Author Clive Crook is arguing that Obama's push to increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 an hour is well-intentioned but unnecessary. Although the government has said that there is no "solid evidence" this change would cost jobs, Crook argues that it has no way of telling if it would either. Although the author acknowledges that by certain standards raising the wage to $9 isn't a big jump, and $7.25 is low even by international standards, he still believes that the best way to help those in poverty working minimum-wage jobs would be to lower tax rates for those people. This would keep costs for employers low and encourage them to hire more people.
The main device that Crook uses in his argument against minimum wage is a structure that allows for counterargument. Crook methodically takes each point the opposing side has to say and then rebuts it by pointing out logical flaws in the argument. For example, he says that many liberals and even some conservatives see all minimum wage earners as people under the poverty line, but this image is untrue. A majority of minimum-wage earners are actually students or come from households with additional income. Crook also uses rhetorical questions like, "what if you think employers are shrewdly paying unskilled workers less than their labor is worth? " to try to incorporate the perspective of his opponents before answering their questions as well.
The audience for this article would be people interested in economics, since it came from Bloomberg. The article achieved its purpose because it was convincing and also rebutted arguments from the other side. Clive Crook a senior editor of The Atlantic and graduated from the London School of Economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment