While reading the article in the New York Times, “The Minimum Wage: How Much Is Too Much?” written by Alan B. Krueger, I was enlightened by his main focus of topic. Stating, “Research suggests that a minimum wage set as high as $12 an hour will do more good that harm for low-wage workers, but a $15-an-hour national minimum wage would put us in uncharted waters, and risk undesirable and unintended consequences.” Krueger gives a different twist on the debated topic of national minimum wage.
Though Krueger uses evidence to back his claims he really focuses on his main point, minimum wage can be set at $12 nation wide but once it reaches $15, we could be in trouble. He explains how more than half the estates, representing 60% of …show more content…
I think that this article in particular bring up even more questions as to why I am a certified lifeguard, I paid $200 to become a certified lifeguard, and I pay $75 every two years to become recertified, and yet I people who are working as cooks or servers at a fast food restaurant feel entitled to almost double what I make. What frustrates me even more is that this article proves that studies show that the minimum wage can be higher, without damaging our current economic status. I think that the reason all these questions and feeling came up while I was reading is because Krueger does such a great job at convincing the reader that he is right. He doesn’t leave any grey area in his claim, he just hands you the facts. He might manipulate the wording a little to persuade you and put the facts on his side, but in doing so he proves a point that no one else has even attempted. I also read an article from USA Today by Jack Quinn, Mike Castle, Steve LaTourette and Connie Morella entitled “Raising the minimum wage is common sense” that also supports the idea that minimum wage should be changed. It argues that minimum wage should increase with inflation. Meaning that instead of $7.25, we should have the national wage to be $10.70. The biggest difference between the two articles is that the USA Today article focused on the government aspect of the topic. The authors chose to talk about why the change hasn’t been made and what is occurring in the congress to stop us from receiving the wages we deserve. Though I found that article interesting I preferred the New York Times article more, simply because it made more sense to me. It had information I was able to better relate to, being as I have no experience with congress or the government, and it explained the details a little more
Though Krueger uses evidence to back his claims he really focuses on his main point, minimum wage can be set at $12 nation wide but once it reaches $15, we could be in trouble. He explains how more than half the estates, representing 60% of …show more content…
I think that this article in particular bring up even more questions as to why I am a certified lifeguard, I paid $200 to become a certified lifeguard, and I pay $75 every two years to become recertified, and yet I people who are working as cooks or servers at a fast food restaurant feel entitled to almost double what I make. What frustrates me even more is that this article proves that studies show that the minimum wage can be higher, without damaging our current economic status. I think that the reason all these questions and feeling came up while I was reading is because Krueger does such a great job at convincing the reader that he is right. He doesn’t leave any grey area in his claim, he just hands you the facts. He might manipulate the wording a little to persuade you and put the facts on his side, but in doing so he proves a point that no one else has even attempted. I also read an article from USA Today by Jack Quinn, Mike Castle, Steve LaTourette and Connie Morella entitled “Raising the minimum wage is common sense” that also supports the idea that minimum wage should be changed. It argues that minimum wage should increase with inflation. Meaning that instead of $7.25, we should have the national wage to be $10.70. The biggest difference between the two articles is that the USA Today article focused on the government aspect of the topic. The authors chose to talk about why the change hasn’t been made and what is occurring in the congress to stop us from receiving the wages we deserve. Though I found that article interesting I preferred the New York Times article more, simply because it made more sense to me. It had information I was able to better relate to, being as I have no experience with congress or the government, and it explained the details a little more