Info Slide: The concept of “Moonlighting” is to have a second job and/or work in addition to one’s regular employment; there are multiple reasons that can influence a person towards opting for Moonlighting.
Motion: This House Would ban Moonlighting.
Disclaimer: Please treat this case as a research material, not a speech. This is because (a) reading the whole thing can cause repetition, misallocation of time, disturbance of pacing, (b) the strategy I use is subjective: some may not agree with me.
Proposition
Characterization (Not all of this is necessarily meant for the Prime Minister’s introduction, leave some characterization in other parts of the speeches if necessary)
What does moonlighting look like
– doing two or more jobs – 1
– working more than would have in one job: likely to work over maximum working hours. This does not mean committing a crime. Most countries, allowed to sign an opt-out contract. Incentivized to do so bc ppl who moonlight do because of financial difficulties, and would fit their needs more if work for longer. Because time is limited, people are not forced to work even in hours where they would not enjoy to (in the early morning, late night) – 2
– likely to be two difficult jobs physically. Mechanism: high-paying jobs are usually less physically-demanding, but require a high level of education. This looks like, for example, office jobs: most companies require at least a bachelor’s degree of a university and check if they have professional knowledge. If they already have a high-paying job, they wouldn’t moonlight. It is likely for the people who have jobs that are more replaceable (i.e. more physically-demanding jobs) to have two jobs. This looks like factory worker, plumber, construction worker, brick layer, etc. – 3
– the two points above prove why likely to be stressful, working painfully
– Expectation of employers still likely to be similar: would understand a little bit that they have multiple jobs. But human nature to be mad and blame others because their own workers are not doing that good of a job. “Understanding” is limited. Employers likely to assume that moonlighters have the obligation to try harder than others. – 4
– Most people who do moonlighting have financial difficulties: sacrificing themselves a lot when they are choosing this. Hence, if not necessary people likely to leave other goals (e.g. self actualization through employment) to be done one job at a time. The people who “pick” to do two jobs are rather forced to, to earn money – 5
– why must earn money: likely to have family to support. Not everyone is rational when starting family, many chew than more they can swallow, end up being forced to work multiple jobs. Another possibility is because of personal debt: has failed own business, now must work multiple jobs to pay back. Another possibility is because of general economic recession: prices are inflated, minimum wage of one job is not enough to buy necessities (e.g. rent for a mediocre house, food that is not absolutely disgusting, clothes that a person can wear) – 6
Modeling
– What is the policy: job education: this is to allow people with less skills to get a job that is more high-paying. This looks like teaching coding, AI technology, or other professional knowledge. This helps them (a) get a job that requires less physical stress, (b) allows them to earn more money even with one job. Job education is not an unfamiliar policy: it is feasible to hire people and facilities to teach advanced skills (and of course we have fiat)
– Who implements this policy: the government
– For who is this policy for: people that are moonlighting, but also includes people that aim to get a more high-paying job
– One more piece of modeling that is only applied to selective countries: increasing minimum wage. This would be around 1.5 times of the minimum wage, which is an amount that people would agree to work only one job. The justification and benefits here is that if there are too many people in a certain country working two or more jobs, it means that the minimum wage is too low for a sustainable life. However, of course, countries that don’t have that many moonlighting people or countries that have a high enough minimum wage would be exempted.
Metrics
Which side better keeps the universal rights of individuals?
– This should really be the main metric: helping the people that are most in need, in a justified manner
– but there is also a secondary, less important metric of…
Which side promotes a more productive society?
Arguments
1st argument. Moonlighting is unjustified as harmful as it forces vulnerable stakeholders to overwork
What does this look like
(Already explained in characterization, paste it here if you want to do so in arguments, but to summarize…)
– work in morning, night (check characterization 2)
– construction worker, factory worker (check characterization 3)
Why true that people overwork
(Extra information and logic for the points are more in characterization)
– long working hours (check characterization 2)
– difficult jobs (often physical). Obviously the argument is not contingent on this mechanism, working two office jobs is also difficult. Still lots of intellectual labor, hard work being used. (Check characterization 3)
– employers still have high expectations (check characterization 4)
– why these people are vulnerable (check characterization 5, 6)
– propensity of why people are forced to try this hard: (check characterization 5, 6) need to earn money for many reasons, forced to work this much
Why unjustified
– what is the principle that is being used here:
– protection of vulnerable stakeholders
– Should not exploit people
– why is it applied here
– proved why over-suffering
– allowing a system for vulnerable people to overwork, having to sacrifice themselves to live a life that is sustainable
– society has no right to exploit their labor for the development of society
– rather has an obligation to protect them, and to prevent too much stress
– Intuition pump
– minimum wage, laborer rights, are in the same context
Impact
– prevention of mental health issues: stress from overworking, stress from not being able to enjoy leisure activities (anything that people personally prefer e.g. gaming, playing sports, reading), stress from not being able to socializing (not meeting family, friends. Impact is big bc people are social, want to meet to exchange emotions), stress from living miserable life: feel like member of society that for whole life just paying duties without doing anything for self)
– prevention of physical health problems: bad back from physical work, bad neck from physical work, too much work and stress leading to conditions (high blood pressure, insomnia, gastrointestinal problems, cardiovascular diseases, weakened immune systems, headaches, musculoskeletal problems)
Weighing
This debate is a journey debate, that is both sides aim to help the people (poor people especially) rather than weighing two different stakeholders. Hence the weighing focuses more on solvency
Prevention of medical/physical health problems by working only one job(prop) VS earning lots of money from two jobs (opp)
Why we win
A. We solve sufficiently with our model: extra job edu, or increasing minimum wage(in some countries)
B. Weighing tool: vulnerability of stakeholders
We protect the vulnerable by allowing them to not overwork, while the government providing services for a better life. You force the sacrifice of the vulnerable, even though other measures are possible.
C. Weighing tool: magnitude of impact
Our modeling requires little sacrifice. It might be cutting other government programs that are unnecessary or simply collecting more tax. For the former, we would only cut the absolutely least important tax. For the latter, tax would be generally applied to everyone, including the rich and upper middle class, which means that it is little amount paid per person, and it is not stressful amount of tax for a lot of people.
D. Weighing tool: reversibility of impact
Illnesses and injuries that happen in the body require unaffordable money to reverse, or is irreversible. For example, when back already damaged difficult to to bring that back to original state
2nd argument: Moonlighting harms employers and the economy (of society)
What does this look like
– loss of productivity of workers, companies, the whole economy
– employers lose profit and get mad
Why true
– lack of productivity: have to work two jobs, cannot focus on both
– propensity: physical and mental capability is limited, not stored after a short break. Difficult to remember and keep the different ideologies and requirements of each job. E,g, one job may require kindness to consumer, another may require being passionate and giving it all in the construction site.
– why impacts productivity of economy of society:
– individuals workers working inefficiently means less productive
– company cannot produce innovations for cheap production, better goods and services, etc.
– company do not have manpower to produce many products and be effective
– fewer people get benefits from goods and services, fewer people purchase things in general
– why impacts employers
– own company has less profit bc of sloppy service by workers
– prevents people from quitting jobs bc of over-stress: this is beneficial because requires big money to redo job-training to a new employee, and to get them used to the job and be skilled
– how we can solve: there are plenty of unemployed people seeking for jobs. When they get employed, they ensure one job per person, meaning high efficiency
Impacts
– already fleshed out in the “why true” part but to summarize
– less money for employers, less money for society and the whole economy
Weighing
Economic benefits from focusing on one (prop) VS Economic benefits from labor market being filled and people having more money (opp)
A. We co-opt people having more money bc of policy (explained multiple times)
B. Less likely that there would be job places that are unfilled: there are so many unemployed people
C. Weighing: protection of vulnerable stakeholders
Even if some places are not filled, the job places deserves to be eliminated and rather done through government increasing wages for those jobs: the fact that people don’t choose that job despite being unemployed means that job is inhumane, going against human rights.
D. Weighing: magnitude of better economy
Our side: only some selective jobs are not employed by people, can sacrifice that bc fewer number of jobs
Your side: large number of workplaces are inefficiently ran, lots of jobs so higher impact
3rd argument. Moonlighting perpetuates an illusion of solvency that poor people get their rights protected
Why true
– it seems like the world is possible for people to work, earn money, and live and okay life
– difficult for people with one job to feel a problem in that
– not all moonlighting people would be able to imagine a better life with just on job and less mental/physical health problems
– less political support for solutions to solve underlying issues of the pain and exploitation of the poor: policies such as the ones we have explained in the modeling
Impact
– opp prevents a good life for people: a good life where they can enjoy more leisure time, have sufficient rest, etc.
Weighing
The same weighing in the first argument would apply
Alternate 3rd argument: Moonlighting harms the unemployed
Why true
– some people have the capacity to get two jobs
– this prevents unemployed people from getting even one job
– forces some people to rely on welfare, which is way less money
– propensity: there is a limited amount of jobs, gap between skill allows some people to be more attractive towards employers
Impact
– very little money for some people
– unable to afford lots of things: good shelter, food, clothes, future education, leisure
Weighing
– Vulnerability of stakeholders, number of stakeholders: opp only helps people who moonlight in the best case, ignoring those who suffer more from unemployment
Another solution is to divide the 2nd argument into society and employer, making the employer argument the 3rd argument
Preemptions
Most were in the weighing section of the arguments, this is just extra
Earning more money already rebutted
S: self-actualization through multiple jobs
R:
A. This is such a reach. People who want to self-actualize would do it on the side with one job, because actually getting one more job would be too much duty. The fact that you are having two jobs means that it is too much work, meaning that you must do it, meaning that you absolutely need the money. This also means the jobs are more manual, which is little room for finding self passions because few people find their passion in working in a factory and doing the same physically stressful thing
B. Weighing
Even if this is true, this is far from the main metric. Assuming without conceding we harm some rich people that do jobs for a higher need that is slef-actualization, we help those who are actually vulnerable, those that are poor
S: freedom to use time
R:
A. Not free choice. Forced to earn more money. Will not feel that after earn more money. (More explanation in rest of case)