What are The Effects of Raising The Minimum Wage?

The topic of whether or not the United States should increase the minimum wage has been a big talking point in recent years, and has caused much debate. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 which was last updated in July 2009. There are however, 29 states that has a higher minimum wage than the federal rate. Those who advocate for raising the minimum wage have a specific number in mind, $15 an hour. They feel that an update is long overdue and that too many Americans struggle to make ends meet. Those against it feel that an increase will hurt Americans more than it can help. This raises a couple of questions: should the federal minimum wage be updated? What are the effects of doing so?

Gary Wolfram brings up reasons he is against an increase to the federal minimum wage in “A Case Against The Minimum Wage”. The genre is an opinion editorial piece and the medium is an article in Forbes magazine. The author, Wolfram is the William Simon Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Hillsdale College. He takes the stance that many people overlook the problems that comes with an increase to the minimum wage. His purpose for writing this article is to persuade readers that although an increase sounds good on paper, it will hurt the people more than it will help them. His target audience is the people of the United States. In order to reach as many people as possible he uses language that is easy to understand. He does this by explaining how if the government forces businesses to pay their workers $15 the cost of producing goods would increase, ultimately leading to fewer workers getting hired. With the cost of labor increasing, businesses won’t be able to afford to hire as many workers, and instead incentives them to begin to automate away those jobs (Wolfram). In the article, Wolfram says “Do you really think that most of us would keep our jobs? Of course not – there would be no incentive for employers to retain us.” (Wolfram). He uses a serious tone to help get his message across. He believes as companies begin to replace employees with machines and labor from customers, the businesses won’t have any reason to hire anyone; this will benefit the top executives instead of the working class. He finishes by stating, “It means addressing the disparity holistically instead of merely slapping on a surface-level solution that covers up the real problems.” (Wolfram).  He feels that argument of raising the minimum wage overlooks the main problem, of needing to “focus on improving our education and job training system”. Wolfram effectively gets his message across and accomplishes his goal by breaking down the his point in a way that the American people will be able to understand, and uses strong evidence to back up his claim. 

Taking the opposite stance of Wolfram, Matthew Desmond believes that an increase to the minimum wage will have a positive effect on the people of the United States. In the New York Times Magazine, Desmond’s piece Dollars On the Margins focuses on the life of Julio Payes to show how an increase to the minimum wage will benefit the lives of many Americans. The author Matthew Desmond is an American sociologist who is a professor in the department of sociology at Princeton University, and won a Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction. Desmond gets his point across in the medium of a magazine and his target audience are people living in the United States. His purpose for writing the article is to try and convince readers that increasing the minimum wage will greatly improve the lives of many people living in poverty. The genre is a narrative essay, and as a result, Desmond uses persuasive elements in his writing. He uses real life examples to sway the reader’s opinion. He tells us Payes’s story. Back in 2014 he worked up to 80 hours a week, working two full time jobs at just 24 years old. After being active in the campaign to increase the minimum wage to $15, he now makes $15 an hour, which greatly improved his mental health. Desmond states, “Payes can now afford to work less, logging around 48 hours a week when things are slow and 60 hours when they aren’t. He gets more sleep and can now exercise with walks in the park.” (Desmond). Here he breaks down every aspect of Payes’ life in an attempt to highlight the benefits of a higher minimum wage. He uses language that readers can easily understand, and he appeals to their emotions. He finishes by stating that increasing the minimum wage will better the lives of the people not just financially but also mentally. “A $15 minimum wage is an antidepressant. It is a sleep aid. A diet. A stress reliever.” (Desmond). For people who are barely able to make ends meet, and living with constant stress, a small setback can quickly become a big problem. He hopes that with an increase to the federal minimum wage, people will not only be able to make ends meet, but also live a healthier and less mentally stressful life. Desmond uses a serious tone throughout his article in order to help his point across by giving a real life example, and appealing to the reader’s emotions. By doing so he presents a strong argument for increasing the minimum wage. 

Jim Tankersley and Emily Cochrane’s New York Times article, “$15 Minimum Wage Would Reduce Poverty but Cost Jobs, Congress Told in Report”. The genre is a non-fiction piece, and their medium is an article in the politics section of The New York Times.  Both authors have a background in economics. Jim Tankersley covers economic and tax policy for The New York Times, and Emily Cochrane is a reporter in the Washington bureau of The New York Times, who covers what goes on in Congress. Unlike Wolfram or Desmond, Tankersley and Cochrane is taking a neutral stance. Their purpose being to inform Americans about both the positive and negative aspects of a federal minimum wage increase. Their target audience for this article is directed towards the people living in the United States. In the article they discuss a proposed bill to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, which could help over 1.3 million people out of poverty, but at the same time put roughly 1.3 million people out of work. They discuss how progressives push the bill heavily, while moderates are hesitant (Tankersley and Cochrane). The article first starts off discussing the benefits of an increase to the minimum wage, and then transitions to address the various problems that might come up. It is stated in the article “…members have expressed reservations about the scope of the legislation and its impact on small businesses.” (Tankersley and Cochrane). The authors uses language  that is easy for the reader to understand more about the issue, by giving various viewpoints throughout the article. They then bring up how members of congress are conflicted over whether the benefits outweigh the potential risks. Yet at the same time advocates say that any of the job losses will be outweighed by the number of people that will be lifted out of poverty and the millions of people who will receive higher pay. (Tankersley and Cochrane). The authors remain neutral and are able to effectively accomplish their goal. They highlight both sides of the argument, and allow the reader to formulate their own opinion. Throughout the article the tone serious and formal, and was used in a way to seem professional. Doing so allows them to be viewed as a trustworthy source, and it does not make it look like they are attempting to sway one’s opinion. Both Tankersley and Cochrane were effectively able to remain neutral and discuss the impact that a minimum wage increase will have. 

J. Paul Leigh’s scholarly article published in the American Journal of Public Health, Could Raising the Minimum Wage Improve the Public’s Health?, carefully analyzes the impact that an increase to the federal minimum wage will have. The genre is an academic essay and the medium is a journal. The author, J. Paul Leigh is an American economist and a professor of health economics in the Department of Public Health Sciences at the University of California, Davis. Due to this being an academic journal, the target audience is geared more towards researchers and specialists. As a result the language used may be slightly difficult for someone with little background information on the subject. Leigh’s purpose is to inform people of the effects that raising the minimum wage will have, specifically to the public’s health. He takes the stance that if we raise the minimum wage, it will help people escape poverty and greatly improve their mental health. Leigh starts off by discussing how many people the increase will affect. He states, “One estimate indicates that increasing the federal minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2020 would lift wages for 35.1 million workers, or 25.5% of all workers. Approximately 28.4 million would be directly affected and 6.7 million indirectly affected through ‘ripple effects,’ as workers earning just above the minimum wage would also receive raises.” (Leigh).  He argues that an increase to the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour will increase the purchasing power of many Americans and improves the health of workers both mentally and physically. Leigh effectively uses studies and data to back up and support all of his statements. He includes information from reputable sources that helps to justify his position. He then states, “Increasing wages can improve psychological well-being and job satisfaction, increase the opportunity cost of engaging in unhealthy habits, and expand the ability to delay gratification.” (Leigh). He feels this will positively affect the lives of millions of Americans and help reduce race and gender based income inequalities. He is able to get his point across to the reader and remains very professional by using a formal tone throughout the article. Every point that he makes, he provides evidence. Leigh was able to explain how an increase to the minimum wage helps to improve the mental health of Americans. 

Many people believe that increasing the federal minimum wage will positively affect the people in the United States. Besides increasing their purchasing power, they believe it will improve physical and mental well-being. Others, on the other hand, believe that although intentions are good, an increase will hurt the very people it intended to help. Businesses will look to automate their jobs away, and simply won’t be able to hire anyone. All four of these sources are focused on addressing the impact that an increase to the federal minimum wage will have on the American people. Although each article differed in opinions each author was effectively able to back up their point and present a strong case.

Works Cited

Desmond, Matthew. “Dollar On the Margins.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Feb. 2019, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/21/magazine/minimum-wagesaving-lives.html.

Leigh, J Paul. “Could Raising the Minimum Wage Improve the Public’s Health?.” American journal of public health vol. 106,8 (2016): 1355-6. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303288

Tankersley, Jim, and Emily Cochrane. “$15 Minimum Wage Would Reduce Poverty but Cost Jobs, Congress Told in Report.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 July 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/us/politics/federal-minimum-wage.html.

Wolfram, Gary. “A Case Against The Minimum Wage.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 12 Sept. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/09/12/a-case-against-the-min imum-wage/#3106f56e499e.