Private sector jobs are better than government jobs

Definitions

1. "Better" shall be defined as an improvement for the nation as a whole. This definition makes sense because it asks about "private sector jobs" and "government jobs" in a plurality. Most likely, and individual won't have a large assortment of jobs, they'll have a few in their life. This clearly implies that it's about the total impact on the nation, not what's better for one individual.

Opponent's Case

1. While your average government employee might take less money home, they get a huge boost in benefits. These things include alternative work schedules, ten paid holidays, childcare subsidies, commuter subsidies, continuing education and professional development, dental and vision insurance, health insurance, leave to care, life insurance, and retirement benefits.¹ Accounting for all of this, which isn't even all of it, the salary question becomes a lot more muddled. We can say in 2018, federal workers in the United States received $41,508 in benefits.² If we use the previous comparison my opponent used, it would now be $120,000 to $114,508. While this still puts the private sector slightly over it, it now isn't so much of a change. These two individuals would still be in the same economic class and their differences in pay would barely account for a difference between them. Also, if we do a general comparison, federal workers make 78% more on average while state and local workers make 25% more.³

A. Using my definition of better, the individual pay between two employees isn't the most relevant point to what is better for the nation as a whole. This gets shadowed by my points later on.

2. Working conditions is a really hard comparison to make. One picture simply doesn't do it because I could just as simply show a picture of a private sweatshop or one cursed image of a trashed bathroom a minimum wage employee has to clean and it would then go to the government sector having the better working conditions. The actual tasks of the job aren't a good comparison to working conditions because their is easy jobs in private and public sector, just as their is hard jobs in the private and public sector. We should focus on things like benefits, which clearly go into the benefit of the government sector. We should also look at job security, which clearly goes into the government sector.³

A. Using my definition of better, the individual working conditions between two employees isn't the most relevant point to what is better for the nation as a whole. This gets shadowed by my points later on.

My Case

1. My opponent's definition of government jobs makes every job a government job. He defines it as any job that works under the guidance of the government. Due to regulation, minimum wages, income taxes, and an assortment of other government stipulations, every job in the world is under the guidance of the government. This means that based on my opponent's definition, not even me trying to twist him up in a definition but properly applying his, he is advocating for nothing. He's given all power to the government sector, making any point he makes mute.

2. Teachers are one of the most important jobs to a nation. On average, a teacher will teach 3,000 students.⁴ This is 3,000 people that are influenced and educated to become functioning members of society. The job of being a teacher is very simply the most influential thing on our society because it molds the next generation into productive and educated members of said society. Now, to preemptively answer private schools teachers argument, there are 3.3 million public school teachers, 205,600 public charter school teachers, and 509,200 private school teachers.⁵ This means that public teachers very simply affect more kids and have a greater effect on society.

3. Elected officials are crucial to the functioning of the nation. Very simply, without them, we wouldn't have a government. They keep the state running smoothly and effectively. Any nation would need executive, legislative, and judicial functions, and unless you advocate for an anarcho-capitalist society, they perform very crucial jobs. They create, enforce, and prosecute those who break regulations that protect private sector jobs from abuse from workers, as well as a million other things not related to labor. They are easily one of the most important jobs to a society.

4. The military is a very crucial job to the betterment of a society. If a society isn't given the protection it needs to not be overtaken by its neighbors, then does that society have a chance to create a prosperous nation? Military is crucial to a nation because it ensures the nation survives.

Conclusion

I have negated the resolution by proving that my opponent's claims were false, reframed the debate to talk about the betterment of the nation, and shown that government jobs better the nation. Vote Con!

Sources

1.https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/federal-employee-compensation-package/

2.https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/federal-worker-pay#:~:text=The%20Bureau%20of%20Economic%20Analysis,private%20sector%20of%20just%20%2412%2C075.

3.https://fee.org/articles/in-government-nobody-quits-and-you-cant-get-fired/

4.https://www.weareteachers.com/life-of-a-teacher-stats/#:~:text=It%20can%20vary%20by%20grade,the%20impact%20of%20a%20teacher.

5.https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28#:~:text=Response%3A,and%20509%2C200%20private%20school%20teachers.

1. My reasoning for utilizing that better is for the nation and not the individual is two-fold. Firstly, it makes more sense in the phrasing of the resolution. It talks about jobs as a whole. My opponent uses individual metrics for his points, but he still talks about jobs as a whole. This plurality in, not only how the resolution phrases the topic, but how we are addressing the topic shows what we should be focusing on. We should focus on if the market or the government is providing more necessities for the population. Secondly, my opponent tries to say that whatever is good for the individual is good for the nation. This is easily proved false. Why do we have laws constraining the individual at all? Why do we stop murderers, thieves, drug dealers, bribers, and anyone else who is putting themselves above the rest of the nation? Simply put, because what is best for these individuals isn't best for society. It'd be better for a murderer if the murderer didn't go to jail, but not for future victims. A private, well-paying job, as as a business executive for a coal company is better for said executive, but not the nation that suffers it's pollution. I'm not going to say what is best for the state is best for the individual, but I am going to say this topic is addressing the nation.

 Opponent's Case

1. On the salary argument, my opponent tried to pull this 15% bonus statistic to counter the idea of benefits that government workers get, but he didn't acknowledge my statistic about federal workers making 78% more and state and local workers making 25% more. 15% doesn't stack up to that, and without a direct answer to the point of the actual pay being more than his bonus statistic, government workers still get paid more.

A. Also, if you buy my definition, then my other points shadow this one in importance.

2. So on the working condition point, he brings up job satisfaction with one anecdotal career coach and a statistic about a generation that sees depression raising faster than any other age group and have had half of their age group leave their job for mental health reasons (compared to 20% among all ages.)¹ The point I'm making is that my opponent's statistic about millenials leaving the workplace because it's a government job is misguided. He's looking at the generation facing the brunt of a mental health crisis and are willing to leave their job for it. To blame this huge societal problem on just government jobs is absurd, especially when the article I already cited talks about millennials being the loneliest generation and not connecting to communities. I don't think either of my opponent's statistics give a fair analysis and are used to mislead.

A. Also, if you buy my definition, then my other points shadow this one in importance.

My Case

1. He didn't acknowledge my point that is definition of government job makes every job globally a government job.

2. He lumped all my examples of important jobs together, which is fine. He says I'm taking a U.S. centric view, but the majority of nations have militaries, public education, and legislators. This isn't U.S. centric in the slightest. I used U.S. based statistics for the teacher point, but a majority of my opponent's statistics have been U.S. based. When he makes the effort to use global statistics, then I'll reciprocate. He never addresses why legislators or a military isn't important either, but only focuses on teachers. Let's look at India since this is the nation my opponent brought up. He brings up private teachers and says they create better alumni. He gives no proof or statistic, so we can discredit that. To further show the importance of public teachers, however, let us hypothetically buy into his argument for a second. India has the highest number of poor people in the world besides Nigeria according to WENR.² Private education can't reach all of these individuals, so we should focus on the education that is afforded free to them. Valuing only some people being educated might the individualistic view private sector jobs push for, but to better a nation, we need to focus government jobs.

Conclusion

My definition still stands and reinforces my points that all still adequately negate the resolution. Vote Con!

Sources

1. https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-mental-health-burnout-lonely-depressed-money-stress#millennials-are-also-lonely-7

2. https://wenr.wes.org/2018/09/education-in-india

1. My point about laws constraining the individual was to show that what was best for the individual, such as allowing them to steal from others, isn't best for the state or the society. My opponent just said that his definition of individual was self-explanatory, but this isn't justified why it's better than my definition of better for society. Let me reiterate that the resolution talks about jobs in a plurality, so we have to focus on the plurality of the nation. By talking about an individual, we care more about the pay of an employee, and not the service they provide, which doesn't allow us to help the most amount of people. We should focus on what's best for a nation because it creates a better world and that's what the resolution calls for. 

Opponent's Case

1. He tries to skew the definition of bureaucrat to make it seem like it's only the higher ups of government jobs, but this simply isn't true. Utilizing the article the 78% statistic originally came from,¹ the article hyperlinks the 78% statistic to another article.² This article clarifies what it means by stating that federal compensation (wages and benefits) for "federal civilian workers" is 78% higher. Federal civilian workers isn't the skewed definition of only administrators and department heads but regular employees. Knowing this, we still see that the government sector pays more, but just to ensure we don't go down the benefits rabbit hole again, the same article gives us a wage comparison. $84,153 for federal civilian workers compared to $56,350 for the average private sector wage.

A. Once again, if you buy my definition, this point gets overshadowed.

2. My article about millenials doesn't directly tie into the job debate because I was tieing facts into out debate. I was pointing out that any stat about millenials as the only test group is tainted by other factors, for example, the fact that they distance themselves from political and religious communities contributing to feelings of loneliness. He brings up money stress as a factor, but as I've previously proven, government jobs pay more than private jobs. There's a lot of factors to depression including loneliness, pay, genetics, social factors, and so much more that to blame it all on government jobs is absurd. The only point I'm making is a large influx of millenials leaving their job isn't necessarily a sign that government jobs are bad, but there is a mental health crisis in the millennial community.

3. The point about the anecdotal job coach is that it's a single person that has an approximate number with no backing and just a guess. But even if you look at the three things he said people leave federal jobs for, "more pay, innovative work,  or personal development," we can see that these aren't relevant. Firstly, the pay point falls flat when we go back to realize that federal employees make so much more than the private sector. Secondly, innovative work is a personal metric. Some people can feel like they're doing innovative work at federal jobs while feeling like they're doing a dead end job in the private sector. This depends on the job itself and not who they're working for. Lastly, personal development is another personal metric. If this is about training to do better at your job, then the government sector once again pulls through. 83% of public workers get on site professional development with only 64% of private jobs. ³ In terms of education assistance, its 62% public and 45% private. Everything that the job coach says people are searching for are to be found in the public sector statistically. This is why we should trust statistics over anecdotal sources, because they're more reliable and harder to fib.

A. If you buy my definition, this point gets overshadowed by my other points.

My Case

1. My opponent has dropped the point that military and legislators are important for a nation to succeed.

2. My opponent hasn't acknowledged his definition of government jobs makes every job existing a government job.

3. We're getting so caught up in this teaching point, but it's getting off the core of my argument. Even if private teachers are more important in India, they aren't more important globally, and even if they were, there are tons of public jobs that are important to society as a whole, such as the military and legislators as I mentioned before. Even so, private institutions educate 30% in India. There's still another 70% that derive their education from public means, and even if lower classes use private education, unless he can for certain guarantee that everyone who would access public education could access private education, then the point still remains that he thinks some people deserve education and some don't. Just because the numbers get smaller doesn't mean my opponent isn't drawing a line in the sand cutting some people off from education.

Conclusion

I have provided a definition and proven that it is better for the debate, as well as negated the resolution on that definition. But, even if you don't buy my definition, I still have negated the resolution through my opponent's definition. No matter how you view the debate, I have negated the resolution. Vote Con

Sources

1.https://fee.org/articles/in-government-nobody-quits-and-you-cant-get-fired/

2.https://fee.org/articles/federal-bureaucrats-are-paid-78-more-than-private-sector-workers/

3.https://www.governing.com/topics/workforce/gov-private-versus-public-sector-employee-benefits.html