They intend to do much the same in the US as well due to increasing minimum wage costs (5). Mark Wilson found that increased unemployment among the youth followed increases in minimum wage (6). This effect hurts the long-term success of these youth, making them costlier for the Government.I also want to note that, at only a 57% rate of success (11 out of 19 amendments), he has disproven his case about unemployment. He must prove that increasing the minimum wage WOULD decrease spending. Not that it MIGHT (57% could) decrease spending.[1] http://web.archive.org...[2] http://www.nber.org...[3] http://www.nber.org...[4] http://www.nber.org...[5] http://www.wsj.com...[6] http://object.cato.org...Argument III: Less USFG Income = More Debt.Pro claims that 66% of low-wage earners are working for Large Corporations. His source is wrong in how it assesses who they work for, however. If 100 employees are working for McDonald's, his source would claim that they are working for a "big corporation." But this is wrong... They are employed by a small business franchising from McDonald's. That small business pays the employees wages, not McDonald's themselves. And that small business owner is bringing in tiny profit rates of around 6% or less (7) This, by itself, disproves Pro's whole study from NELP, as well. These studies were built on the false premise that the corporation, and not the actual franchisers, employs and pays the employees. Therefore, their results are corrupted.Pro's case is also flawed in that it reviews the productivity of the employees, and not the overall productivity rate. If the corporation decreases employment by 30% in order to fix losses, and the productivity of each employee increased by 10%, they would still see a 23% decrease in productivity. My Argument II case proves these potentionally massive unemployment/disemployment effects.Pro dropped the rest of this case, including lower profit margins.As for the $50 bn claim... This need not be sourced. Pro's attempt to discredit this is rather silly. I didn't say the debt WOULD increase by $50 bn here... I was showing how much debt and interest a $50 bn a year deficit would cause. Over a decade, that would amount to $500 billion in debt, which would produce at least another $500 billion in interest. Pro is acting as though I said increasing the minimum wage would lead to a $50 bn increase in the deficit.Based on US income tax revenues (8), it's likely that, with the CBO's unemployment estimate in mind, an increase to $10.10 could cost the USFG over $10 bn a year in income tax. $20 bn a year if we include unemployment costs from Rebuttal I. The cost could be $100 bn+ based on Brown, Kilroy, and Kohen's study.[7] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...Rebuttal I: Welfare CostsPro's copy/paste seems pointless... These number don't tell us anything about who is on welfare. My whole case proved that those people on welfare are not the same as the people on Minimum Wage. Perhaps if Pro hadn't been so quick to concede my case, his case would still work.Pro says that Walmart employees receive $6 billion in welfare, these statistics are recession related. To find an accurate measurement of how much welfare is spent on Minimum Wage, Pro needs to give us a number that accounts for the recession. However, even then, Pro fails to account for the largest issue...Pro has NOT proven that increasing Minimum Wage would counter these welfare costs. A study by Heritage Foundation found that, if increased to $10.10, the minimum wage increase would do nothing to reduce Welfare costs (8). Nor has Pro proven that, if it did decrease welfare costs, it would be larger then the negative impacts. The cost of the 1997 increase, as an example, and if accounting for population increases, would cost $8 bn - $10 bn alone just for unemployment increases if enacted today. Well over the $6 bn welfare costs for Walmart.I addressed these impacts in Argument II and Argument III.[8] http://www.heritage.org...Conclusion:I have shown that great disemployment effects would be seen from an increase in Minimum Wage. I have also shown the costs of these effects. Pro has not proven that minimum wage workers greatly impact welfare costs, while I have shown that the vast majority of them are too far from poverty to have an impact. Pro has also failed to prove that, among the few who are poor, increasing their wages would help them, while I have proven it wouldn't.Pro has not affirmed the resolution. And the argument he has conceded (especially from Argument I) prevent him from doing so.

I am going to refute your refutes now. 3. Increased revenue American citizens will all take home more money. Thus they have more to spend. Actually, if all Americans spent the same with FairTax as they do now, almost every person of every socio-economic class would pay less in taxes by the end of his or her life. Yet, the government still makes more money because of the lack of loopholes. 4. Lowers unemployment I understand that your research into FairTax is not as extensive as mine and your knowledge on taxes may not be complete, as with most Americans. Yes, I know that taxes do not go to the businesses. Currently, businesses have to pay taxes when they get the products that they are going to sell to make a profit. With FairTax, no taxes would be paid on any good until the final consumer gets this product. With this, businesses would save money from not paying these taxes and it could go towards hiring people. 5. Deflation Again, with FairTax, businesses will not have to pay taxes when they receive the goods from the vendor as they do now. Thus, the products would be cheaper. 6. People choose how much taxes to pay The purpose of this point is to show that people would not be penalized for working hard. They could pay a lot or a little. Still, they would take home more money to spend. For example, a person who makes 60,000 dollars a year takes home only 45,000. With FairTax, they take home 60,000 dollars. People will not cut back because they have more money to spend. Now I will refute your claims. 1. The system will drive spending into the ground. People will not just take home a little more money, they will be taking home significantly larger amounts, as shown above. While, I grant you, the receipt may have a larger total number, their paychecks will have a much larger total number. 2. Who would pay for those checks? Easy, the people who get the checks pay for those checks. The equation is... poverty level spending for size of said household in a year X the sales tax rate / the twelve months...this is how much a family will get on a check in a month. The reasoning behind this is poverty level families spend money only on the basic necessities which these checks would cover. Now you have background. When Bob goes to the store and buys a tomato, the cost of the tomato is multiplied by the sales tax rate and that number is added to the cost of the tomato. This is a basic necessity, food, but it would still be taxed. The check simply ensures that the cost of the taxes on this necessity is cancelled out. The reason this system has these checks instead of not taxing the food and water is because the government can limit the amount of tax free food. I hope you can follow this because this part of this tax plan is hard to explain. 3. Discourage American businesses I have disproved the reasoning of this point already. At this time, I will include additional points. 1. Out of attempt to make you happy, I will say, for the purpose of this point, Fair Tax made national revenue the same. This system will help with real-estate sales, thrift stores, used car dealerships, and pawn shops. According to FairTax, the same item can only be taxed once. Therefore, any house that is not brand new would be tax free. This boosts the number of Real-Estate agents who will pay taxes with their new found money. Thrift stores will be completely tax free thus making stores like Goodwill more profitable. These places will get more employees who will pay taxes. Used car dealerships will benefit because the cars would be tax free. This will spark the car business and will encourage selling cars to the dealerships because the dealerships would be willing to pay more because they would need more inventory. Pawn shops would be the same. Even if, after all this, the national revenue did not change, the quality of life in the US would improve because more people would have money because they would have more jobs. 2. No loopholes I don't need to explain this any further. 3. Encourage hard work People would no longer be penalized due to the flawed tax bracket system for working harder. And these people would spend more. If, after all of this, you still find fault, please post what system America should go by for taxation(it bothers me when people shoot down one idea but does not provide an idea of his or her own). Go to fairtax.org for answers to any questions you may have about FairTax.

Thank you for the response. R1: Would not effect Small business Actually business owners say it would increase their costs significantly. [1] Business owners say if the minimum wage rises they will lay off current workers and have to try to hire other workers worth the wage. [1] In new york business owners say the raise in the minimum wage will lead to their demise. [2]My opponents argument goes against all economic theory. Any increase in costs lead to workers being fired, this is simple economics. This article written by a business owner states a minimum wage raise would increase costs forcing him to lay of workers. [3] Your argument is against all economic theory. Also he said 86% say it wouldn't effect them, this means 14% get effected badly, that's still enough to raise unemployment. So basically his argument says it HAS NO effect, well he conceded 14% GET EFFECTED, so No =/= 14%, he conceded his case. a 14% change is bad.R2: American lawmakersThis is a way to buy votes good sir. This non scientific poll shows 70% of people want to raise the min wage. [4] But in a poll they asked: "would you support a minimum wage raise if you heard it destroyed jobs" only 46% say yes. [5] So in reality if the truth where told the politicians woudl flip flop for votes. R3: doesn't effect jobsI already refuted this last round, that study was disproved! DISPROVED."Proponents have been able to muddle the debate by pointing to a study done by two Princeton economists, David Card and Alan Krueger. These economists claimed to find that raising the minimum wage does not lower employment. In one paper, they succeeded in casting doubt on 200 years of economic research and theory. Economists took their challenge seriously and attempted to recreate their results. It could not be done. Economists who attempted to replicate their work demonstrated conclusively that raising the minimum wage destroys jobs." [5]They never proved and remade the results. Then next paragraph they state it was DISPROVEN by economic science. [5]R4: Inflation Actually raising the minimum wage with inflation raises teen unemployment. [6] Defense or args:Rc1: Teenage unemloymentread my source:"The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. " [7]It said the minimum wage actually has an effect, and it is worse with the bad economy. It links both as a reason, it never singles it out into either or. It stated IT AS THE ECOMOMY AND THE MINIMUM WAGE! You misread the source. Also the graph I provided proves my point, min wage goes up, teen unemployment does too. It goes down, unemploymnt drops. "Earlier this year, economist David Neumark of the University of California, Irvine, wrote on these pages that the 70-cent-an-hour increase in the minimum wage would cost some 300,000 jobs." [7]Point pressed on. Rc2: Overall unemployment You still do not see the point, in economics the same data applies as buisness when it comes to costs stays the same. More costs = more unemployment. As my opponent is eager for a neer source, this time with a graph: source: http://www.foxbusiness.com...minimum wage raise = more unemployment. Rc3: DropoutsWould you rather leave school when you get a wage of 10$ or 5$? 10. But as I stated this actually doesn't mean the get a job, and they likely do not get a job. They dropout, with sadening results. The statistics are on my side: Minimum wage raises = more dropouts. [8]Rc4: Priceshe actualy does not refute this, just says in makes no sense. The source in my interpretation means that you spend that much per day/week. It also may be per item like on banannas. As I have stated the minimum wagincreases cost ----> less employment and well higher prices to gain money. As yu have not refuted my main points I extend the argument. Conclusion: The minimum wage, if increased, will have detrimental effects on prices, employment, and in turn the economy. I have proved a minimum wage is bad, and refuted my oppooents case and kept mine alive with facts. I urge a CON vote. sources: http://www.nypost.com... [1]http://newyork.cbslocal.com... [2]http://rightremedy.org... [3]http://libn.com... [4]http://www.house.gov... [5]http://washingtonexaminer.com... [6]http://online.wsj.com... [7]http://www.heritage.org... [8]

Apparently someone created an account to kill this topic. The account was created one minute before accepting the debate.In any case, con's arguments are a word-for-word copy of an article posted on American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com... since the source is not acknowledged, this is a conduct violation.The undited copy-and-paste produces the wall-of-text style problem,My opponent has not won any debates, so is in violation of the rule requiring an experienced debater.The first round is for acceptance only. Con violated the rule by spamming in the opening round.The argument presented does not address the resolution. The article copied argues that increasing taxes on the rich would be unfair, a conservative viewpoint as one would expect from American Thinker. the debate is solely about how much revenue the Buffet Plan would raise, not whether it is fair or unfair.The revenue is at most 3% of the deficitAn optimistic estimate of the revenue generated is"In 2008, there were 236,883 tax filers reporting income of $1 million or more. The Patriotic Millionaires, a group advocating the repeal of the Bush tax cuts on tax filers making $1 million or more a year, estimated that their plan would raise $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years." [P2. http://blogs.wsj.com... ]That includes implied savings in interest on the national debt. "the tax would actually raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year: equal to about 3% of the annual federal deficit." [P2]The revenue would actually be substantially less than the optimistic estimate, because the rich are able to evade taxes by not taking capital gains and by moving money to offshore accounts.The revenue raised would be trivial compared to the magnitude of the deficit problem. The resolution is affirmed.

Often times you will here politicians complain about the startling lack of access to education and how it is having a detrimental effect on the competitive nature of the United States. This however is not true, jobs over the last couple of decades have not been lost due to education but rather a difference between wages of workers in the United States and the rest of the world. Additionally as increases in the number of applicants that have a piece of paper claiming they are educated occur the actual value of that piece of paper falls. Hence it is not the education that matters but how that education allows someone to differentiate themselves from every other applicant. As ever growing numbers of people graduate with a bachelors degrees the value of that degree becomes ever smaller in an economic scale as increased competition of necessity creates a devaluation. The effects of Supply and Demand will therefore come into play showing that it is not the education that creates a job but the ability to fill a demand for that education without saturation of demand for said position. What does this mean? It means contrary to popular opinion education is not a job creator and that through the institution of programs to 'educate' the population you only ensure that to be a cut above the rest you must obtain more education. Rather than education being the great equalizer claimed it simply creates a self fulfilling cycle of competition where employers seek the most educated for the lowest price. Ergo the premium paid for education is further discounted. This can easily be seen in the number of college graduates who now have difficulty in finding a job and the vast number of people who graduated in the past who simply have a bachelors degree coming into fierce competition with a larger than ever population that has obtained degrees since they had left school believing that they had adequately differentiated themselves from their generation. This equates to education not Creating Jobs but rather differentiating people into separate pools of 'sort-ability' for businesses. A Business will not even hire a 'sales manager' if the sales manager today does not have a degree, whereas the ability to perform the tasks has little to do with the degree and more an HR sorting mechanism. It is my postulation that if EVERYONE had a bachelors degree then the value of this degree would be meaningless as everyone had one and would no longer be used as a metric in distinguishing individuals. Thereby elevating a Graduates Degree to the same level a Bachelors Degree is currently. This thereby exemplifies that education is not used as a basis of 'Job Creation' and more of an example of job classification and mechanical sorting. This does not mean Education is not vital to any number of factors and that the betterment of the self is not constantly needed, only that there is a belief that a better education leads to Job Creation. Job Creation on the other hand DOES need adequately taught applicants for it. The point here is that it is not cause and effect that better education equates to MORE jobs. Additionally an education typically only gains ENTRY to a field or a position, thereby rendering the question of how important is the classical education system in comparison to trade school or on the job training? Just fun points that may be interesting to consider in this debate.

Employers have to compete for workers the same way they have to compete for customers. If Ben's Carwash charges $10.00, and Kristina's Carwash charges $7.50, Kristina will take Ben's customers. If Ben's Carwash starts at $10.00 an hour, and Kristina's Carwash starts at $7.50 an hour, Ben will take Kristina's workers. My opponent mentioned people who are so down and out and desperate for work that they will accept any job without even knowing what the rate of pay is. What my opponent is overlooking is that when the government mandates a higher wage, employers will hire fewer of these desperate people. If an employer believes a worker creates only about $5.15 an hour worth of value on the job, he won't pay $7.00 an hour, even if the government demands it. The law of supply and demand, which is going to operate no matter how hard the government fights it, says that when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. That's why environmentalists like higher gasoline taxes, and anti-smoking activists back higher cigarette taxes.


Question: Does Reducing the Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate Lead to Job Creation?

The proposition that lowering federal corporate income tax rates creates jobs is not supported by empirical evidence. A comprehensive academic literature review on the subject consistently concludes that tax cuts do not stimulate economic growth but rather exacerbate income inequality and stagnation of the middle class. To illustrate, let's consider the historical context of taxation in the United States as highlighted by Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economy Policy Institute. Fieldhouse observed that since WWII, top individual income tax rates and effective tax rates on corporate income, capital income, and inheritances have significantly declined, resulting in a less progressive tax code (Piketty and Saez 2007). The top statutory marginal tax rate fell from over 90% in the 1950s to 35% for most of the past decade. The taxable income threshold for the top rate application for married joint filers also plummeted from roughly $3 million in the early 1950s (adjusted to 2012 dollars) to $388,350 in 2012. This decline in progressivity is particularly evident within the top income percentile, with the effective tax rate for the top hundredth of a percentile falling from 71.4% in 1960 to 34.7% in 2004.

Moreover, Fieldhouse's conclusions highlight that tax rates have fallen substantially since the post-WWII era, and effective rates on corporate income, capital gains, and estate taxes have also decreased. The tax code has become increasingly less progressive over time. In addition, many states have regressive tax systems, with a disproportionate burden on lower-income individuals as they move away from progressive income taxes in favor of sales taxes. Corporations are also benefiting from substantial tax breaks, with effective tax rates at historic lows. A study by the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice found that 111 Fortune 500 companies, including GE, Exxon, and Boeing, paid negative tax rates over a five-year period. One-third of these companies paid no federal income tax or less than 10% over the same period. The average tax rate for these companies was only 19.4%, and 55 of them enjoyed several years of no new taxes.

Despite these tax breaks, Fieldhouse's study found that higher tax rates have no statistically significant impact on economic growth factors such as private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, labor productivity, or overall economic growth rates. The L

Let's start with a brief history of the minimum wage. The first minimum wage was established by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1938, and was 25 cents and hour. It was established under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as part of the New Deal. Since then it has been increased over 50 times, most recently reaching 7.25 under President Bush. (1) A good and necessary thing, the minimum wage protects workers, especially unskilled workers, from abuse and under-payment. However, there is a point at which raising the minimum wage hurts not just business and the economy, but workers and the poor and unskilled as well. THE MARGIN OF PROFIT Many people think that employees are paid solely on how the pay that corporations believe they can get away with. In reality, pay is based on two things: competition and margin of profit. I will get on to competition later. The margin of profit is how much an employer makes off a given employee. Margin of profits, especially with a minimum wage as high as ours, are at an all time low. McDonalds this year has a margin of profit at 19.71%. (2) That means off a minimum wage employee, McDonalds makes 1.44 an hour. Add this to the minimum wage, and it comes out to $8.69. So, if you raise the minimum wage to $9.00, McDonalds will average a net loss on literally every employee, as all would have to be paid that number. This would give McDonalds three options: close, causing huge layoffs, move many jobs overseas, causing huge layoffs, or raise it's prices significantly, hurting both business and the lower class who rely on it for cheap food. The margin of profit of McDonalds is higher then many, like Starbucks, with 11.17%, and Chipotle, with 10.76%. (3) Raising the minimum wage is a fiscal impossibility for most businesses, and will cause immense layoffs and higher prices, hurting unskilled workers and the poor, often the same. COMPETITION IN THE JOB MARKET While most media and popular sources constantly talk about people competing for jobs, businesses face huge competition for the most skilled and experienced workers. Every corporation will try to beat their opponent's pay in an attempt to get better employees. This works on the same principle as why prices decline. This is what protects many people from low pay, and in a competitive market what keeps pay rising. It is the reason less than 1% of the workforce is paid minimum wage (4). Raising the minimum wage would punish the 1% who get paid minimum wage, as businesses would have to rely on skilled and experienced workers, as unskilled workers would not be worth it. The people who would suffer are the same people who the minimum wage is designed to help. TRUE POVERTY While employees receiving minimum wage often struggle to pay for bills and car and home payments, the people who are truly poor are those who have no jobs, who are unemployed. These are often uneducated and inexperienced. people, and they live in abject poverty. These people need jobs, and the way to produce mass jobs is not to raise the minimum wage to a point where businesses can't afford to risk hiring them. A lower minimum wage allows for more jobs for these people who really need them. For example, a business will not pay someone $9.00 to stand on a street corner and hold a sign, but a lesser pay may be justified for the business. An unskilled job, bringing much needed income to low-income and unemployed individuals. THE DISASTROUS MODERN HISTORY OF THE MINIMUM WAGE When FDR established the first minimum wage, some jobs were killed, but it evened out and managed to be an improvement to many worker's lives. As were many later increases. The latest was a 2009 increase to 7.25 which turned out disastrously. Over the next few months, more than 300,000 low-income employees lost their jobs as a direct impact, even with a 4% growth in the economy that quarter. (5) A UGA study finds that the raising the minimum wage does not alleviate poverty. Robert Nielson of the study said ""By and large, evidence says that minimum-wage increases don"t go to the people they are intended to help. .. " (6) Less than 15% percent of wage gains from minimum wage raises go to people below the poverty level, and that is far offset by people lowered below the line and dropped further down. Raising the minimum wage is a disaster. Take a look at this chart comparing teenage, often unskilled, jobless rates to increases of the minimum wage: . http://www.google.com... This shows the effects of minimum wage raises on unskilled and inexperienced workers. (Teenagers) As the minimum wage increased, businesses were less and less willing to employ teenagers, creating an almost linear connection between the minimum wage and teenage unemployment. This is a very telling chart. It is apparent that raising the minimum wage hurts the same people as it intends to help, and ends up helping almost nobody. Perhaps inflation will justify minimum wage raises in the future, but today it is a horrible idea for the economy, for business, and for minimum wage and unemployed people. I'll leave it there for now. I look forward to my opponent's argument. Good luck! (1) . http://www.dol.gov... (2) . http://ycharts.com... (3) . http://ycharts.com... (4) (5) . http://www.thecommentator.com... (6) . http://onlineathens.com...

1) C4C My opponent is missing basic logic. I didn't claim that C4C resulted in 988,000 lost jobs, but that all the temporary jobs left along with hundreds of thousands of other jobs. Voters should also realize that my opponent has not denied that all these jobs were TEMPORARY, like seasonal workers around winter solstice. Since they are not perminate, they don't mean crap. 2) Job creation While not every job is a result of Bush's individual policies, the whole picture can be shown as his responsibility and as such, his success. The best thing that any president can do, is simply get out of the way. While Bush was no libertarian, and didn't suscribe to laissez faire. He was a lot closer to it than Obama the Great is, and that is why we saw a much better economy under him than we do with Obama the Great. His tax cuts and derugulations are the key reasons for the success. And of course, as soon as the democrats took congress, they fuckked it all up. 3) Money saved Yes, it does involve the deficit. The very fact that the deficit is growing means that more money is being spent than saved. All the "predictions" that my opponent's blogs suggest mean jack shiit when the real numbers show that Obama the Great is spending more than he is saving. 4) Wars The money spent on the wars is far from wasted. Apart from creating tens of thousands of jobs, it is helping remove dictators from around the world. The entire Arab spring can be traced to the collapse of Saddam. Once the people of various nations found that dictators can fall and the people can survive without them, they rose up. Unless my opponent wants to argue that dictators are good, which wouldn't surprise me given his love for Obama the Great, then he really has nothing to stand on in this regard.

This is the debate we know we will be having in 2012. As Pro I will argue that we should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top 2% income earners (those making $250,000 yr or more) back to the rates they were under Clinton. My opponent will argue that we should make the current tax rates permanent or even a more drastic solution in that direction if he/she sees fit. My basic argument is as follows: 1. As our national debt continues to soar we will inevitably have to make sacrifices. Spending will have to be cut in some areas which will only hurt the lower classes. We need to share this burden as a nation. 2. The Republican and conservative talking point of "taxing the job creators" is a mischaracterization of reality. Individuals do not create jobs, businesses create jobs. A business will hire employees if it is believed that doing so will help the businesses bottom line (profit). The taxes in question are applied the individual after that profit is made and thus has no relation to the number of employees the business employs. 3. As our capitalistic society continues to mature the rich continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer. This is harmful to us as a nation and needs to be balanced for the good of the country. 4. I understand the argument that this would hurt a fragile economy but that is irrelevant considering that the question we face is not a matter of if we will have to take a hit but how.

NIRAMy opponent says unemployment did not increase by 17%, but I do ask my opponent to provide a source to prove this and until then I will deny that point as my evidense behind it actually has a source. We can see that FDR attempted to control the US economy and this law was unconstitutional as ruled by the Supreme Court in the Schechter Poultry Corp V. US case showing that the government had overstepped it's boundries into the lives of the average American. (http://www.oyez.org...) Keynesian Economics My opponent is once again incorrect. After World War 2 the US was once again on the verge of going back into the great depression as millions of Americans came back from the war and the factories had to lay off their workers to retool their factories.

I agree that supply and demand is a great thing and works well in most economic situations, but this is not one of them. There are two fundamental flaws in my opponents argument: Supply and demand does not work for jobs and that companies will either choose to or be forced (by market forces) to do what is ethical for their employees. Supply and demand does not work for jobs. Supply and demand is a great thing when it comes the price of goods, like a stereo or a television, but not when it comes to jobs. You see, when you are making a decision to buy a stereo or a television it is not something that you absolutely need. Those things are luxuries so supply and demand works by balancing how much people want a T. V. (demand) by how many are available. In our modern times when everything can be mass produced supply is normally decided by how many have already been sold. However jobs are not a luxury for most people, they are a necessity, because people need money to eat and pay for a place to live. Therefore when people are looking for a job (especially in hard economic times, like this one) they are likely to take the first job that comes their way. People are given the choice of either working or starving and faced with a decision like that people are much more willing to take what they can get. Think about it, how many people out there have interviewed for a job and accepted it without even knowing what the exact rate of pay was? I know that I have done this before and I'm sure that others out there have done the same. Employers are not ethical when it comes to workers. There are many examples of this throughout history, I'm sure we all know about the child labor practices and the rock-bottom wages that employers used to provide before labor laws came into effect. However, there are still unethical behaviors that go on today. It is unethical for CEOs to take million dollar salaries and also accept million dollar bonuses while their workers earn minimum wage. And speaking of minimum wage let's talk about it. Even assuming that minimum wage is eight dollars an hour (which it is not in most states) if you worked 40 hours a week you would bring home around $950 a month after taxes. With that amount of money this is what you are expected to do: Pay rent, pay utilities, buy gasoline for your car, get food, pay for health and car insurance and any other expenses you might have. You would be hard pressed to just pay for an apartment and utilities with that amount of money, and that would leave you without food. The minimum wage already doesn't provide people with enough money to live. Abolishing it would be horrible for the citizens of our country. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal and his further arguments, as I'm sure he has them, as I have mine.

Point 1: With more profit, why would a company decrease wages? To earn prfit, why would a company decrease wages? For the first one, with more profir, that allows for an INCREASE in wages and more ability to hire, thus reducing unemployment. For the second, if the company decreased wages, the employee would leave and seek better employment. That is a significant advantage of Capitalism. If someone is not satisfied witht their job, they can find another, thus companies are forced to provide good working conditions and high wages to ensure the employee does not leave. In Third World countries, countries do not have fully developed economic systems. They have repressed, totalitarian forms of Government that "set up" and "allow" these working conditions. We cannot use them as an example for that very reason. It's the totalitarian, backward Government and Economy, not the Corporations. The fact that they have jobs in third-world countires is a blessing to them. What they consider good working conditions and what we consider good working conditions are two totally different things, and to them, the jobs to Apple are some of the best in China for the working class. And plus, many multi-national corporations, like Walmart, are making strides to help the workers and the communities of these countries. Their help has helped thousands of people survive hunger that without them, would have died. Companies are owned by CEOs and stockholders. These are the "people" behind corporations. They represent the "body" of the company. The corporation functions as a group and a corporation works no different than any other group of people. The body of people make decisions, formulate solutions to problems, and do other things that are characteristic of people. They should be considered people. Point 2: How can you be outmaneuvered by management? Again, if you have enough complains you can get another job. This isn't really a pro side to trade unions, and I will explain cons later. Here is what I meant about the trade union salary argument. When unionized workers are employed, they have to be paid a certain wage set by the Union. And that wage keeps getting higher through wage. The business is not allowed to decide when wages are, so when they are running a loss, they still have to pay higher pay and raises to the unionized workers, thus making the loss bigger. Sooner or later, the loss will get too big and the company will go out of business. Thus, the unionized worker has to go to lower-wage work. Now you might be asking, what about the non-unionized workers. Well the majority of workers in the factories are unionized. I will explain more about the minimum wage later, but to preview, they do not increase the standard of living for workers because one, they are rarelt needed, and two, you should be paid for performance, not just time. And the disparity between a larger company and the right to a standard of living is false because being a part of a larger company does not hinder the standard of living, but in fact helps it, and two, there is no "right" to a good standard of living. That is a responsibility, not a priviledge. Again, companies cannot write in unionized employees even when their perfromance is bad because they are unionized, so the complaint has to first go through the union before anything can be done about it, and the union always sides with the worker, so when a company tries to fire someone for sloth, they cannot because they find themselves in a legal battle over it with the labor unions and they do not want to waste the money. They are stuck and in a dilemma. That's why your argument here is flawed. Point 3: Teenage workers are not supposed to make high wages. That is for later in life. If you give them high wages at the beginning, then there will not be much incentive later on to work because they will not be making much more money. Teens do not deserve the same amount because they rarely work as hard. Their "sloth" rate is higher than adults. And plus, teens do not need all of the money that adults do. Most of their expenses are paid for. And they have a lot of bargaining power because the teen can simply go next door. In other words, he can work somewhere else if the company does not provide enough. Having a minimum wage is determinal to the teen because it encourages the "something for nothing" mindset that is killing this nation (both the United States and England). This is a main argument. Your argument does not really explain the teens aren't lazy argument. You haven't refuted anything. Teens shouldn't rely on their parents for room and board if they are not in high school and are not going to college, but they do becuase they can lazy. So many tenns and now 20-year olds are in their parents' basement because they are to lazy to look around for a job. Their parents' encouragenment does no good. And having a minimum wage does not fix this problem either becuase teens don't want to work. The minimum wage would have to be A LOT higer for teens to actually need to use it. Point 4: Teens should be able to balance school and work. If they can't, they shouldn't work. But those that can should have the ability to do so, and the Government should not stop them. It should be up to them, but they should decide whether or not they are up to it. First of all, you are still supposed to put school ahead of work. You still complete your schooling. You got that part wrong. Second of all, having a job would not mean quitting high school. Whereas school activities may be a liitle fun, maybe exercising, or somewhat educationally benefitial if the person plans on doing that activity in later life, working in the teenage years produces hard work and preservance, teaches good working skills that last a life time and help make sure the person holds down a job for the rest of his or her life, and the job will most certainly either be the job he will be doing later on in life (hopefully not), be practice for a higher job, or just a job to help with working skills, having a job is a very good thing to do as a teenager. It can also be very rewarding, not just financially. If there are any workers conditions laws that you would like to debate specifically, please tell me. I can't think of any.

Many doubted the economy would ever be strong under President Trump; some still deny that the economy is strong under President Trump. If you are one of those that denies the economy is strong under President Trump, accept this challenge and make your case. And btw, if anybody wants to debate other issues involving President Trump, make a debate and challenge me. I am interested in having more debates about the job President Trump is doing, and I'm open to many different subjects. My case: The economy is strong under President Trump. 1) Unemployment Rate: The unemployment rate is down to 3.9%.[1] The last time the unemployment rate was lower was April of 2000, and if we can drop below that 3.8%, then we are in pre-1970's territory.[2] This advantage has spread out over the course of many groups, especially Blacks and Hispanics.[3] Many of these groups have the best unemployment numbers in decades. Long Term Unemployment Rate is way down.[7] Initial[8] and continuing[9] jobless claims are way down. 2) Full Time Jobs: The number of Full Time jobs are greater than they have ever been.[5] 3) Nonfarm Payroll Jobs: The number of nonfarm payroll jobs are the greatest they've been since at least 2008.[6] 4) Wages: Wage growth usually comes last, but we have seen them grow.[10] Living Wage Family is also at an all time high.[13] 5) GDP: GDP growth has been stable and growing (most easily seen in the 5Y).[11] 6) Productivity: Productivity is at an all time high.[12] 7) Confidence: The Consumer Confidence Index (CCI), Business Confidence Index (BCI), and Composite Leading Indicator (CLI) are all positive.[14] 8) Capital Spending: According to David Brooks (no fan of President Trump) of the New York Times and citing Bloomberg, President Trump's tax cuts have resulted in a 39% capital spending increase, which is better than he was expecting.[15] 9) Interest Rates: Due to strong growth, the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates, something that hadn't been done since 2006.[16] Historical interest rate levels[17] 10) Stock Market: The stock market has grown extensively under President Trump.[18][19] 11) Manufacturing: The manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) is way up, a sign of economic health through manufacturing.[20] PMI considers manufacturing activity, inventory, and many other categories.[21] 12) Retail Sales: Retail sales have been healthy since President Trump took office.[22] 14) Building Permits: Building permits are rising.[23] 15) Housing Prices: Housing prices rose in 2017,[25] and continue to rise.[24] Rising prices is a sign of strong demand, which shows a strong economy. 16) Trade Deficit: The trade deficit has been declining sharply in 2018.[26] Overall, you can slice this economy just about any way you want, these economic numbers are healthy. Sources I have cited include journalists from the New York Times and Bloomberg admitting ecomoic health. I have shown the hard data in many different categories that are considered important to economic health. I've shown that the Federal Reserve finds this economy to be healthy, and the result is rising interest rates. To tie this all together, I have an article from Money Crashers explaining 16 major leading indicators of a healthy (or not) economy.[27] My argument shows that the ecomonic numbers under President Trump are favorable indicators for a healthy economy. The economy is strong under President Trump. Disagree with me? Then accept the challenge and make your case! NOTE: Dukeofpanda was quick to refute me in the comments, but they refused to debate me. Sources: [1] https://data.bls.gov...... [2] https://www.google.com...... [3] https://www.bls.gov...... [4] https://data.bls.gov...... [5] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [6] https://data.bls.gov...... [7] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [8] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [9] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [10] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [11] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [12] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [13] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [14] https://data.oecd.org...... [15] https://twitter.com...... [16] https://www.washingtonpost.com...... [17] https://www.moneycafe.com...... [18] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [19] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [20] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [21] https://www.investopedia.com...... [22] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [23] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [24] https://www.globalpropertyguide.com...... [25] http://fortune.com...... [26] https://tradingeconomics.com...... [27] https://www.moneycrashers.com......

As this is the final round, I will refrain from introducing new sources and arguments. My opponent's only rebuttal to my arguments addresses my refutation of his argument that the rich hire people. My opponent did not use his round to address several of my points. My opponent completely dropped my refutation to his first point that a flat tax system is more fair than a progressive tax system. I cannot further respond to any argument on this point he might make in this round; therefore he concedes this argument. My opponent completely drops my contention that a progressive tax helps reduce income inequality. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent completely drops my contention that excessive income inequality is economically inefficient. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent drops my arguments regarding progressive taxation's benefits to the economy, such as increased revenue, faster growth, and less volatility. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this argument. My opponent concedes my argument regarding that many rich (68% of millionaires) believe in progressive taxation. We must conclude that my opponent concedes this point. My opponent has argued that the rich make the companies who hire people. In making this argument, my opponent drops my arguments regarding the effects the middle and lower classes have on the economy and my argument that the rich still have plenty of profit left and thus still have plenty of incentive to continue hiring people. We must conclude that my opponent drops both these arguments.

When it comes to change, people are naturally a little weary. Such has been the case with most major social dynamics concerning the economy and the Job market. Anything that people feel like will result in the loss of jobs, people will automatically become a bit skeptical. The same dynamic is seen toward immigration, and significant economical changes in a specific state. Well, my goal in this debate it to quell those worries by showing how technology will help, rather than hurt the job market! I will be covering my opponents arguments within my own arguments.1) Technology works alongside humans, and creates more work!My opponent posts a video of a car factory busy at work mass producing vehicles. What you may also have noticed in the video is a couple of humans walking by in some of the frames assisting with some of the work. It is simply impossible right now to have a business run on pure technology, and that is because the human aspect will almost always be needed in conjunction with the technology, especially in a warehouse environment. The machine helps with the work, but without multiple people to tell it exactly what to do, it doesn't operate nearly as effectively. As someone who works in a warehouse, let me elaborate a little more clearly on how this works. Let's take a Wal-Mart distribution center, that has some of the coolest technology working to ship out the hundreds of thousands of different boxes being sent out to each of it's distributors daily. Most have 15-20 miles (1) of conveyor systems, a couple hundred fork lifts, computer systems used to properly convey all information accurately, and an advance computer scanning system that finds labels and sends each box to it's specific store automatically as a box passes through. The technology is incredible, but what is more incredible is the need of a human to operate and control all of this equipment, which leaves wal-mart distribution centers almost always hiring. They need someone on these forklifts pulling pallets from trucks to load on the conveyor belt. People labeling boxes appropriately and sending them to staples stock, or to break-pack employees who pick out individual items a store requests. They need supervisors, managers, and HR representatives for all the employees in these individual areas, that leaves distribution centers constantly hiring. The best part is some of these jobs that have higher responsibility in maintaining this expensive technology, also end up paying higher. Let's take your average distribution warehouse job- In Utah, it pays out starting at 16.50 and hour, and is an exceptionally easy job to get as long as you meet the physical requirements. Distribution centers around the states also pay competitively according to the states individual economy. Now let's get back to the car factory point, because it may be true that some companies use technology in a way that requires less humans than others. If you look at the description in my opponent's first video however, it says the following: "In answer to the many who have commented "how many people have these robots put out of work" the answer is 0. The factory was built in a town which had high unemployment after the Soviets left, and the production line is a small part of a plant which employs several thousand."Also whenever new technology is created, it requires people building this technology. That is a whole other job market that opens itself up for potential jobless people looking for careers. It's easy to see a small portion of a company where technology advancement looks amazing, and jump to the conclusion that the robots are taking over. The same could be said from someone taking a tour of a wal-mart distribution center looking at the amazing conveyor/scanning technology, but at the end of the day, great technology works best in the hands of great employees. 2) Are machines a feasible replacement to humans?Jonbonbon in the last round points out some benefits machines have to humans, which can be true, but there are also a lot of benefits humans have over machines. Machines that are used constantly or frequently get wear and tear, or break down. This requires human assistance to provide maintenance. This maintenance can be costly, especially if repairs are needed or parts need replacements. Also Burger Bot won't make the best burger; To have a machine move parts of a sandwich around is interesting, but it's not the most enticing principle ever. When I go to a burger joint, I choose where I go based on the taste and quality of the patty. How many people are interested in paying for a burger that was just thrown together without a human to verify it is the right temperature, the vegetables were in good condition and not rotted, the ketchup/mustard bottles are full and actually giving the right amount of sauce, etc, etc. Leaving a machine in charge of making food can be a very dangerous idea when talking about FDA inspections and customer service relations. Technology can potentially cost more than an employee. Let's use the burger bot example again, and say you had to pay a pretty penny to get the technology in the first place. Is buying the technology for let's say 50k, spending all the money constantly doing maintenance, and funding all the extra electricity bills, and potentially having messed up burgers. It is worth the money to do this when you can pay a fast food employee less than 25k a year, give them proper training to add the human touch?3) Customer Service RelationshipsHow does this play in customer service roles? Let's talk about Sophia. How many times have you yelled at your GPS because it is taking you a route that you know is longer, or doesn't account for construction in certain areas? How many times do we blame our phones for auto-correct messing up a sext and ruining our date? My opponent points out that phone operating companies being automated makes a smoother process, but how many times have you tried to use your voice with an operator system to tell it what you need so it can try to direct you where to go, just for it to push you through to the wrong department because it 'mis-heard you' or asks you annoyingly to repeat yourself many multiple times? Quite simply, while technology like Sophia is very interesting, it is bound to run into many of the same problem areas other technology quite often runs into. In the video with Sophia posted by my opponent, it's easy to see that Sophia is answering interview questions with typed out lines, fed by the producers. But how would this work realistically in a stake n shake? I tell the machine "I want a Caramel Shake with French fries", and it potentially hears "I want a Caramel Shake with extra ice". It's going to be a problem without a human presence to verify that everything is working properly. The logistics behind how this can work flawlessly are ultimately unknown by my opponent and myself, as much of this technology is only being tested and not released. But in the customer service industry, this may bring up a lot of problems. Imagine the impact technology will have on the technology impaired, or the elderly! People being forced to talk to computers when they have difficulty understanding them and how they operate. While having technology is awesome for people in the wal-mart or McDonald's checkout line that want to stream line the process with the machines, it remains un-realistic to think the human option of customer service will be completely ruled out from the endeavors. With all these potential errors that technology can provide (and often does, again referring to the GPS and cell-phone examples), is it really accurate to predict self-driving cars and machines that perform heart surgery are going to be flawless and provide less accidents? Further would you as a consumer trust yourself in the hands of a licensed profession surgeon who has done what he/she has done for years and has a degree, or a machine that can have any number of things go wrong with it. All it takes is for the power to go out and the patient is screwed, where as a doctor with knowledge and expertise in his field can improvise and use tools that don't require technology to perform the surgery. While it is easy to fantasize about the wonders of technology, we also have to be realistic in how we approach them and their over-use in the modern day world. A human presence will not become obsolete, and while it is true that technology is impacting the world, I am a firm believer that technology will only ever work alongside humans effectively.1. http://www.mwpvl.com...

Prices for goods will reduce to reflect the reduction in labor costs. When you just look at the retail cost, then you are not seeing the entire picture. You forget that cost to produce and transport of the products used in the fast food restaurants will be reduced as well. There is many levels of labor spending for a product that is sitting on the shelves in retail. So we could expect the cost of the product wholesale price to go down due to the cost of labor for 1. Transportation, 2. Warehouse, 3. Production, 4. Cost for labor from the energy companies. Price for labor for oil companies. You are only looking at this from one view. Product cost would reduce in the same way it would in the retail environment. The price of a hamburger in 1953 was 15 cents, and the minimum wage was 75 cents The price of kelloggs corn flakes when the minimum was $1 cost 2% of the hourly wage, and now its 3%. I retract about the strength of the dollar. New point. With a lower wage, companies will have the opportunity to make the job market competitive for a higher wage. You will be paid for what the company believes you are worth. New Point. With lower competitive wages, the US will be able to bring manufacturing back to the US. The high minimum wage does not make the products made in the US competitive with imports. Most countries have a lower minimum wage. In Conclusion The problem is unemployment, not minimum wage. Lowering the minimum wage will stimulate the job market. http://www.forbes.com... John T Harvey is an economics professor at Texas Christian University, Phd in economics. http://americandigest.org... Contains a picture of McDonald's menu with prices http://www.tvhistory.tv... Retired Engineer that collects information on American History as a hobby http://www.foodtimeline.org... Lynn Oliver Food Historian and Librarian http://www.dol.gov... Robert I. Lerman Professor of Economics at American University http://aspe.hhs.gov... Government Website