Will Perkins On Minimum Wage Analysis

Many Americans suffer from the negative effects of working a minimum wage job and trying to support themselves and their families. Will Perkins of the Richmond Register asserts that if a person works in this country, they should be able to make enough for a living. He also claims that everyone should do what they are good at and get paid enough for it. I agree with Perkins’ assertion about minimum wage and his thoughts, and this idea should be implemented into society. Will Perkins article on minimum wage basically summarizes his opinions on minimum wage. Perkins main point in his article is that if a person works 40 hours a week on any job, they should earn a livable wage. He re-states that any american that does something productive for

I agree with this assertion. I believe that there are many Americans that have learned to “cheat” the system. If the government made cutbacks and shrinked the pool of welfare recipients, than it would be less likely that certain Americans could continue cheating the system. This idea will most likely give everyone a fair chance to find a job. There would be almost no reason to have welfare if all Americans were compensated fairly for their work. There should be no reason for people to still not be working. (The only exception to this change would be people with disabilities.) People that, after this new policy, still continue to chose to not work should receive little to no government assistance. People who refuse to take advantage of this new policy have only hurt themselves because they have been given the opportunity to work and refuse it. Perkins claims that “if you work forty hours a week, you should be able to live in america.”(Perkins 2) Personally, I believe he is insisting about immigrants. If so, I agree, and believe that immigrants who contribute to society like everyone else should be paid fairly and have a right to live here as the rest of us

Most likely they cant afford it. So it would be better for them to begin working right after high school to get a headstart on saving money. Maybe they could save up enough money and go to school at a later age to further their education and maybe their career. Education always brings success rather than those people who do not or can not get the education. So working would be a better fit for them and they could live off of their wage with no worries. As for the parents of the child they may have done the same thing when they were younger. Because their parents couldn't afford it. And the cycle will keep going until one of the children become successful with their career and pay for their children's education. The rise of education cost in america keeps getting bigger and people won't be able to take enough loans out. It is unfair for those families who do not have a high enough income to send their children to school. But if Perkins idea was to be implemented, then children can work for a few years to save up for their own education. Even if they didn't go to school they can still work at their jobs and make a living. So therefore the unprivileged students can get a jump on saving money for their own kids to go to school in the