Summary Of Minimum Wage Hurt Low Income Workers By Jame Sherk

In the article, “Minimum Wage Hikes Hurt Low-Income Workers,” Jame Sherk debates how an increase in the minimum wage would impact workers and corporations. Sherk builds his argument by first explaining the recent history of an increasing minimum wage and how much it has risen. Following, he argues why it would hurt businesses and low-income workers. Lastly, after illustrating the consequences, he offers statistical evidence to support his claim and to prove to the reader why the hike would only hurt both businesses and low-income workers. Sherk’s use of evidence and explanation offers a strong argument and a clear stance. Also, because of his use of evidence, Sherk offers an effective argument based on the structure and the strength of his

He accomplishes this by offering a logos approach for his reasoning. The author gives statistics proving the history of the increasing minimum wage, how it has shown to hurt businesses, and how it also has hurt employees. Then, he explains the given information and uses it to build up to his claim. After evaluating the numerical evidence and explaining the evidence, he restates his claim, which is that a “[h]igher minimum wages come at the cost of higher unemployment for low-skilled workers” (Sherk). The purpose of Sherk using deductive logic is to convince the reader that a rising wage will not help businesses or

In the article, he tells the reader that Congress took action to increase the minimum wage in three seventy cent increments. Within three years, including 2007, it rose from “$5.15 to $7.25 an hour” (Sherk). After informing the reader of the minimum wage increase, he begins arguing why the hike would carry negative effects. He claims that an increase in the minimum wage would put “some less-skilled workers out of work” (Sherk). Also, he claims that the increase would cause “300,000 teenagers and young adults” to lose their jobs (Sherk). Sherk states the cause of this would be because, from the increase, businesses “always respond to higher cost by economizing,” which is to reduce spending. Once Sherk explains the reasons for his position, he offers the reader evidence to support his claim. To support his claim, Sherk tells the reader that, based on a study, every “10 percent increase would cost 1.2 percent to 1.7 percent of low-income workers their jobs” and would reduce teenage employment by two sevenths percent (Sherk). Also, from the beginning of the recession and the increase, “unemployment among teenagers has risen 6.4 percent to 22.7 percent” and “the unemployment rate for adults without a high school diploma has risen 7.8 percentage points to 15.3 percent” (Sherk). Sherk supports his claim by offering the reader substantial amount of