text:
CLEVELAND - Mobile Awareness LLC, a provider of transportation safety products, has introduced a high-resolution digital monitor upgrade for all VisionStat camera systems.
The digital VisionStat monitor presents a significant upgrade in picture quality found on both wired and wireless color camera systems offered for vehicle blind-spot detection, the company said.
Each of the digital VisionStat systems is a rugged and easily installed video solution available with either a 5.6-inch or the 7-inch color LCD monitor. The digital monitor is configurable with up to four infrared night vision CCD cameras and offers higher resolution, greater image clarity and automatically backlit buttons for improved user visibility, according to Mobile Awareness.
The new digital monitor is also contained in VisionStat Plus, which integrates the SenseStat obstacle detection sensor system directly into the wired VisionStat camera system with no additional wiring required. The combined features allow for both an active (audible) warning and a passive (visual) confirmation via a CCD camera. This provides the advantage of viewing a rearview camera image superimposed with the actual distance measurement (accurate to one inch) to the closest object within any of four sensor zones. Whenever the driver is not viewing the monitor, the system provides an audible alert should an unforeseen object appear behind the vehicle.
"Mobile Awareness continues to see an increasing demand among our customers for more flexible, effective and affordable safety systems," said Brandon Stotsenburg, vice president of sales and marketing at Mobile Awareness. "By offering the digital VisionStat improvements, we continue our commitment to provide easy-to-install, cost-effective and technically advanced solutions for increased vehicle safety."
In the past, customers were limited to monochrome or analog color monitors. The new digital VisionStat monitors offer improved image quality over those older technologies, yet still maintain the affordability Mobile Awareness is known for, the company said. To assist its customers in assessing this latest technology, Mobile Awareness offers a reduced-cost end-user evaluation program. This allows fleets to experience the benefits of enhanced safety on their particular vehicles, in a controlled environment with minimal investment.
"One of the most critical safety situations occurs when the driver must clearly see objects or people on his video monitor," Stotsenburg said. "With the VisionStat digital monitor, he will have improved awareness to an unforeseen object or individual in a blind zone. Ultimately, this added driver awareness will reduce costs by limiting preventable accidents."
Mobile Awareness LLC, based in Cleveland, designs and markets transportation safety products. The company provides integrated accident prevention solutions for commercial transportation professionals with its VisionStat wired and wireless vehicle camera systems, TireStat tire-pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) and SenseStat wired and wireless obstacle detection sensor systems. For more information, visit www.MobileAwareness.com.


text:
Thanks to Zev Yaroslavsky for condemning the sale of anti-Semitic books at a city-sponsored African Marketplace.
Of course, the publishers and vendors could always neutralize such opposition by simply repackaging the trash as art. Then, if anybody complains, they just cry "Censorship!" or "Suppression!" or "Free Speech!" That way they'll never have to defend the bilge. After all, the best defense is a good offense and there's no disputing taste.
Don't believe me? Consider David Wojnarowicz. He not only called New York's Roman Catholic Cardinal John O'Connor a "fat cannibal . . . creep in black skirts" and St. Patrick's Cathedral a "house of walking swastikas," but his "art" was lauded as an important exhibit in the recent, city-supported L.A. Art Festival. Not only that, but through the National Endowment for the Arts, we taxpayers paid him $15,000 to do it. Ah, what a country!
Los Angeles

subset: commoncrawl


text:
09 Days Of Adrenalin Rush
Go where few have dared and some have experienced. Drive your way through mesmerizing landscapes
from the chaotic plains of North India to the unblemished terrains of the Mighty Himalayas reaching
unimaginable heights of more than 18000 feet! The journey takes you to ancient monastries, beautiful
temples, crystal blue lakes, mesmerizing glaciers and treacherous heights where the adrenalin rush is high
but oxygen levels are low. Test your fitness & abilities and get rewarded by an unmatched sense of


text:
- Cool Treats Photopolymer Stamp Set & Frozen Teats Framelits @ the Bundle Price
- FREE Sale-a-bration set - Tasty Trucks Stamp Set
- FREE Materials to make 6 cards as a gift from me for taking my class! (2 each of 3 designs)
- 6 FREE Whisper White Envelopes
- If you need to make any changes or substitutions they must be made within 24 hours of your order. I will be closing this class out February 10th. This class will take 7-10 days to arrive once the order time is done.
Let me know if you are a new customer so I can send you our catalogs as a FREE welcome gift from me!
Class Supplies:
(You will need adhesive, dimensionals, glue dots & scissors for this class.)
Email me at firstname.lastname@example.com or text me @ 720-506-0485 for pricing information & to get your class delivered to your door!
Notes & Reminders: Do you have a large Wish List?
Then Join My Team! Inking Pretty Stampers!
Inking Pretty Stamp Club - Now Accepting New Members! Coming Soon!
Follow Me on Facebook & YouTube
Sign Up for my Customer Newsletter
SHOP: Clearance Rack - WeeklyDeals - Promotions
Join My Paper Pumpkin Patch Here!
Need a Stampin' Up! catalog? Email or call me!


text: Hugo House is a place for writers, with a concentrated focus on helping anyone who wants to write. They offer readings, classes, book launches, workshops, teen programs, consultations with professional writers, etc. Currently in a temporary location on First Hill, Hugo House will return to its original 11th Ave location once the redevelopment of its former site is completed, sometime in late-2017.


text:
Capitola Acupuncture
Call (831) 476-2022
Capitola Health Center
4895 Capitola Road
Capitola, CA
My clinic in Capitola celebrates its 18th anniversary at this location. Capitola Acupuncture is located in Santa Cruz County by the jewel box just a few blocks from the ocean and near the Shadowbrook restaurant on the corner of 49th St. and Capitola Road in beautiful Capitola-by-the-Sea. Experience relief from pain and the health benefits of acupuncture and herbal medicine at my Capitola location.
The Capitola acupuncutre clinic features full service insurance billing. To learn more about your coverage, call our office or click the following: Santa Cruz Acupuncture of Capitola Insurance Coverage.


text:
Global Biofertilizers Market: Snapshot
The demand in the global market for biofertilizers is projected to augment at a robust CAGR of 12.9% during the forecast period of 2017 to 2025, gaining traction from a number of factors such as growing awareness regarding its health and environmental benefits, gradual shift from chemical-based farming techniques to organic practices, growing adoption of biofertilizers in soil fertility management activities, growth of the organic food industry, and rise in the cost of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. On the other hand, lack of awareness in several potential emerging markets, poor infrastructure, and technological constraints are obstructing the proper prosperity of the biofertilizers market.
The global biofertilizers market is estimated to be worth US$4,092.1 mn by the end of 2025, up from its evaluated valuation of US$1,254.2 mn in 2016. As the awareness regarding biofertilizers grows in the emerging economies via persistent government support, the vendors of this market are expected to gain new opportunities.
Cereals and Grains Emerge as Profitable Application Segment
Application-wise, global biofertilizer market has been bifurcated into cereals and grains, fruits and vegetables, oil seeds and pulses and others segment including nursery turfs and ornamental plants. Currently, cereals and grains category provides the maximum demand for biofertilizers, owing to increasing population and decreasing arable land. It has been detected that cereals & grains need considerable amount of biofertilizers for proper growth. Rice, wheat, corn, oats, and barley are a few major cereal & grain crops cultivated extensively across the globe. Farmers have started to use biofertilizers as a replacement to chemical fertilizers as it helps in sustaining the soil nutrient generation cycle. This development has escalated the demand for biofertilizers, especially for cereal & grain cultivation.
Based on product, the global bio-fertilizer market has been segmented into phosphate mobilizing bio-fertilizer, nitrogen fixing bio-fertilizer, and potassium mobilizing bio-fertilizer. Some of the examples of nitrogen fixing bio-fertilizers are azotobacter, anabaena, clostridium, and nostoc. Examples for the phosphate mobilizing bio-fertilizers can be pantoea agglomerans, microbacterium laevaniformans, and psuedomonas putida Bacillus edaphicus, which is one of the most common potassium mobilizing biofertilizer.
North America and Europe to Exhibit Most Lucrative Prospects
Geographically, the global biofertilizers market has been bifurcated into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and The Middle East and Africa (MEA). In terms of consumption, North America currently serves the maximum demand for biofertilizers, followed by Europe. This chunk of demand for biofertilizers from these two regions can be can be attributed to the favorable regulatory scenario in these regions that house a number of developed countries such as The U.S., Canada, Germany, and Russia. The demand for high yielding crops are high in these regions as well. The high demand for biofertilizers North America is also a reflection of the progress of biotechnology (especially fermentation technology) as well as advancements in molecular biology. Common Agricultural Policy formulated by the European government promotes organic farming and the application of biofertilizers. In Asia-Pacific region, the market for biofertilizers is expected to flourish in the coming years owing to the overall advancements and increase in population in the region. Latin America is also a key region for the global biofertilizers market with significant contribution from Mexico. The growth potential in Middle East & Africa, however remain unattractive.
Biomax, Novozymes A/S, Protan AG, Bodisen Biotech, Inc., T. Stanes & Company Limited, PotashCorp Agri Life, Italpollina SpA , Symborg S.LGujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., and Rizobacters Argentina S.A are some of the key companies currently operating in the global biofertilizers market.
Global Biofertilizers Market: Overview
Biofertilizers are the substances which make use of the living micro-organisms and are applied to seed, plant surfaces, or soil. They promote the growth of the plants by supplying adequate amount of nutrients and improve the quality and yield of the crops. The three major biofertilizers existing in the market are nitrogen fixing bio-fertilizer, phosphate mobilizing bio-fertilizer and potassium mobilizing bio-fertilizer. Biofertilizers add nutrients through the natural processes of fixing atmospheric nitrogen, solubilizing phosphorous, and stimulating plant growth through the synthesis of growth promoting substances. The benefits of Biofertilizers include longer shelf life, less contamination, better survival on seeds and soil, high commercial revenues and export potential. Biofertilizers help to increase the nutrient absorbing surface area beyond the depletion zone of the root. Different kinds of soil micro-organisms belonging to several taxa of the bacteria, fungi, and protozoa kingdoms, colonizing the rhizosphere or the plant tissues and promoting plant growth, can be utilized for the production of Biofertilizers.
Global Biofertilizers Market: Segmentation
Global bio-fertilizer market can be segmented on the basis of product and applications. The product segment of bio-fertilizer market includes nitrogen fixing bio-fertilizer, phosphate mobilizing bio-fertilizer and potassium mobilizing bio-fertilizer. In terms of application, global biofertilizer market can be categorized into cereals and grains, fruits and vegetables, oil seeds and pulses and others segment including nursery turfs and ornamental plants.
The report estimates and forecasts the Bio Fertilizers market on the global, regional and country levels. The study provides forecast between 2017 and 2025 based on volume (Tons) and revenue (US$ Mn) with 2016 as the base year. The report comprises an exhaustive value chain analysis for each of the segments. It provides a comprehensive view of the market. Value chain analysis also offers detailed information about value addition at each stage. The study includes drivers and restraints for the Biofertilizers market along with their impact on demand during the forecast period. The study also provides key market indicators affecting the growth of the market. The report analyzes opportunities in the Bio Fertilizers market on the global, regional and country level. Drivers, restraints, and opportunities mentioned in the report are justified through quantitative and qualitative data. These have been verified through primary and secondary resources. Furthermore, the report analyzes substitute analysis of Biofertilizers and global average price trend analysis.
Global Biofertilizers Market: Research Methodology
The report includes Porter's Five Forces Model to determine the degree of competition in the Biofertilizers market. The report comprises a qualitative write-up on market attractiveness analysis, wherein end-users and regions have been analyzed based on attractiveness for each region. Growth rate, market size, raw material availability, profit margin, impact strength, technology, competition, and other factors (such as environmental and legal) have been evaluated in order to derive the general attractiveness of the market. The report comprises price trend analysis for Biofertilizers between 2017 and 2025.
The study provides a comprehensive view of the Biofertilizers market by dividing it into, product, application, and geography segments. The product segment of the biofertilizers market is classified as nitrogen fixing, phosphate mobilizing and potassium mobilizing fertilizers The Biofertilizers market, by application has been categorized into oil seeds & pulses, cereals & grains, fruits & vegetables and others. The regional analysis of global biofertilizer market include includes the current and forecast consumption of biofertilizers in North America (U.S, Canada), Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Rest of Latin America) , Europe (Germany, France, Russia, Spain, CIS, Greece, Ukraine, Italy, Serbia, and Rest of Europe),Asia Pacific (China, India, ASEAN (Excluding Indonesia and Vietnam), Japan, Australia, Rest of Asia Pacific), and Middle East & Africa (Iran, Israel, Nigeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Rest of Middle East & Africa).Favorable regulatory scenario in highly developed regions such as North America and Europe are driving the market of global biofertilizers.
Global Biofertilizers Market: Competitive Landscape
The report covers detailed competitive outlook that includes market share and profiles of key players operating in the global market. Key players profiled in the report include PotashCorp Agri Life, Bodisen Biotech, Inc. , Italpollina SpA , Protan AG , Novozymes A/S , Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. , T. Stanes & Company Limited , Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited Symborg S.L, & Rizobacters Argentina S.A. Company profiles include attributes such as company overview, number of employees, brand overview, key competitors, business overview, business strategies, recent/key developments, acquisitions, and financial overview (wherever applicable).
Secondary research sources that were typically referred to include, but were not limited to Food & Agricultural Organization(FAO), International Fertilizer Association (IFA), National Centre of Organic Farming (NCOF) and International Fertilizer Society (IFS). Other sources such as internal and external proprietary databases, statistical databases and market reports, news articles, national government documents, and webcasts specific to companies operating in the market have also been referred for the report.
In-depth interviews and discussions with a wide range of key opinion leaders and industry participants were conducted to compile this research report. Primary research represents the bulk of research efforts, supplemented by extensive secondary research. Key players' product literature, annual reports, press releases, and relevant documents were reviewed for competitive analysis and market understanding. This helped in validating and strengthening secondary research findings. Primary research further helped in developing the analysis team's expertise and market understanding.
The global biofertilizers market has been segmented as follows:
Biofertilizers Market – Product Analysis
- Nitrogen Fixing
- Phosphate Mobilizing
- Potassium Mobilizing
Biofertilizers Market – Application Analysis
- Cereals & Grains
- Oil seeds & Pulses
- Fruits & Vegetables
- Others
Biofertilizers Market – Regional Analysis
- North America
- Canada
- Latin America
- Brazil
- Mexico
- Argentina
- Rest of Latin America
- Europe
- Germany
- France
- Russia
- Spain
- Greece
- Ukraine
- Italy
- Serbia
- Rest of Europe
- Asia Pacific
- China
- India
- ASEAN (Ex Indonesia & Vietnam)
- Indonesia
- Vietnam
- Japan
- Australia
- Rest of Asia Pacific
- Middle East & Africa
- South Africa
- Iran
- Israel
- Nigeria
- Morocco
- Saudi Arabia
- Egypt
- Rest of Middle East & Africa


text:
Brian Fisher | Human Coalition
As a young man attending the University of Virginia, Dean Nelson had given little thought to abortion, until a conversation with a fellow Christian opened his eyes.
"A young woman asked for my opinion on abortion. At the time I was pretty ambivalent. Abortion was legal, so I figured there wasn't much debate about it."
Then the student asked him a question that would change the trajectory of his life. "I remember her saying to me, 'Wasn't slavery legal?'"
That single question, in tandem with Dean's growing relationship with the Lord, transformed his worldview. "I began to realize the abortion issue did not reside outside of my faith."
Following graduation, as Dean became more involved in the political arena, the issue of abortion continued to resurface. "I soon realized there were many platforms to help raise awareness about the abortion crisis."
"One thing led to another, and I ended up serving with organizations like Care Net, which eventually connected me with Human Coalition."
Dean Nelson is one of Virginia Christian Alliance's founding board members.
PDF Brochure | Islam - An Overview
Other Articles by Dan Wolf
Of Governance, Healthcare, and Refugees
About that 1% on Extremists
Extremism, Islam, and Politics
Extremism and Islam - Law and Culture


text:
The Hygienic Report and the State Registration are applied for food products, preservatives, materials and goods made out of them that come into contact with food products, perfumery and cosmetic products, textile, sewing and jersey materials containing chemical fibers, certain items of machine-building industry and a number of other industrial goods.
Hygienic Report and the State Registration are documents issued in evidence of a permit given by bodies and institutions under the Department of Sanitary and Epidemiological Control in the RF Health Ministry for production or import of goods consistent with statutory requirements. The Hygienic Report and the State Registration are an official conformation that products are safe for human health provided certain conditions are met.
Hygienic reports and the State Registration are issued by bodies of the state sanitary and epidemiological service of the Russian Federation upon consultation of normative documents, launch of new products or conclusion of contracts to purchase products abroad. A reason to support issuance of a hygienic report and a State Registration are provided by results of hygienic assessment of products and examination of appropriate normative acts, their production and use. Such reason for imported products rests on evaluation of a Safety Certificate provided by an importer-country and results obtaining during tests of products performed in Russia.
The Hygienic Certificate and the State Registration need to be issued before an Export Certificate is issued.
This concerns the following export certificates:
- Gost R Certificate of Conformity
- Declaration of Conformity
- TR Technical Regulations "Certificate of Conformity"
- TR Technical Regulations Customs Union Certificate of Conformity
- Gost R Ex Proof Certificate of Conformity
Validity periods of the Hygienic Certificate/ State Registration
The Hygienic Report has a validity period of five years and is issued by the bodies and institutions under the Department of Sanitary and Epidemiological Control in the RF Health Ministry for production or import of goods consistent with statutory requirements. The State Registration however is valid for a lifetime. This State Registration process is therefore a very hard procedure.
Examples of products that require Hygienic Report or State Registration
- Clothing
- Food
- Machines that come in contact with food
- Cosmetics
We can prepare a quote for you based on the following information:
- A completed application-form (download below)
- Product Catalogue (description and pictures of the product)
List of documents which shall be submitted in Russian for the Hygienic Report or State Registration:
1. Russian description
2. Pictures
3. Inquiry form fulfilled
4. Area of use
5. Specification of materials, which are used for production of the product to be Certified.
6. Sample(s) of your product(s)
Sercons Europe can also make you an offer for the translation of documents.


text:
Sri Lanka faces international and diplomatic challenges as the government has spurned pressure from powerful Western countries over its human rights record, a senior minister today alleged.
"Our leader (President Mahinda Rajapaksa) is being disliked because he is not pro-West," senior minister Nimal Siripala de Silva said while addressing a political gathering in the central district of Kandy.
"As we know we are being threatened with international investigations against us. No international force would be able to undermine us if we remain economically stronger and keep our heads high," de Silva said.
Sri Lanka faces a third successive resolution at the UN Human Rights Council in March censuring the country on its lack of progress on human rights accountability and reconciliation with the Tamil minority after a bloody three-decade civil war.
The government fears that the resolution may end up calling for an independent international probe on Sri Lanka's alleged war crimes during the final phase of the military battle that crushed the LTTE in 2009.
The issue is being used by the government to whip up nationalist sentiment in its current poll campaign for the Western and Southern provincial council elections to be held next month.
The government blames the pro-LTTE Tamil diaspora living in the West for instigating action against Sri Lanka.


text:
|Analysis Report Messages
SAS® Data Step Batch Server enables you to run SAS DATA steps and procedures in batch mode.
For any updates or hot fixes that are required before you can migrate, see the baseline requirements topic.
The naming convention in the SAS Management Console has changed. In SAS 9.1.3, the forward slash and backslash characters are supported in server names, but in SAS 9.2 and later these characters are not supported. Other unsupported characters in server names include control characters (e.g., tabs, newlines) and leading or trailing blanks. The name must not be greater than 60 characters, and must be specified (non-null).
Contributing to Migration
The migration team appreciates your feedback. Send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.com with questions and comments for our developers, testers, and writers.


text:
Once a month the Saturday outdoor class will be held at Innovation Campus Health Club at 7am in lieu of the outdoor cross training class.
Come along and join in on this new style of class that will be strength and cardio based. The first session is on the 31st May; check out the rest of the class dates here on our EVENTS CALENDER.
NO EXTRA CHARGE for current Chodat Fitness members


text:
The cuisine of our hotel is designed around local French produce, so that you can savour, for example, fish and seafood from our coast. Old favourites are there too, of course, so there is always something for every taste, and our chefs are always flexible faced with any special dietary requirements.
More specifically, our beef is always 'Vache Normande' - a guarantee of qualtiy which stands for natural breeding and full traceability.
Our seafood is straight from the sea, 5 kilometres from your plate. Oysters (La Perle d'Utah), Mussels (moules de bouchot), Whelks - and of course the Normandy Lobster. (take a look at our menu)
Our wines are selected by Jo, who has a well-developed nose for quality and taste. The result is a balanced carte, which contains both known and unknown gems. (take a look at our winelist) Good, drinkable, vin de table is always available too.


text:
Pompon Daisy White
Common Names: Daisy Poms
This item is sold by the bunch.
7 stems per bunch.
Use white pompon daisies, also known as spray chrysanthemums, to add the perfect amount of elegance to your floral arrangement. These flowers feature multiple blooms per stem in a variety of shapes and sizes, so they're great for adding volume and texture to your DIY bouquet or centerpieces. These versatile blooms can be used as filler or as a secondary flower, and compliment just about any bouquet. The long white petals surround a bright green center, offering a stunning pop of color. The white hue also helps balance the arrangement's palette, creating an eye-catching bouquet that's sure to impress your guests. They look great with any number of flowers, including roses, gerbera daisies, lilies and hydrangea. When you order your pompon daisies from Blooms by the Box, you know you'll receive high-quality blooms without going over your budget.
Size: 1.5"-2.5" bloom diameter and stem length 22"-26"
Vase life: 1-2 weeks depending on environmental conditions.
Availability: All year
Suggestions: Pair the white pompon daisy with bright yellow and green flowers.The center of the daisy displays hues of green and yellows that pair well with other yellow chrysanthemums and flowers. They are also beautiful with a multitude of colors. Red, pink, blue, green, purple are great colors!


text:
Blake Lively may have given birth to her daughter James less than a year ago, but you wouldn't be able to tell by looking at the new mom. Lively seems to have bounced back to her pre-baby body in record-breaking time, a fact she proved when she donned a bikini on the set of her newest film.
Lively was spotted wearing a bright orange bikini top with printed Tory Burch bottoms while filming The Shallows in New South Wales, Australia last week (above). The actress looked beyond stunning, showing off her miles-long legs and killer curves in the skimpy bathing suit. Later, she topped off the bikini with a gray rash guard while filming a surfing scene (below). It's safe to say we're in for some major #fitspo when this movie hits theaters.


text:
Do you put a blindfold over your eyes when driving down the road? Do you tie your hands behind your back when having dinner? Do you bind your feet when going swimming? I didn't think so. Then why can't we allow the Body of Christ to work as God designed it to?
So many times we (and by "we" I mean "me") want to handicap the Body. I make excuses and have false reasonings but what it comes down to is sin. God has been gracious to us, His children, to place us into the universal Body of Christ, but it actually goes further than that. He has placed us within local bodies, that must be given the opportunity to function.
I am learning this through a trial that is in my life at this moment. I have no control over anything, which is scary for me. I am a "fixer", I like to know what's going on and I try to figure out all the tangents that my puny mind can think of. Know what? Most of the time I am wrong and things work out differently, so my worries have been for naught. Of course scripture has a lot to say about this and I "know" these things, but only on the occasions that things are out of my control do I learn the lesson all over again. Why can't I seem to remember this in my daily life? Why can't Matthew 6:20-34 sink in without a trial?
Why can't I share my burdens with the rest of the body so they can come along side me in prayer? Why do I feel the need to deprive the plan of God to allow His body to function in the way that He designed? The short answer is, of course, sin. The long answer includes pride, our stubbornness or maybe even just not wanting to burden someone else with what we see as "our issues". I think it is the latter for me as I hear others who are striving and asking for prayer I "feel" that it wouldn't be "fair" to encumber them any more than they already are. Know what I'm finding out? That the saying "Misery loves company" should actually be "Needs need company".
This is wonderfully summed up in Galatians 5:13-14:
For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Then Paul goes on to tell us in Galatians 6:2:
Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
It really doesn't get much plainer than that. We are to actually take the burdens of others as our own and "bear" them along side. No prerequisite that we are to not have any burdens when someone else does, nothing about not wanting to impose on anyone else, just the admonition to "bear one another's burdens". What does that look like? I can speak from experience that it looks just like it sounds. We all have our "problems" and we all come along side one another and pray, seek God, comfort, hold up, lend a shoulder, cry together, whatever it takes to "bear one another's".
God has been so good to His children. Even in what looks to be a challenging time He has shown His grace and mercies. He is teaching me some things through a current trial, actually re-teaching my stubborn self. I will be sharing in the near future the trials that are before me and my family and ask for you, others in the Body of Christ, to bear our burdens and to function as He designed. He works through His people and He loves to lavish Himself on us. What may seem daunting is nothing for the One who created the Universe. Even if we can't see the end, you can believe that is a sure sign that you should immediately turn it over to Him.
Still learning and still asking for prayer.
Matthew 6:34:
Therefore don't worry about tomorrow, because tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


text:
Sea bass "en paupiette"
I'm taking you back twenty-six years to my early days as chef at the famed Le Cirque in New York City—to the site where restaurant DANIEL is housed today. This dish was created using four main ingredients—sea bass, leek, potato, and red wine. The original recipe is now served only at Café Boulud, while every year at DANIEL we create a new recipe around the same four elements, but with new techniques and presentations.
The art of any classic dish that we remember from a great chef is that it is composed of fairly simple elements. In this recipe, the trick is in the special technique of overlapping translucent sheets of potato, which requires the large Idaho variety sliced very thinly—either with a turning slicer or mandoline—to wrap around the sea bass. By the time you roast the potatoes crispy on all sides, the fish is perfectly cooked. I also add a pomme purée to offer a contrasting texture of potato.
This is my interpretation of fish and chips—more elegant, with a real Lyonnais slant.
Sauce meurette
Pomme purée
Leek and spinach purée
Step 1: Paupiette
Make each fillet as rectangular as possible (about 5 x 2 inch—12.75 x 5 cm) by slicing horizontally through 1-inch (2.5 cm) of the thick end of the fillet and folding it over toward the thinner side to flatten the surface.
Cut a vertical score on the tail end of each fillet, a few inches from the end, making sure not to cut all the way through, and tuck that end under.
This recipe was originally published in "My Best Daniel Boulud" (Éditions Alain Ducasse). See all credits
All My Chefs suggests
Other recipes by Daniel Boulud


text:
Police: Stranger approached teen girl in Northport
Police are searching for the stranger who approached a teen girl in Northport.
According to police, the 14-year-old was riding her bike at the intersection of Stone Court and Stone Drive around 6 p.m. Monday. That is when a man in a small red pickup truck allegedly made several inappropriate comments to the girl.
The girl ran and called police.


text:
The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points
Minimum Wage should not increase to $15.
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
|Voting Style:
|Open with Elo Restrictions
|Point System:
|7 Point
|2 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|6,195 times
|Debate No:
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (119)
Votes (3)
Resolution: The US Minimum Wage should not be raised to $15 an hour.
- No semantics.
- The time-frame for increase must be reasonable.
- Sources may be in an external link.
- Spelling and Grammar / Conduct sources are void.
The topic of the US Minimum Wage has been a hot spot for political and economic debate since it's creation in 1938. Created by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and set to $0.25 an hour, the wage has been the centerpiece of an unchallenged quantity of studies and academia. Pro (LordHelm) and Con (Romanii) will debate whether the Minimum Wage should be increased to $15 an hour within a fair time-frame (as high as 2025). Voters may only use Sources and Arguments to decide a winner. The debate has been reset to allow the opponents a chance to review their arguments, as neither side felt satisfied with their rounds.
Romanii has been picked for the debate, as he was the most qualified debater. He may start the first round, and I end in the 4th round. Otherwise, first round is for acceptance only.
I'll be using this round only for acceptance. Good luck!
Thanks to Romanii for accepting this debate.
P1: Corporate Income v Employer's Income
A) Large Corporations.
A common misconception regarding the costs of Minimum Wage is that it's paid for by the corporations. McDonald's earns around $28 bn a year [1]. However, only $5.8 bn of this is profit. A lot at first, but McDonald's has 440,000 employees earning $9 an hour, a national average of 1,789 hours a year [2]. This would cost McDonald's upwards of $4.72 bn a year. Costing McDonald's over 80% of their profits.
The problem starts with the employer. The Employer is not the McDonald's company, but instead the franchise owner. Over 80% of their restaurants of privately owned franchises [3]. Whereas the Company earns high profit margins, independent restaurants average 2.4% [4]. A local McDonald's averages $800,000 (based on total revenue / outlets) and an average profit of $20,000 a year. The remaining profit is strictly corporate side. Based on this, and assuming the outlet has 15 workers [5](my place of work in a rural location consists of 27,) it would cost the outlet over $150,000.
This becomes a large issue. Independent franchises can not afford to pay doubled wages. and corporate can not afford to make up the difference for their franchises. This leads into P3: Stock Value.
B) Small businesses.
The next issue would be the cost to local businesses that run separate of a franchise. Profit Margins aren't much higher. The highest profit margins were for Limited Service establishments, at 6% [6]. To reuse the McDonald's estimate, $48,000. Still well under the $150,000 cost for just 15 employees [7]. Most establishments can not afford the increase in cost, and will surely go under, hire employees, or raise costs (leading to going under). New establishments have a 60% chance of going under in the first three years [8]. This number would skyrocket under increased costs and prices.
This leads into a major issue. Ripple effect. While small increases may have small ripples that heal over time (regardless of if it leaves an economic scar), a sudden increase to $15 an hour, even over five years, an increase 15x larger than most any other increase prior, will leave a massive ripple that may not heal. A massive increase in failure rates in new restaurants would eliminate industry growth, and the elimination of rural and independent restaurants that can't afford to raise prices 35% to make up the cost while maintaining the same profit margins. For Franchises, with a profit margin 1/3rd of that, they would have to raise prices by 71%. The Dollar Menu would have to be removed to keep business alive. This is based on wages taking up 35% of restaurant costs [9].
Restaurants make up 18% of all Minimum Wage workers, around 3,750,000 workers [10]. The industry as a whole employs 10% of the total US Workforce, and is set to create over 1.4 million new jobs within a decade [11]. Risking this industry would damage 14+ million jobs and wreck the Minimum Wage demographic. The industry makes up over 4% of the US GDP. This is just one of the many Minimum Wage industries that would get crippled. Supermarkets, like Walmart and K-Mart, manage profit margins between 1 - 2% [12]. They would have to raise prices incredible sums to keep afloat. Most in rural regions would go under, as they don't have the customer base to risk.
Another major industry at risk is the Gas Station industry. Gas Stations run on minimum wage, and they only earn pennies per dollar. $50 in gas can equal $1.20 in profit [13]. Most profit is from the actual store [14], where prices are already too high. Profit margins for gas stations are 1.7% [15]... Any Gas Station that's open 24 hours a day will suffer the worse. Midnight hours would become profitless. This is a dangerous industry to hit hard.
More will be discussed in P3.
P2: Average Annual Wages.
Con must assume that increasing Minimum Wage reduces poverty and increases wages. If it does increase the wages of the entirety of Minimum Wage workers, we'd see a notable increase in annual wages. Instead we see the opposite. As Minimum Wage goes down (based on 2013 USD standard)[16], the average Income of the US goes up [17]. This may not imply lower minimum wages lead to higher incomes, but it does imply that increasing the Minimum Wage does nothing for increasing the annual wages. If higher Minimum Wages led to a positive ripple effect, we should see this... be it from raising the pay of everyone increasing, or the increase in the economy.
Another look into the issue of correlation leads us to measuring the actual increases in the wage along side GDP growth [18]. For Con's case to stand, we MUST see a positive effect on GDP growth. In my chart, red lines show the moment of increase in the Minimum Wage. Of the nine increases, only two see an economic growth follow. The first was after WWII, when millions of high earning US Soldiers returned home. And the second, around 1978, saw rocky growth at best. Economic Growth has, otherwise, never followed an increase in Minimum Wage. For Con's case to be true, there must be a positive ripple effect.
If anything, the GDP decreases after practically all Minimum Wage increases. Again, while not implying the Minimun Wage was to blame, it does defy the logic Con must establish.
P3: Stock Values.
Companies stock would become a huge issue if profits disappear, prices go up without potential new return, or investors get scared. If McDonald's suddenly had it's franchises paying out $4.8 bn more a year in wage, it would cripple their stock. While most companies stock can survive a $0.25 increase, a $7.50 increase is well beyond the safe mark.
Walmart has a market cap of $205.5 bn [19]. Having to double the paychecks of each of their employees would cost upwards of $15 bn. This would eliminate all of Walmart's profits. Since we know the individual profit margins of the individual shops are lower than the overall corporate profit margins, most Walmart shops would have plummeting profit margins, and the stock of the overall company would drop entirely. Bad, especially since their stock has dropped over 30% in the last year, and most companies are struggling to readjust in a post-recession era. But this isn't a Walmart issue...
McDonald's has seen incredibly large sales declines in the past few years. In fact, McDonald's saw larger declines than they expected [20]. This, despite all the efforts put into promoting the franchise recently. This issue is hitting much of the Fast Food industry. Subway is seeing the largest decline [21]. Sales for the industry has dropped due to public awareness, but mostly the efficiency of better quality preserved foods that can be prepared in minutes without driving [22, 23].
All this taken into account, the stocks of minimum wage employers is destined only to fail, along with the companies themselves.
P4: Effect on Employees.
Most Economists have a fairly good idea that increasing the Minimum Wage would lead to a reduction in employment, or at least lead to a slowdown in future employment. One popular study done by the NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH claimed that every 1 percent increase in average wages is associated with a 0.12% reduction in employment [24]. The increase is associated with as much as a 0.92% decrease in counties with lower average wages. By such measurements, a 100% increase in minimum wage would lead to a 12% reduction in employment. While obviously an extreme, even a 6% reduction would be crippling to the US economy. Counties facing lower average wages would face major recessions (as the highest possible reduction in employment is 92%. Obviously an extreme, but again, even a fourth the amount would be significant.)
The increase in wages, if not outweighed by a reduction in hours, would be outweighed by unemployment and an economic downturn. Another study by David Neumark found that minimum wages correlated (with controls in place to remove outside variables) with teenage job elasticity of -0.3 [25]. Meaning the demand of teenagers in the job market was reduced as prices increased. In basic terms, demand went down as prices went up. It's a basic principle in economics that when you need less people to buy a product, you raise the prices. Everything is a product. This is why when applying for a job, even at an establishment like McDonald's (where pay starts around $9 an hour), you write down Minimum Wage for the desired wage.
Most fast food companies are not in a position to pay doubled wages. They especially can't afford it when we take into account who is paying. Minimum Wage does not correlate with higher GDP growth or higher paychecks. Minimum Wage does, however, lead to higher amounts of job reduction and would cripple the stock values of major employers who are facing slowing business.
Minimum Wage should not be doubled.
Sources: http://pasted.co...
Pro's entire case revolves around the premise that an increase in the minimum wage will severely hurt employers' profits, thus leading to all sorts of unpleasant consequences like businesses going bankrupt, stock values crashing, and unemployment rates rising. However, as I am going to argue, employers' profits will *not* significantly decrease -- if anything, they will *increase*. But of course, this seems absurd -- how can forcing companies to nearly double their labor costs possibly help them in any way? The answer to this lies in 3 critical mitigating factors which Pro has neglected to mention -- (1) increased consumption, (2) higher worker productivity, and (3) lower corporate tax rates.
But before I get into those, let's estimate the aggregate expense to businesses from having to double their labor costs. 42% of the workforce earns below the proposed minimum wage [1], and the current size of the workforce is about 123 million people [2], so that's roughly 52 million workers who would be getting a pay raise. Forbes calculated that the average salary of a person earning $15 per hour would be $17500 [3], and based on that, we can infer that someone earning the current MW ($7.25) would have a salary of around $8750. For the sake of simplicity (and to make this an extremely generous estimate), let's assume that all 52 million benefactors are earning the current MW, so that all of them will get an annual pay raise of $8750. This adds up to a grand total cost of... $455 billion. Keep this number in mind as I delve into my case.
C1) Increased Consumption
This is a fairly basic principle of economics -- when consumer incomes increase, aggregate demand increases as well, and the economy expands (i.e. businesses' profits grow). This is especially true because the consumers in question are poor: "'The marginal propensity to consume is substantially larger for low-wealth than for high-wealth households.' Poor people are what economists call 'borrowing constrained.' They tend to have more needs than are being met, so when money arrives, they spend it." [4]. The point here is that the majority of money paid to employees is quickly funneled back into the economy through consumption of goods. According to a paper released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, "an increase of $1.75 in the hourly federal minimum wage raises aggregate household spending by roughly $48 billion in the year following the minimum wage hike" [5]. In this debate, we are discussing an increase of $7.75, so we can extrapolate that the resultant boost in overall consumption (i.e. revenues for businesses) would be more than $212 billion.
C2) Higher Productivity
That higher wages result in greater worker productivity is not only intuitive, but also a well-documented theory among economists, as demonstrated this literature review by the National Bureau of Economic Research [6]. In addition to the obvious increase in 'motivation' which comes from large pay raises, workers who have greater income security also experience less poverty-related stress, which further boosts their productivity [7]. Moreover, when they are paid more, workers are far less likely to change jobs, meaning that employers have to spend less on attracting new human capital, and they also receive the immense benefits of having more experienced, long-term employees [8]. In fact, one study published in the Industrial and Labor Relations Review found that "high-wage firms can sometimes offset more than half of their higher wage costs through improved productivity and lower hiring and turnover costs" [9]. Apply this to the $455 billion labor cost increase -- businesses will see at least a $228 billion growth in revenues.
C3) Corporate Tax Cuts
73% of the United States' welfare expenditures are received by employed individuals with insufficient wages [10], and the total amount that the US spends on welfare is about $454 billion per year [11]. However, if the MW hike in question is implemented, then all employed people will be earning a "living wage", and will therefore no longer need assistance from welfare programs. This means that increasing the MW would reduce the amount of money the government needs by approximately $331 billion, thus freeing up space in the federal budget for a tax cut -- more specifically, a corporate tax cut. The total revenue from corporate taxes is currently $342 billion [12], so a MW hike would allow us to virtually *eliminate* the tax. The takeaway here is that businesses would be allowed to keep $331 billion more of their revenues than they otherwise would.
So according to my absurdly generous calculations, the total cost to businesses will be about $455 billion.
On the other hand, it was calculated that businesses would undergo massive increases in revenue from...
Increased consumption -- $212 billion
Higher worker productivity -- $228 billion
Lower corporate tax rates -- $331 billion
TOTAL -- $771 billion
Thus, we arrive at a quite conservative estimate of the net effect of the proposed MW hike on businesses' profits:
+ $316 billion
This large increase in profits has a positive impact on society at large because it enables businesses to create more jobs and pursue the production of innovative goods which improve the quality of life for everyone. With that established, let's not forget the most obvious positive impact of a MW hike -- a drastic increase in standard of living for 52 million people and their families. That is a huge benefit in and of its self; just as we take it for granted that increased unemployment is a "bad" thing, we should also take it for granted that increased standards of living is a "good" thing, and due to the sheer number of people it encompasses, it alone outweighs pretty much any impact my opponent can make.
Raising the MW to $15 has nothing but positive effects.
The resolution is resoundingly negated.
[1] http://www.nelp.org...
[2] http://www.statista.com...
[3] http://www.forbes.com...
[4] http://www.bloomberg.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com... (pdf file, pg. 3)
[6] http://www.nber.org...
[7] http://www.worldbank.org...
[8] http://www.nber.org... (pg. 21)
[9] http://www.jstor.org...
[10] http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu...
[11] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
[12] https://www.nationalpriorities.org...
R1: Increased Consumption.
This claim has already been debunked in My P2: Annual Wages case. Increased Consumption means increased spending. The GDP is merely a measurement of the movement of currency in a nation, aka spending. In R2, I gave evidence that minimum wage increases have never been followed by GDP growth. A case dropped by Con showing that when minimum wage increased [1], GDP growth almost always decreased [2]. For Con's case to be true, we MUST see an increase in GDP growth. History opposes Con's case.
Along with historically inconsistency, Con's case also falls short of academic consensus. In a popular study by famous economist J. Sabia, he shows that increases in minimum wage have only led to a negative impact on the GDP, specifically for low-skilled industries [3].
Reasons for this being that hikes in minimum wage correlates strongly with unemployment rates among teenagers [4]. The increase in unemployment negates a major source of growth in the economy, and reduces productivity. Another inherent issue with Con's claim is that only a small portion of those postivitely effected by hikes in wages are major contributors to the economy. Over 62% of minimum wage workers work only as a summer job, and provide little to the economy [5]. It should be noted that Con's own source on the $17,500 claim states that this income is greatly outweighed by larger unemployment [6]. It must also be noted that Con's math is wrong. The CBO puts the net gain on income for $10.10 an hour at only $2 bn a year once increases and decreases in income are accounted for [12]. Even at $15 an hour, income would, at most, increase by $5 bn, but an exponentially increasing rate of disemployment would have a much larger decreasing effect, so net gain would be lower.
A major contributor to lacking economic growth is that the increase in prices, following basic economic philosophy, reduces demand. This causes less consumption overall. We see this increase in prices across nations with minimum wages above $6.00 an hour. Using minimum wages gathered from OECD [7], and CPI information [8], we find that as minimum wage increases, there is an increase in CPI. Especially in the restaurant field, where a large ratio of employees are mw. The restaurant CPI follows minimum wage to a near perfect degree. We see this supported in academia by Aaronson, French, and MacDonald (2007)[9], where they found unambiguous increases in prices when wages increase. This claim was later supported by studies done in 2015 [10].
Empirically and historically speaking, raising minimum wage does not increase consumption, but instead leads to lower GDP growth. The Heritage Foundation found that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would cost 300,000 jobs a year and reduce the economy by $40 bn annually [11].
R2: Higher Productivity.
Con's case is disproven by a study by A. Davies showing that productivity does not increase when minimum wage rose [12]. In fact, increases in unemployment negated any increase. CBO estimates as many as 200,000 workers could lose their job if minimum wage increased to $9.00, as could 1,000,000 workers at $10.10 [13]. By such an increase of 5x for only a dollar increase in wages, $15 an hour would lead to mass disemployment. At $10.10 alone, you lose nearly 2 billion hours of productivity. The economic stress would lead to lower productivity on the rest of the workers who must pick up the slack.
Many studies support this, including one by Nuemark and Wascher [14] which stated that among low-skilled workers, there was a strong disemployment effect. A study by M. Hicks [15] found that minimum wage hikes in the 2000's led to 550,000 fewer jobs being created. Abowd claimed that french men ages 25 - 30 on minimum wage saw their probability of keeping their job decrease by 4.6 percent for every 1% increase in wages [16].
Another hit to productivity was a study by Chaplin, Turner, and Pape [2003] that found that higher minimum wages lead to slight decreases in school enrollment [17]. The long term effect on skill levels will reduce both productivity and the efficiency of productivity over the long term. Backing Chaplin's study was two done by Nuemark and Wascher [18][19]. John Warren and C. Hamrock found the same results in 2008 [20].
R3: Corporate Tax Cuts.
Con's case lacks an understanding of minimum wage demographics. It assumes increasing minimum wage will lead to the wage increases necessary to decrease welfare funding. This isn't true. In fact, Minimum Wage increases barely touch poverty-stricken workers. I will discuss more in P5: Inefficiency and Alternatives, but will explain a bit here in the name of refutation.
Contrary to popular belief, most minimum wage workers are not poor. In fact, a report done by R. Nielsen found that more than 57% of the nation's impoverished were so because they were unemployed [21]. As such, a minimum wage hike will not help them, but will keep them unemployed longer, costing the Government money in the long term. 87% of those who benefited from an increase in wages were not poor, and 56% lived in households earning 2x the poverty level. So the minimum wage increase does little to actually help poverty. Forbes claimed the average Household Income of minimum wage earners was $50,700+ a year [22]. This implies that the average welfare earner was largely unaffected. This is likely because most impoverished with jobs are poor because of family sizes, not individual wages.
Many on minimum wage don't receive welfare because, statistically speaking, minimum wage isn't below the poverty line. Those who live on their own, working the annual average work hour (1780)[23], will bring in $12,900 a year. This is over $1,100 above the poverty level. If they were married with another minimum wage worker, they would earn almost $9,900 over [24]. If the second member were a child, the worker would be impoverished, until the EITC (worth $1,000)[25] and the CTC (worth $3,305 for one child)[26] were added, putting the worker almost $1,300 over the poverty line. This being so, poverty has little to do with their wages, and more with work hours and family sizes where the size is well above the wages of the working members.
As such, Minimum Wage does little to decrease poverty, and therefore welfare. If anything, the effect on unemployment and cut hours would likely throw more people into poverty. Therefore there is no room for Corporate Tax Cuts. Even then, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 included tax cuts [27], and yet many of the studies I provided that found disemployment and negative GDP impacts included this wage increase, implying tax credits did little for corporations and workers.
P1: Corporate Income v Employer Income.
To reinforce this case, a study of prices in New Jersey claimed prices increased because of a hike in wages [28]. One restaurant rose prices 14% after a minimum wage hike [29]. Another found a price hike of at least 0.7% for every 10% hike in wages, or 1.6% for limited service establishments [30]. Such establishments would have to raise prices by 5% [31]. On that same note, Con never addressed decreasing fast food sales [32].
P2 and P3 need not be expanded upon.
P4: Effect on Employees.
To expand this case, a chart taken from the BLS shows a perfect correlation between teenager unemployment and the minimum wage [33]. A review of studies confirmed disemployment among younger workers [34]. Kosters [35], Henderson [36], and Sabia, Burkhauser, and Hansen [37] confirm this. Mark Wilson found that most minimum wage workers get promoted past minimum wage within a year, displaying a natural progression away from entry-level worker, and when forced, leads to disemployment among those workers [38].This is confirmed in a mass review of studies by Nuemark [39]. Brown, Gilroy, and Kohen found the same results, as did many others [40,41,42,43], and a massive compilation of studies by the JECR found a consensus in academia similar to Nuemark's [44].
P5: Inefficiency and Alternatives.
As stated in R2: Corporate Tax Cuts, the demographics are not in minimum wage's favor. In fact, notable liberal billionaire Warren Buffett claimed he didn't believe the minimum wage was effective [45]. A 2010 study by Burkhauser and Sabia concludes that increasing the minimum wage does nothing to reduce poverty [46]. I've already hit plenty on the topic of inefficiency, so I will move on to the point. Alternatives. The study mentioned increasing The Earned Income Tax Credit, which is the most proposed option [47]. AIE discussed the proposal in depth [48], claiming that the policy is far more precise since the tax credit is based on household income (the defining income for poverty). Therefore, a family in poverty will recieve an increase in income, while a minimum wage worker in High School and with a household income of $50,000 doesn't. The policy is far better targeted and far more precise.
Other reasons for the EITC's efficiency is that it does not cost the employer anything. As many scholars agree on, jobs are the best anti-poverty tool, therefore an increase to wages without decreasing employment is the best path. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found, increases in the EITC and CTC (Child Tax Credit) led to higher grades, healthier children, increased earnings for the children later on, and a number of other benefits [49]. The Tax Credit also encourages work, as the credit is based on a percentage of income. More work equals more revenue [50]. This increases work, productivity, and wages.
Minimum Wage does not reduce poverty, welfare spending, or hardships among earners. It does, however, increase disemployment, prices, and even poverty if doubled. It does not increase consumption, but does decrease GDP growth. It should not be increased to $15 an hour. Increasing the EITC is the best option for reducing poverty and hardship among low-earning households and the impoverished.
Sources: http://pasted.co...
Due to time constraints, I'm only going to be using this round for rebuttals.
== Unemployment ==
A large part of Pro's case is based on the premise that an increase in MW will result in higher unemployment rates. However, his primary strategy for proving this is to throw tons of studies at me which show an unemployment effect. However, I can just as easily throw tons of studies right back at him to show that the unemployment effect does *not* exist:
"John Schmitt (2013), conducted a literature review and found that the minimum wage has 'no discernible effect on employment' [1]. Card and Krueger (1994), looked at the 1992 rise in New Jersey"s minimum wage and found no evidence of negative employment effects [2]. In fact, they found, after comparing evidence from stores in eastern Pennsylvania where the MW remained constant or to stores that were already paying near wages near the MW, that the minimum wage actually worked to increase employment. Dube et al. (2010) replicated the findings of Card and Krueger and found no negative employment effects after adjusting for spatial heterogeneity [3]. Next, a meta-analysis by Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley (2009) looked at 64 minimum wage studies from 1972 to 2007, and found that, after adjusting for public selection bias, that the evidence is clear that the minimum wage has no effect on employment [4]. Belman and Wolfson conducted a similar meta study on literature revealed since 2000 and, using 27 studies, found no statistically significant negative employment effects [5]" [6].
The academic literature on this topic is divided to the point that simply citing professional statistical studies is not useful in determining the impact of MW on employment. The fundamental problem with the idea that increased labor costs would result in more unemployment is that demand for labor is not elastic. Companies don't just hire employees simply because they can afford to -- they have the number of employees they do because they *need* that many in order fulfill consumer demand. Thus, when faced with an increase in expenses, 'killing jobs' is one of the *last* things an employer will resort to offset it. For that reason alone, we should be skeptical of any "evidence" of MW increases having an unemployment effect. And anyways, if I am able to successfully defend my case next round, then I would have affirmed that MW hikes result in a net profit boost for businesses, thus making the notion of the unemployment effect absurd.
That all said, there actually is one particular study which I would like refute empirically, as it is mentioned numerous times throughout Pro's rebuttal -- Neumark and Wascher's study on teenage unemployment. This study has been demonstrated to have many severe methodological flaws in it, the most damning of which was brought to attention in a commentary written by Card and Krueger: "Neurmark and Wascher's conclusions hinge entirely on whether they hold constant the effect of a variable reportedly measuring 'the proportion of the age group enrolled in school.' When they include this variable, the minimum wage index has a statistically insignificant and positive contemporaneous effect on teenage employment... Neumark and Wascher's enrollment measure clearly is based on a false dichotomy. Not only may teenagers who work also be enrolled in school, but they usually are" [7]. Because this study is founded upon such a blatantly false assumption (among several others listed out in the commentary), its results and all the studies which cite those results should be dismissed.
There is simply no reason to believe that MW hikes result in more unemployment.
== GDP & Income Growth ==
Pro's graphs are misleading, as they only look at the nominal value of the MW. If we look at the real (i.e. accounting for inflation) value of the MW over time, we see that it has only *decreased* since 1968 [7]. Turn Pro's graphs against him because they show that the decreasing real value of the minimum wage is correlated with a declines in average income and GDP growth. Moreover, as Pro notes, there were two instances where the increase in nominal MW did result in economic growth -- BOTH of these were before 1968, when the real MW was increasing as well, thus strengthening the correlation between MW hikes and economic expansion.
I have refuted both of Pro's main harms against the MW. The rest of his case got absorbed into my own case's discussion of whether or not businesses' profits benefit from MW hikes. The resolution remains negated.
[1] http://www.cepr.net...
[2] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...
[3] http://www.irle.berkeley.edu...
[4] http://www.deakin.edu.au...
[5] http://www2.gre.ac.uk...
[6] http://www.debate.org...
[7] http://scholar.harvard.edu...
A note before beginning. Romanii made a mistake in his last round. His last source was supposed to be source 8: https://www.fas.org...
I ask the voters not to hold this against my opponent. The reason for this being that I forgot to link my last two sources in R2, but was able to fix it because we reset the debate. Romanii did not recieve that fortune.
R1: Unemployment.
Romanii claims to have sources as well. However, he does nothing to specifically refute mine, or give the readers any reason to prefer his over mine. I must note that I used so many sources because it seems inappropriate to rely too much on meta-studies, which is the equilivant of saying "60+ sources defend me" without actually doing the work myself. It is my job to analyze my sources.
Several flaws in J. Schmitt arise when being reviewed. The first is semantical in nature. The study claims 0.01% isn't large enough to matter ("little to none" impact), but that's 150,000 employees. The second error rests in how the study claims little impact, but assumes the impact is split across the whole population. The impact actually hits mostly only the MW workers. To explain, if the negative elasticity is only -0.1, this is "little to none," until you consider that 2.6% of all workers are MW (1). This means that almost half of all MW employment would disappear, as they would be the target of the negative elasticity. Neumark tends to focus on the elasticity of teenagers or MW workers only.We will return to this in the third flaw. The third flaw is in the conclusion, where they dismiss all other studies to focus only on two by pro-MW researchers.
Perhaps the worst part of the study is that it doesn't aim to prove there is no impact. It asks why there is "little" impact. The study implies a much larger unemployment impact, but explains that the impact is softened by a number of business-side reactions, including prices increases and a reduction of higher wage incomes. Both of which are major negatives. The studies then explains that the tactics help companies avoid moderate incomes in MW. Keep that pinned for future reference.
Card and Krueger's study, while well known, is incredibly flawed. The study focuses only on a singular industry. A study done by S. Hoffman and D. Trace (2) reviewed the same cases, taking into account a number of other industries and variables. They found that workers in Pennsylvania suffered more than workers in New Jersey. The CATO institution did a review of Krueger's book. They claimed that Krueger's methodology was flawed, as they based their results on a "before and after" style of review (where they called 400 restaurants before the MW increase, and then called again after), as opposed to conventional cross-examination and time-based studies (3). Krueger himself even stated that "I want to emphasize that my comments should not be interpreted as support for the position that increasing the MW is sound public policy" -Krueger, 1993 (3).
The conclusion of Doucouliagos's study isn't that there is little to no impact, but that there is too much selection bias. The paper even claims that one of the biggest conclusions they came to was that there might be major negative impacts on employment, but that the white noise often found in economics, and selection bias, makes finding the answer hard. One of my studies, conducted by the CBO, took into account Doucouliago's study, and found a negative impact. When criticized by the White House, the CBO pointed to Doucouliago's study showing selection bias, and claimed that they reviewed all studies showing little to no effect on employment, and came to a lower impact estimate that still led to incredible dismemployment (4). According to a 2013 study, Nuemark took into account new economic science from Doucouliago's study, spatial heterogeneity and an updated evaluation of studies, and found that there is still a consensus in research that MW increases hurts employment (5).
Much of the rest of Con's refutation is that the elasticity effect doesn't exist. He bases this on the logic that companies don't hire more because they can afford to (despite each of his own sources using the elasticity system). That logic doesn't follow... They do hire more when they can afford it (expansion and corporate growth). However, assume they don't, this doesn't mean they don't hire less as costs increase. I do not buy more food than I need when food prices go down, but I do buy less when it goes up. Con's only strength here is that employer's need the number of employees they have. Except it is wrong. Automation eliminates this claim. Most studies disproving this reviews the immediate effects of MW, and found no automation. This ignores basic praxeology. Automation is like buying a new car. When gas prices go up, you don't just buy a hybrid to match on the dot. However, after the costs double, it does speed up the rate at which you buy one (6). In fact, ThinkProgress also agrees that MW leads to more automation (although they see it as good.)(7) In fact, 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 (8). Japan even has a restaurant where much of the work is automated by machines, and the workers act less like employees, and more like an assembly line (9).
Con's next case relates to a study by Krueger countering Neumark's case. However, Neumark reviewed Krueger's study. He posted a response to the counter study in 1993 (10). They found most of Krueger's arguments uncompelling, but evaluated new evidence to account for the criticisms anyways. He found that the results still led to disemployment effects.
Returning to the pinned note from earlier... A major issue with Con's sources is that they evaluate the absolute effect from increased MW, as opposed to relative effects. To explain, based on Con's studies, all increases in MW lead to X. This isn't true, as the effects from a $0.50 increase will be different than a $7.75 increase. So different, in fact, that a $0.50 wage increase could be good, and a $2.00 increase be bad. Many of my own studies account for this by measuring effects per percent wage increase. This allows them to find little effect from a $0.50 increase, but large effects elsewhere. Just because Krueger found no effect from a $0.90 increase (which was refuted) doesn't mean this situation remains the same under a $7.75 increase.
R2: GDP Growth
Con criticizes my chart comparing MW increases to GDP growth, as it uses nominal MW. However, I picked this stat for a reason. I wanted to show that when the Government specifically forces a raise in wages, it leads to a decrease in GDP growth. Natural wage increases via purchasing power and dollar strength are different from forced increases in wage. The difference between the two means you can't evaluate what happens during a government-enforced MW increase based on what happens during an inflation-based increase. As the value of $7.25 comes to equal $8.00 through monetary strength, the value of each purchase and dollar earned equally increases to pay for the cost. That being said, higher wages correlate with higher GDP growth, not because they lead to higher wages, but because higher growth is seen when dollar strength increases (as the amount of money stays the same in the economy, but it's PPP increases, therefore the economy looks bigger and is bigger.) Con's case is refuted through a simple understanding of the economy. If MW decreased, its because monetary value decreased, which would reflect in less GDP growth.
Con makes an incorrect claim about my cases. I did NOT say two MW increases led to economic growth. Just that two didn't lead to less growth. One led to a bumpy economic situation in the mid 1990's, and the first one (in the 1940's) didn't lead to economic growth. The end of World War II did. That being said, pro is wrong to claim both took place before 1968. Even if they both did, his claim doesn't stand as 3 other increases took place before 1968 as well, and led to less growth. So in reality, 3 of the 4 increases before 1968 led to less GDP growth, and the fourth didn't lead to growth. Refuting Con's claim.
Even then, Con's claim makes no sense. If MW values were decreasing, increasing it should lead to more economic growth. Con also misrepresents my first chart. I charted PPP MW to Average Earnings and showed that average wages increased as MW value went down. I will repost the chart here:
P5: Inefficiency and Alternatives.
Con dropped my case on the inefficiency of the MW, and the alternatives. My case stands that the demographics of MW makes it ineffictive. I have proven, unchallenged by Pro, that MW does not decrease poverty, and that it does not increase the wages of impoverishes families. However, increasing the EITC and CTC does decrease poverty, and is efficient and well targeted.
Con has also dropped arguments on Corporate Tax Cuts, Increased Consumption, and Increased Productivity.
Another inefficiency (as opposed to making a new P6 case), is turn over. Pro lists less turn over as a good thing. This isn't true. Turn over is what pushes employees up the latter. Replacing a $7.50 job for an $8.00 job and so on. Less turn over among MW earners mean less workers moving up the latter, away from MW. However, turn over for higher wage earners increases, as someone prior earning $14.00 for hard labor may accept a $15.00 job that is twice as easy as their own (which hurts teenagers who are as experienced.) This creates higher negative turn over among high wage jobs and less positive turn over in low wage jobs.
The Resolution is affirmed. Minimum Wage increases do not reduce poverty or benefit the economy. It will have negative effects. Whereas the EITC is accurate and effective at helping the poor.
Minimum Wage should not be increased to $15 an hour.
Sources: http://pasted.co...
Thanks to LordHelm for what has been a great debate!
1. Unemployment
It is unfortunate that Pro has opted to waste so much of his final round trying to refute 2 of the studies I cited -- his efforts amount to virtually nothing, because I also cited more than 90 other Pro-MW studies via literature reviews. Pro objects to my use of meta-studies on the basis that he had to do more 'work' in citing individual studies, but (1) he himself cited several meta-studies last round, (2) that is completely irrelevant to the accuracy of the meta-studies' results, and (3) realistically speaking, there is no difference between citing a meta-study and individually citing each study with a prefix of "X researcher used Y methodology and found no discernible impact on employment". Both provide the same level of insight.
But anyways, my intention here is not to say "I have more studies on my side, therefore I win". Pro seems to have missed the main reason why I resorted to citing meta-studies in the first place -- it was to demonstrate that the literature on the MW-employment relationship is far too vast and divided to settle the issue through the presentation and refutation of individual academic studies. There are way too many variables involved for any single study to perfectly control for all of them in a way which produces definitively accurate results, which is why there exists academic criticism on virtually every study that has ever been published. For example, all I had to do was Google search "criticism of sabia minimum wage" to find a refutation of the study Pro cited from that researcher [1]. Pro's refutation of the Schmitt and Card/Krueger sources do nothing to contest the crux of my rebuttal -- there is too much empirical evidence on both sides of the debate for Pro's approach to work.
The only meta-study Pro addresses is the one by Doucouliagos (which cited 64 studies). He claims that the conclusion of the study isn't what I said it is, but this is clearly false, as we can see from directly quoting the conclusion... "This paper re-evaluates the empirical evidence of a minimum-wage effect on employment. Several meta-regression tests corroborate Card and Krueger's overall finding of an insignificant employment effect (both practically and statistically) from minimum-wage raises... In the minimum wage literature, the magnitude of the publication selection bias is as large or larger, on average, than the underlying reported estimate. Overall, correcting for publication bias would transform a modestly negative average elasticity to a small positive employment elasticity" [2]
Pro goes on to claim that both the CBO and Nuemark reviewed Doucouliagos's data and came to the conclusion that most studies are anti-MW. Let's take a look at Pro's sources for this claim. In the news article discussing what the CBO did, the only place that Doucouliagos is even mentioned is here: "In support of their decision, CBO analysts included a link to a paper by economists Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley finding that, taken as a whole, 'the minimum wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias'" [3]. This is a laughable instance of intellectual dishonesty and taking words out of context (on the part of the CBO) -- I just quoted the actual conclusion of the meta-study, which clearly states that publication selection bias is *against* the MW, and that an unbiased evaluation of the literature yields a slightly Pro-MW result. As for the Nuemark source, I did a control-F search of the words "Doucouliagos" and "Stanley", but nothing turned up... [4]. We are left with no reason to reject the results of this meta-study.
Despite all the effort Pro put into this part of the debate, he has not actually been able to prove that MW hikes result in higher unemployment rates because his approach is fundamentally flawed. Our contradicting meta-studies reveal that the empirical literature is extremely divided -- given that, cherry-picking a bunch of studies that support our respective positions and proceeding to throw them back and forth achieves absolutely nothing. Since the statistical route fails to provide any real evidence that MW decreases employment, and since burden of proof was on Pro to demonstrate that, we must presume that no impact exists.
I will be providing positive reasons to reject the unemployment effect within the defense of my case.
2. GDP / Income
Pro correctly shows that I have misinterpreted the point he was trying to make with his graphs. However, his actual argument is even weaker than what my misinterpretation of it was! There are quite literally thousands of factors which impact GDP growth, from technological innovation, to commodity prices, to interest rates; real wages are just one of those many, many factors [6]. Moreover, we can see from the graph that GDP growth in general tends to fluctuate quite erratically. Given that, Pro's attempts at associating MW hikes with dips in GDP growth, based on nothing more than the fact that some hikes and some dips occurred within the same year, are outrageously fallacious. GDP growth is dependent on far too many variables for any single one to cause such large fluctuations. Pro's graph proves nothing. This all applies to the second graph as well, since average income is similarly subject to influence from a multitude of factors.
As for the Sabia study, let's take a look at its methodology -- Sabia first calculates the impact of MW hikes on employment, determines it to be negative, and THEN extrapolates the effect on GDP from there [7]. In other words, this is just an unemployment study in disguise, and therefore my rebuttal to the unemployment argument applies here, nullifying its conclusions. Pro has failed to demonstrate that an increase in MW would result in a decrease in GDP growth.
VOTE CON -- Pro has neglected to respond at all to what is by far the biggest advantage of increasing the MW to $15: a significant increase in the standards of living for 52 million workers and their families. Even according to Pro's estimates, the average MW worker earns a salary of $12900, so that's more than 1/6 of the country's population receiving a huge pay raise (roughly 35%). Even if you buy both of Pro's harms, it is arguable that the positive utility from increasing the standards of living for such an enormous population outweighs. But given that neither of Pro's harms are still standing, this impact alone is enough to negate the resolution several times over.
Also, let's use Pro's $12900 number to re-calculate the cost to businesses of a MW hike:
(17500-12900)*52,000,000 = -$239 billion
Now onto my 3 arguments showing that, on balance, increasing the MW to $15 would result in a net profit gain for businesses. I'm not sure why Pro thinks that I dropped these arguments... I specifically stated I was using Round 3 as a rebuttal round, so it would have been out-of-place for me to defend my arguments there.
1. Increased Consumption
Pro's rebuttal is based mostly on extending his harms, both of which have already been refuted. The other major point he makes is that an increase in prices usually follows MW hikes -- I agree, as that is actually an *affirmation* of this argument. If there is an increase in aggregate demand (i.e. consumption), then we would *expect* to see higher prices, in accordance with one of the most basic principles in economics -- when sales is going well, companies increase prices to try and maximize profits. Pro has just given us even more reason to believe that MW hikes boost revenues for businesses, alongside my (uncontested) evidence which quantified that boost at approximately +$212 billion.
2. Higher Productivity
Again, ignore Pro's extensions. To rebut this argument, Pro provides... a single study indicating that increasing wages "does not necessarily make workers more productive". Contrast that with the literature review I cited, which incorporates data from many different studies on the subject to show that the efficiency-wage hypothesis holds true across all industries. Additionally, I have actually explained a causal mechanism for *why* higher wages boost productivity, whereas Pro hasn't even attempted to do so. As for the point about slightly lowered school enrollment rates, Pro doesn't quantify this alleged "long-term loss of productivity", so there's no way to weigh that harm and thus it should be dropped from the debate. Meanwhile, I have put forth an (uncontested) calculation revealing that higher productivity from the MW hike will boost businesses' revenues by +$228 billion.
3. Lower Corporate Taxes
This argument was not about who the nation's impoverished are -- it was about who receives the majority of government welfare benefits, and my source states that 73% of such benefits go to members of low-wage households. Nothing Pro said about how most MW workers don't live below the official poverty line contradicted that, and therefore this argument stands -- a MW hike allows the government to make huge corporate tax cuts and let businesses keep +$331 billion more of their revenue. As for Pro's alternative of EITC, the only advantage he provides is that it is better-targeted than the MW, but that is easily outweighed by the MW's advantages -- it doesn't cost the government anything (i.e. no tax hikes), and it generates substantial economic growth (see conclusion).
I have demonstrated that raising the minimum wage to $15 would result in a net profit to businesses of $532 Billion, (thus enabling them to benefit the economy through more job-creation & investment), and would result in a large increase in the standards of living for more than 1/6 of the US population. On the other hand, not only has Pro failed to demonstrate any real harms coming from a MW hike, but both of his arguments seem completely absurd in face of the evidence presented that MW hikes *increase* businesses' profits
The resolution is negated. Vote CON!
119 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Oh, well, sorry guys.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
So this debate is gonna end in a tie, huh... I don't really object. It was certainly a close debate, as evidenced by the mixed interpretations of it by good voters like whiteflame and YYW. Thett3 also told me privately that he would probably have tied the debate due to uncertainty on the unemployment sources issue.
Also, I'd like to note that LordHelm = Donald.Keller
Overall I'll have to give this debate to Con. Their arguments concerning higher productivity, corporate tax cuts, and higher consumption showed that there are many benefits to a 15$ minimum wage. Pro's rebuttals to these was lacking.
You'll notice I didn't conclude the points I mentioned above, that is because most of them eventually fell into the "increased consumption" category of this RFD.
Corporate Tax Cuts
Here Con notes that if all employees earned a living wage, they wouldn't be in need of welfare programs, and this would save businesses $331 billion that they would have paid in corporate taxes.
For his rebuttals, Con notes that most minimum wage workers aren't poor, and therefore welfare doesn't apply to them. He backs this up with studies that found that 50% of people living in poverty were there due to their unemployment. This point I will have to give to Con though. They showed that the majority of gov't welfare goes to members of low wage households, and Pro's stats about unemployment being a cause of poverty doesn't discredit this number. Con then goes on to make their uncontested case, that a MW hike with allow for corporate tax cuts, which will save businesses money.
High Productivity
Here Con states that higher wages result in greater worker productivity, and it is a theory backed by economists. He notes that stress levels are reduced, motivation increases, workers are less likely to change jobs, and employers gain the benefit of experienced long term employees.
For his rebuttals Pro cites a study that shows that productivity doesn't increase when minimum wage rose. He also said that 200,000 if the minimum wage was increased to only $9. He also supports this with other studies. Con wins this point. Both sides had studies supporting them, but Con's 228 billion dollar boost in revenue was unrefuted, and Con also gave some basic reasons as to how a higher minimum wage would increase worker productivity.
Con notes that when consumer incomes increase, aggregate demand increases, and the economy expands. The point being that the money paid to employees is put back into the economy through consumption. He cites a paper that states an increase of $1.75 in the hourly federal minimum wage increases household spending by roughly $48 billion. He extrapolates that with a $15 minimum wage, the overall consumption would be increased by $212 billion.
For his rebuttals, Pro states that they gave evidence that minimum wage increases are not correlated with GDP growth. Pro states that for this to be true, GDP growth must correlate with minimum wage increases. Con states that Pro's graphs are misleading because they only look at the nominal value of the minimum wage. Con adjusts for inflation and shows that the minimum wage has only decreased since 1968. Con then states that Pro's graphs show a decreasing minimum wage is correlated with declines in average income and GDP growth. And he also notes that the two cases when increasing the minimum wage resulted in economic growth, both were before 1968. Pro points out some flaws in Con's sources, however this simply wasn't enough, Con had given many other studies that supported his case. Concerning GDP increases, Con's defence in this case wasn't worth much. He says that Pro was attempting to associate minimum wage hikes with dips in GDP growth, but this is not the case. Pro had stated before that he was trying to show that there was NO CORRELATION between the two, which would make the increased GDP argument on Con's side null. This did happen, because Con himself admitted that there are too many things accounting for GDP growth. Con states that Pro failed to demonstrate an increase in MW would result in a decrease in GDP growth, but Con has failed to show it would result in an increase in GDP growth, therefore this argument is null on both sides.
Below is a summary of the main arguments used.
Profit and economic growth
Corporate income v Employer's income
Pro talks about large corporations, and notes that the costs of minimum wage aren't paid for by corporations. He gives an example of McDonalds, noting that if the minimum wage was 15$ it would cost McDonald's over 80% out of their profits. He also notes the cost to the owner of each individual restaurant, which is quite high.
Pro talks about small businesses, and notes that most of them couldn't afford the cost. Pro then goes on to talk about the large scale effects of these, saying that increase in failure rates will lead to the elimination of industry growth, and rural and independent restaurants. He also notes that franchises will have to raise prices by 71%. He then notes that gas stations will also be at risk.
Average annual wages
Here Pro discredits the notion that increased minimum wage leads to increased annual wages. He notes that average annual income has risen even in times when wages were down.
Stock Values
Here Pro talks about how company stocks would suffer if profits were lost. He gives an example of Walmart.
Effect on Employee
Pro talks about how most economists believe that the minimum wage would lead to a reduction in employment. He cites a national bureau of economic research study.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Jonbonbon// Mod action: Removed<
3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I'm almost tempted to just award a 1 point win for the winner because of how close the debate was. Now I'm not an expert on economics by any means, but after analyzing the debate very thoroghly, I was able to find a few points that gave me a winner. Pro made a point, and backed up the point with evidence, that when minimum wage increases, prices tend to increase as well at a nearly proportional rate. I didn't see where con refuted this point in the debate, and I feel it was a major point that refuted his point about an increased standard of living (if prices go up proportionally to your wages, then essentially your standard of living stays the same). And I accept pros defense regarding his graph on the GDP. His explanation made sense, and ultimately those two points were what pushed me to vote pro, although I was very close to voting con. Everyone did well on conduct, S&G, and sources.
[*Reason for removal*] A vote is required to cover both sides of the debate, examining each side's arguments to determine the outcome. This vote does clearly consider 2 major points made by Pro, but fails to analyze any of the arguments made by Con besides standard of living. Much as the voter isn't required to be exhaustive in their analysis of the arguments, they are at least required to hit at the main point each side is making, something that this voter doesn't do.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: YYW// Mod action: NOT Removed<
733 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org...... Also: there were no relevant conduct differences, spelling/grammar differences, or differences with respect to sources. To the extent that anyone disagrees with this, they are wrong. Clear win for CON. People should occasion themselves to actually read the resolution, but of course I'm sure by now I sound like a broken record. See the link for the RFD.
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter is allowed leeway to consider the resolution as they feel is reasonable, and they are allowed to dismiss arguments they believe don't fit into that interpretation. A vote is not required to be exhaustive in analyzing every point in the same way as the debaters perceived them.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/74558/ Also: there were no relevant conduct differences, spelling/grammar differences, or differences with respect to sources. To the extent that anyone disagrees with this, they are wrong. Clear win for CON. People should occasion themselves to actually read the resolution, but of course I'm sure by now I sound like a broken record. See the link for the RFD.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by kasmic 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: I told Romanii that I would vote on this debate. I have spent a great deal of time analyzing and tbh feel this debate hinges on sources. I thought both sides were articulate and thorough. Pro links the harm of lowering stock value, shrinking job market, and risking the fast food industry to raising the min. wage and concludes that the minimum wage should not be doubled. Con argues that raising the Min. Wage to $15 an hour would (1) increased consumption, (2) higher worker productivity, and (3) lower corporate tax rates. As implied earlier both present several sources and it seems to me that the debate mostly revolves around who?s sources are more reliable. I am not well versed in this topic and do not feel I can reasonably vote on this debate. I know you are both waiting for votes, and this will likely frustrate both of you, but I am going to vote a tie.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.


text:
Free workout routines for men over 50
Best workout program for 50 year old man
It's never too late to get started on a fitness program, and even men over 50 can benefit from regular exercise. In fact, physical activity becomes more important when you are in your 50's.
This is when the effects of an unhealthy lifestyle start to catch up on you. General physical performance also starts to decline when you hit 50. However, this does not mean that men over 50 should not exercise.
On the contrary, regular exercise will benefit older men. A sensible fitness regimen for men over 50 can lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. It can also improve the quality of life of seniors.
Men over 50 can benefit from the same basic exercises as everyone else, but certain physical activities may be more appropriate and modifications may be necessary.
Fitness routines should include cardiovascular exercise and strength training at light to moderate intensity. A fitness professional can design an exercise routine for people over 50.
Consult Your Doctor
When you pass the 50-year mark you are more likely to have health issues that may affect your fitness program. High blood pressure, high cholesterol levels and diabetes can increase the risk of stroke or a heart attack. Always talk to your doctor before beginning a fitness regimen.
A thorough physical examination should be done to ensure that your exercise regimen is appropriate for your health condition. The proper precautions and guidelines should be followed to account for any health issues that the examination may uncover.
Cardiovascular Activities
Fitness for men over 50 should include at least 30 minutes of moderate aerobic activity every day. This will get your heart pumping and elevate your breathing rate while still allowing you to carry on a conversation.
Choose aerobic activities that are easy on the joints, such as swimming, brisk walking, or exercising on an elliptical trainer or stationary bike.
Strength Training
Strength training for men over 50 can help prevent osteoporosis or severe bone loss. Osteoporosis is more common in women but it can also strike men as they age. Strength training has been proven to slow bone loss.
It also strengthens the muscles which protect the bone. Strengthening the core muscles improves balance and reduces the risk of falling.
When starting out with your fitness program, lift only very light weights. Find a weight that allows you to do 12-15 reps. You can lift barbells or dumbbells, and do squats and lunges.
You can get a personal trainer who specializes in senior fitness, or you may want to join a senior fitness group exercise class.
Never try to lift weights without proper guidance and always use proper exercise form to avoid injury.
Flexibility and Balance
As you get older, your body loses its flexibility and balance. Fitness for men over 50 should include activities such as yoga or Tai Chi to improve balance and flexibility.
Stretching your joints and muscles give you a wider range of motion. It also eases joint pains and reduces the risk of falling, which is common in people over the age of 50.