The maximum minimum National Review, July 6, 2015 Every political season, Democrats argue for higher minimum wages. Republicans respond by citing all of the evidence that higher minimum wages are harmful. Democratic voters get charged up and swing voters conclude that Republicans are heartless. It is the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats, but the curse that keeps on afflicting those below the poverty line who lose their jobs because of it. Though Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she is going to play this game, much of the action is coming from around the country, where America's progressive mayors have taken this form of government price-setting to new heights. In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti recently signed legislation that would raise the minimum wage in the city to $15 by 2020. And this move in Los Angeles comes on the heels of Seattle's and San Francisco's adoption of the same policy. The evidence is clear about whether raising the minimum wage is an effective way to help poor people: It is not. As Richard V Burkhauser and T. Aldrich Finegan note in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, those living in poverty get such a vanishingly low fraction of the benefits of a minimum-wage increase that "it is not clear that increases in the minimum wage make good policy even if no jobs are lost as a result." As we prepare for the umpteenth political season pitting Democratic populism against a preponderance of economic evidence, let us pause and pursue the deep and enduring wisdom obtainable only through abstraction. The nearby chart takes the argument of minimum-wage proponents to its logical extreme. Suppose we grant that corporations are evil. Suppose we also grant that the only way we can improve the welfare of the poor is to redistribute by taking all of the money from the evil corporations and giving it to the working masses. This chart transports us to this redistributive nirvana, where the government has decided to seize all of the corporate profits in the land and give them to workers. Assume, contrary to sound economic thinking and common sense, that companies continue to operate exactly as they do today, suffering no negative effects from these confiscatory taxes. How large an increase in wages can this progressive utopia finance? To answer this question, we gathered data on after-tax corporate profits from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. We then gathered data on average hours worked per week per nonfarm employee from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and transformed these weekly data into data on the aggregate number of yearly hours worked by all nonfarm employees. Finally, we divided quarterly corporate profits by the aggregate number of hours worked by nonfarm employees over the same period, labeling this value the "expropriation subsidy" on the chart. To get an idea of how much of a perhour wage increase this policy could create, simply add the values of the two lines at a point in time. As the c ...

1. The maximum minimum
National Review, July 6, 2015
Every political season, Democrats argue for higher
minimum wages. Republicans respond by citing all of the
evidence that higher minimum wages are harmful. Democratic
voters get charged up and swing voters conclude that
Republicans are heartless. It is the gift that keeps on giving for
Democrats, but the curse that keeps on afflicting those below
the poverty line who lose their jobs because of it.
Though Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she is going
to play this game, much of the action is coming from around the
country, where America's progressive mayors have taken this
form of government price-setting to new heights. In Los
Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti recently signed legislation that
would raise the minimum wage in the city to $15 by 2020. And
this move in Los Angeles comes on the heels of Seattle's and
San Francisco's adoption of the same policy.
The evidence is clear about whether raising the minimum
wage is an effective way to help poor people: It is not. As
Richard V Burkhauser and T. Aldrich Finegan note in the
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, those living in
poverty get such a vanishingly low fraction of the benefits of a
minimum-wage increase that "it is not clear that increases in the
minimum wage make good policy even if no jobs are lost as a
result."
As we prepare for the umpteenth political season pitting
Democratic populism against a preponderance of economic
evidence, let us pause and pursue the deep and enduring wisdom
obtainable only through abstraction. The nearby chart takes the
argument of minimum-wage proponents to its logical extreme.
Suppose we grant that corporations are evil. Suppose we also
grant that the only way we can improve the welfare of the poor
is to redistribute by taking all of the money from the evil

2. corporations and giving it to the working masses.
This chart transports us to this redistributive nirvana,
where the government has decided to seize all of the corporate
profits in the land and give them to workers. Assume, contrary
to sound economic thinking and common sense, that companies
continue to operate exactly as they do today, suffering no
negative effects from these confiscatory taxes. How large an
increase in wages can this progressive utopia finance?
To answer this question, we gathered data on after-tax
corporate profits from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. We
then gathered data on average hours worked per week per
nonfarm employee from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and
transformed these weekly data into data on the aggregate
number of yearly hours worked by all nonfarm employees.
Finally, we divided quarterly corporate profits by the aggregate
number of hours worked by nonfarm employees over the same
period, labeling this value the "expropriation subsidy" on the
chart. To get an idea of how much of a perhour wage increase
this policy could create, simply add the values of the two lines
at a point in time.
As the chart shows, if every dollar of U.S. corporate
profits were allocated to America's employees, the effect would
be to add a bit more than $7 to the average wage. The chart adds
interesting perspective to the new policy in Los Angeles. The
difference between the $15 Los Angeles target and the federal
minimum wage of $7.25 is $7.75. At $7.57, the current value of
the expropriation subsidy is slightly lower. Mayor Garcetti's
minimum-wage legislation has, it seems, taken economic
populism to its logical extreme--and beyond.
Source Citation
Hassett, Kevin A. "The maximum minimum." National Review 6
July 2015: 6. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec.
2015.

3. Internal Citation
(Hassett)
Misguided minimum wage mandate
The New American, January 6, 2014
ITEM: The New York Times for No 7 reported: "The
White House has thrown its weight behind a proposal to raise
the federal minimum wage to at least $10 an hour."
The Times noted: "Democratic strategists say they are
backing a higher minimum wage to help lift millions of low-
wage workers at a time of increasing income inequality. Some
also acknowledged that pushing a higher minimum wage is a
way to put Republicans on the spot--caught between a business
lobby and many conservatives who oppose an increased
minimum wage and a public that strongly supports a higher
minimum."
ITEM: The Washington Postfbr November Ii opined that
the "best solution would be /hr Congress to agree to the
president's proposal to increase the federal minimum wage and
then adjust fbr inflation. With that unlikely to happen, it
becomes more urgent that local jurisdictions ... take care in how
they lift wages so as to produce the most benefit and do the
least harm."
ITEM: The New York Times, in a feature piece that
appeared on November 29, the day after Thanksgiving,
highlighted two mothers of small children. One is from Chicago
and one from North Carolina--at least one ofwhom is single and
a recipient of food stamps; they said they wished 'they had more
money and were sure that a minimum-wage increase would help
them. One works at a department store and says she cannot
afford to buy her children the toys she sells at her job. The
other says her pay is "too meager fir her to buy the gift her
children are hankering for" She had to move back into her
father's house "last spring when Burger King reduced. her

4. weekly hours."
CORRECTION: There is no question that many Americans
are having a tough time. Many also undoubtedly believe that
things would be better if the government just declared that their
paychecks must be larger. That, however, is not how the world
works.
Should the government .also wave a magic wand and
guarantee that, say, all small business owners have a suitable
income? Most people with common sense would say no. By the
same token, it should be obvious that if businesses are forced to
pay workers more than they are worth, they won't stay in
business very long.
Employment is a cost of doing business. If the prices of,
say, gasoline or steak were to increase, the general response is
to buy less of that product. This would happen even if the New
York Times found a way to run a really sad story on someone
who really thought he deserved steak.
If the cost of your employees goes beyond what they
produce, something has to give. Higher prices for your products
may well result, thus driving down sales, and then requiring
fewer workers. The marginal worker who might previously have
had his hours at Burger King reduced could find himself with
zero hours--priced right out of that job altogether.
Professor Thomas Sowell not long ago commented on the
return of this crusade for an increased minimum wage. He
noted: "Advocates of minimum wage laws often give themselves
credit for being more 'compassionate' towards 'the poor.' But
they seldom bother to check what are the actual consequences of
such laws."
As the economist put it, one of the simplest and "most
fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy
more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher.
Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the
government can raise the price of labor without reducing the
amount of labor that will be hired."
Ignoring this fact usually hurts those that are supposed to

5. be helped. The inexperienced and those with lower skills are
among the least secure when it comes to compensation based on
productivity. Studies also back up this common-sensical
conclusion. As summarized by Michael Tanner of the Cato
Institute:
The academic evidence on this point is pretty clear.
A comprehensive review of more than 100 studies on
the minimum wage by David Neumark and William Wascher
for the National Bureau of Economic Research found that
85 percent of the studies they reviewed found negative
employment effects. Neumark and Wascher concluded, "the
preponderance of the evidence points to disemployment
effects ... [and] studies that focus on the least-skilled
groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger
disem-ployment effects for these groups." Indeed, evidence
of employment losses goes all the way back to 1938 and [the]
first federally imposed minimum wage. The U.S. Department
of
Labor concluded that that first 25-cent minimum wage resulted
in the loss of 30,000 to 50,000 jobs, or 10 to 13 percent of
the 300,000 workers affected by the increase.
This is not to say that someone whose salary increases, and
who keeps his job, isn't better off with a larger paycheck. But
what about that person who did not get hired? What about those
who don't have the initial jobs that allowed them to gain skills
and develop a work ethic that made them more valuable
employees? Cutting off the lower rungs on the ladder of
opportunity is hardly an act of compassion.
Advocates of a higher minimum wage mandate would have
us believe that this issue is a matter of greed for big businesses
versus need for a struggling single mother who can't make ends
meet. The activists would rather leave small businesses out of
sight because that doesn't help their case.
Carol Roth, author of The Entrepreneur Equation, offers a

6. more complete picture. She notes that the majority of small
businesses earn less than $100,000 in revenue annually. It takes
many of them years to make a profit even if they do get their
businesses off the ground. Writing for CNBC.com, Roth
explains:
Any minimum-wage increase would affect all
entrepreneurs, whether you are starting a business right out
of college or a stay-at-home morn looking for some incremental
income. Even if someone wants to help you grow your
business, you can't hire them on an hourly basis unless you pay
the minimum wage, regardless of your--or their--circumstances.
Contending with a bigger minimum-wage creates many
challenges for small business. It may mean that the small
business has to wait longer to hire a new employee, making it
more difficult to grow and riskier to start a business to begin
with. It can also lead to a small-business owner hiring fewer
employees.
Raising the minimum wage typically means that those
earning above the minimum wage want a bump, too, as they
note the value of their skills above the minimum-wage earner.
As these costs accumulate, the small-business owner will bear
the cost differential and take home less pay. Ironically enough,
when adding up their time, it may mean that for years that
small-business owner takes home an amount less than the
minimum wage on an hourly basis.
More is involved than simple "economics." There is plenty
of politics. And the more government there is in the economy,
the less economy there is in the government. The ersatz
magicians in Washington have spent trillions of dollars more
than the government has in its enormous tax coffers, and they
can't even handle the most fundamental and constitutional
aspects of their own jobs--passing appropriations bills with any
regularity. Yet, they deem themselves clever enough to know
how much individual workers are worth to, for example, 18,000
or so "large" employers and 28 million small businesses.

7. Douglas French, writing in the Freeman, cites evidence
that "progressives" are playing on the economic ignorance of
the electorate for their own gain. French writes:
In this political world, Democrats have figured out that
putting a higher minimum wage on the ballot not only earns
them points with unions, but increases voter turnout....
[Zaid Jilani of BoldProgressives. org] explains turnout is 7
to 9 percent higher in initiative states during midterm elections.
In Nevada in 2004, 24 percent of voters said they were
motivated by the minimum wage ballot question. That same year
in Florida, 19 percent of voters were motivated by a minimum
wage ballot initiative.
More importantly for Democrats, minority and young
women voters are particularly motivated by these ballot
initiatives.
While voters and legislators decide the minimum amount
workers can charge for their labor, the unemployment rate for
young people. age 24 and under, remains over 15 percent--far
above the 7 percent rate for workers aged 25 and above.
Higher minimums are especially hard on 16-to-24-year-old
black workers. In September the unemployment rate for this
demographic was more than 25 percent. For all young men 16 to
24, the rate was I 7.4 in September.
If businessmen who were after money lied to their
customers in the same fashion as most elected (and would-be
elected) officials, they would be prosecuted for fraud.
Those already being injured by too much government are
being promised even more of the same. As noted in a recent
Heritage Foundation blog, it is often those trying to start their
careers that get hurt. Mandating an increase in the minimum
wage "reduces the availability of these entry-level positions.
This makes gaining the skills necessary to get ahead harder.
States that raised their minimum wages in the 1990s saw
workers earning less a decade later."
The stories selected by the liberal media to embellish their
excuses for raising the minimum are not reflective of the vast

8. majority of people who actually receive the minimum.
(Promoters of increases also pretend the minimum wage is a
permanent ceiling; in actuality, about two-thirds of recipients of
the mandated minimum earn raises within a year because they
are more productive.) The advocacy media, disguised as
journalists, also find it easier to pretend otherwise. They also
ignore those who are hurt, off camera or otherwise out of sight,
because of the counterfeit compassion.
Richard Rahn, chairman of the Institute for Global
Economic Growth, lays out a more accurate account in the
Washington Times:
Only 4 percent of the full-time, minimurn-wage workers
are single parents, who normally also receive benefits
such as the earned income tax credit and food stamps.
It should be no surprise that those who argue most strongly
for higher minimum wages are unions, seeking protection
from those who need the work and would be willing to work
for less, and members of the political class who spout
lofty slogans about how they are out to protect the
working poor.
Those pushing for more mandates on businesses are not
presenting the full account. The Obama administration and
Democrats on Capitol Hill, for example, are already "helping"
the economy with a higher effective minimum wage by
requiring certain employers to supply specified healthcare
coverage as a function of ObamaCare. Not all of this has yet
taken effect.
Citing official figures, James Sherk of the Heritage
Foundation has demonstrated that if the White House-endorsed
boost in the minimum wage were to be paired with mandates
required through ObamaCare, it would drive up the cost of
employing a worker by $4.38 an hour--an increase of 53
percent.
In testimony in July 2013 before the Senate Health,

9. Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Sherk also exposed
how a good many low-income Americans who wound up with a
higher minimum wage would not find this to be a ticket out of
poverty. As their income increases, other welfare benefits get
cut, including food stamps (now officially called SNAP, for
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Such low-income
workers can face
very high effective tax rates as they lose benefits
from multiple programs. Consider workers both losing
SNAP benefits and landing in the EITC [Earned Income
Tax Credit] phase-out range. For each additional dollar
they earn they pay 15 cents in additional payroll taxes,
15 cents in income taxes, an average of 5 cents in state
income taxes, as well as losing 21 cents of their EITC
benefit and forgoing 24 cents of SNAP benefits--an
effective marginal tax rate of 80 percent. Each extra
dollar earned increases their net income by only 20 cents.
Not even millionaires pay such high tax rates.
The Congressional Budget Office studied this issue in a
report released last year. It found that a single parent
with one child earning between $15,000 to $25,000
experiences
almost no financial benefit from working additional hours or
getting a raise. What they gain in market income they lose in
reduced benefits, leaving them no better off.
The enlightened masterminds in Washington, as well as
their little brothers in state Capitols, are again fighting poverty
with our money--in this case disguised as another mandate on
business.
When the latest frenzy of alleged altruism has run its
course, it will turn out once again that those hurt the worst are
the inexperienced workers. Most will not know why their hours
were trimmed or why they were never were hired in the first
place.

10. Their progressive patrons, meanwhile, are doing double
duty: As a result, even beneficiaries can expect to find
themselves being punished as they reap the consequences of the
actions of their political benefactors.
Source Citation
Hoar, William P. "Misguided minimum wage mandate." The
New American 6 Jan. 2014: 44+. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.
Internal Citation
(Hoar)
Minimum Wage or 'Living' Wage?
World and I, October 2003
In March 1997, as many as 7,600 workers in Los Angeles
got pay raises under the city's new living wage law. Mandatory
for companies that got contracts or financial assistance from the
city, the Los Angeles ordinance set a minimum wage for
covered workers of $7.25, plus health-care benefits of $1.25 per
hour for those without private insurance.
The city's living wage has since been raised to $8.32 with
benefits and $9.46 without to offset inflation. The beneficiaries
have included janitorial, clerical, child-care, and landscaping
workers, parking lot attendants, kitchen staff, and dishwashers--
workers in rapidly growing occupations that typically pay very
little. Syndicated columnist Robert Kuttner has described the
living wage campaign as "the most interesting (and
underreported) grassroots enterprise to emerge since the civil
rights movement."
Responding to religious organizations, labor unions,
women's groups, and community organizations, about 90 other
cities, counties, and school boards have also implemented some
kind of a living wage law for employees of cities, government

11. contractors, or firms that got subsidies or tax breaks from
government. For example,
* Three years ago, Tucson, Arizona, enacted a law
requiring city contractors to pay a wage of at least $8.26 with
benefits ($9.30 without).
* Hartford and Meriden, Connecticut, both require a
minimum wage of $9.02 for contractors and businesses
receiving financial assistance.
* Gainesville, Florida, mandates a flat minimum wage of
$8.56 for city employees only, while Miami Beach sets this
minimum wage for contractors and city employees with benefits
and requires $9.81 for those withlMinneapolis obliges firms
receiving financial aid to pay $8.83 per hour.
* Burlington, Vermont, requires $9.90 with benefits,
$11.68 without, for city contractors' employees and city
workers.
* New York City requires $8.10 with benefits and $9.60
without benefits for city workers and the employees of
contractors and subcontractors. Many of these cities also have
inflation protection built into their laws (see acorn.org,
epionline.org).
LOCAL, NOT FEDERAL
There are many other livable wage campaigns under way
across the country (including statewide campaigns in Hawaii
and Vermont). There is, however, no campaign to introduce
living wage measures into federal contracting, reflecting
widespread pessimism about the possibility of enacting this
kind of policy at the national level. The living wage movement
remains a local, grassroots effort, utilizing nationwide
networking among activists--for example, through the
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
(ACORN)--and is not dependent on the endorsements of high-
profile national politicians for its success.
While local living wage laws require different wage and
benefit packages and cover different kinds of employers, they

12. all share one fundamental motivation. In the words of Jen
Mathews, director of the Vermont Livable Wage Campaign for
the Burlington Peace and Justice Center: "If you work full time,
you ought to be able to pay your basic bills without resorting to
public assistance." The National Interfaith Committee for
Worker Justice, a nationwide, multidenominational faith-based
organization, reasons "that as God worked to create the world,
our religious traditions value those who do the world's work.
We honor our Creator by seeking to assure that laborers,
particularly low-wage workers, are able to live decent lives as a
product of their labor."
The laws are typically preceded by detailed research on the
local cost of living, with numbers on housing, transportation,
health care, child care, food, taxes, and other necessities drawn
from public data sources. For example, in 1998, a single parent
with two children working full time in Los Angeles would have
needed $17.68 an hour to pay the bills, and a two-parent, two-
job, two-child family would have needed $10.75 per hour per
parent. A single, childless person in Omaha, Nebraska, would
have needed $7.36/hour in 2002 if he paid for his own health
care, and a single parent with two children would have needed
$17.69.
In 2000, each parent of a two-parent, two-job, two-child
family would have required $10.38 an hour to meet the family's
basic needs in Minnesota. A single person in urban Vermont
with no children would have needed $10.44/hour in 2001 if he
had employer-sponsored health care. A single parent with two
children and health care benefits would have needed $19.70. All
figures assume full-time work. These numbers are based on no-
frills budgets--usually factoring in no money for vacations,
paying down debt, retirement savings, children's college
educations, or even the occasional fast-food meal. (The
Vermont data are exceptional: the legislature wanted to include
a slightly more generous food plan and some savings.)
Armed with similar research results from around the
country, advocates such as Mathews argue that regular

13. minimum-wage protection for workers is "grossly inadequate."
Someone working year-round, full time, for the federal
minimum wage ($5.15), makes $10,300 per year, far below the
basic-needs budget for virtually all household types in all
states. Both the minimum wage and the federal government's
official poverty line ($14,494 for a single-parent family of
three) drastically underestimate the cost of living for workers at
the bottom.
PHENOMENON OF FALLING WAGES
Supporters also took a hard look at the long-term picture
of economic development in the United States and were greatly
disturbed by a pattern of growing wage inequality, with
stagnant or falling inflation-adjusted earnings for the bottom 80
percent of men and the bottom 20 percent of women. A worker
at the twentieth percentile of the male wage distribution saw his
hourly wage fall, in 1999 dollars, from $9.32 to $8.12 between
1979 and 1999--despite the longest economic boom in 25 years
in the 1990s. Wages for women at the twentieth percentile of
the female wage distribution fell from $6.89 to $6.83.
While wages were falling below basic-needs thresholds for
growing numbers of workers, economic policy rarely aimed to
improve the quality of jobs. There was plenty of attention to job
creation, and there were many local tax breaks to companies
that promised to bring new jobs. There was rarely any
discussion, however, of what kinds of jobs and what levels of
compensation. As a result, supporters said, public economic-
development resources were frequently being thrown at
companies that paid much less than living wages, with no
explicit goals and timetables to improve. Living wage
supporters argue that government and companies that make
money from government contracts or tax breaks ought to make a
living wage the standard for paying their workers, and that
living wages ought to be an explicit goal of local economic
policy.
Opponents generally understand that $5.15 an hour does

14. not pay the bills, but they invoke the specter of increased
unemployment for low-wage workers as a result of living wage
ordinances. Mandated living wages will increase employer
costs: not just for wages, health insurance, and other benefits
but also for payroll taxes. Furthermore, when government
mandates wage increases for some workers, companies often
raise the wages of similarly paid workers who aren't covered by
the law, causing ripple effects. For example, if two employees
of a government contractor both earn $7 per hour before a living
wage law, but one works on the government contract and one
doesn't, the employer will often give raises to both to preserve
the wage structure.
Therefore, while some workers will benefit from higher
wages, opponents say, others will be laid off. New jobs that had
been in the pipeline will not be created. Furthermore, workers
who lose their jobs may flood the low-wage labor market not
covered by living wage ordinances--employers without city or
state contracts or financial assistance--competing for those jobs
and driving down wages. While this may not have been apparent
in the booming 1990s, it may be an increasing problem as cash-
strapped cities and states make hard budgetary decisions.
LIVING WAGES AND JOB LOSSES
Economists David Neumark and Scott Adams compared
cities with living wage laws and those without to assess the
effect on the entire low-wage labor market. Their findings seem
to support the idea that workers benefit if they can keep their
jobs but that many lose jobs. The economists concluded that
about a year after living wage laws go into effect, a statutory
living wage 60 percent above the minimum wage raises the
average wages of workers in the entire bottom 10 percent of the
metropolitan area by 3 percent. At the same time, however, the
employment rate of this group drops more sharply. A living
wage 60 percent above the minimum wage reduces their
employment by about 6 percent. Furthermore, living wage laws
might not do a good job of reaching low-income households,

15. since some low-wage workers who are the laws' beneficiaries
live in middle-class households.
Low-wage workers may not be the only losers from living
wage laws. Since local and state governments could respond to
higher costs by reducing their contracting for public goods and
services, taxpayers might see fewer parking lot attendants and
longer lines to check out of parking garages. There will also be
fewer cleaning workers in office buildings and parks, leading to
dirtier public places.
Moreover, if fewer companies bid for public contracts,
those that remain will have more market power to demand
higher prices. If public buildings are still being cleaned, for
example, the job will cost more. In short, detractors of living
wage laws say they are a bad deal for both low-wage workers
and taxpayers.
Living wage supporters respond that the number of low-
wage workers on government contracts is far too small to cause
wage gains or job loss of the magnitude estimated by Neumark
and Adams. For example, economists Robert Pollin, Jeannette
Wicks-Lim, and Mark Brenner of the Political Economy
Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts calculated
that no more than 7,600 workers got a raise as a result of the
Los Angeles law, out of about 1.5 million earning less than $10
an hour in the entire metropolitan area. The estimate of 7,600
workers affected is probably overstated because of widespread
failure to enforce the law and uncertainty about which
employers are actually covered. How can a law that directly
affects one out of every 200 workers reduce employment by 6
percent?
IMPACT ON TAXPAYERS
As for effects on taxpayers, Pollin and Stephanie Luce
estimated that under the Los Angeles ordinance, the employers'
total costs--including wages, benefits, payroll taxes, and ripple
effects--were projected to increase by less than 2 percent. Most
living wage advocates expect workers in covered jobs to offset

16. these potential losses to taxpayers in three ways: by requiring
less public assistance (for example, food stamps and Medicaid),
reducing absenteeism and turnover (which cost governments
money), and experiencing greater motivation to do their jobs
better (which gets governments more for their money).
Are there alternatives to living wage mandates? Some
opponents of living wage laws support the option of a higher
earned income tax credit, which is a federal subsidy paid to
low-wage workers through the Internal Revenue Service. They
argue that it is not likely to destroy jobs, since employers don't
bear the cost, and that it is better targeted at low-income
families. Living wage supporters usually recognize the
importance of the earned income tax credit supplement to low-
wage workers in the short run. Nevertheless, supporters such as
Jen Kern, director of ACORN's Living Wage Resource Center,
explicitly argue that "limited public dollars should not be
subsidizing poverty-wage work. Public dollars should be
leveraged for the public good--reserved for those private-sector
employers who demonstrate a commitment to providing decent,
family-supporting jobs in our local communities."
For supporters, the great promise of living wage laws is
the ability to increase dramatically the standard of living for a
small number of workers, raise the social accountability of
companies getting public dollars, and introduce living wages as
explicit goals of local economic policy. The disappointment is
that more workers cannot be helped with this strategy.
Supporters remain confident, however, that living wage laws are
at least a small step on the road to livable incomes for all
families. For opponents, the promise of much higher wages for a
small number of workers is outweighed by the threat of job
losses and increased costs for local governments.
Living wages are still relatively new, and information on
the policy's various effects is just beginning to come in. Both
sides will be monitoring the results carefully in the next several
years as low-wage workers and financially stressed cities cope

17. with increasing economic fragility.
Elaine McCrate is associate professor of economics and
women's studies at the University of Vermont and specializes in
the political economy of low- wage labor markets.
Source Citation
McCrate, Elaine. "Minimum Wage or 'Living' Wage?" World
and I Oct. 2003: 56. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19
Dec. 2015.
Internal Citation
(McCrate)
Unequal to the task
National Review, December 31, 2013
"Economic inequality" is to be the great theme of the
remainder of the Obama administration, the president
announced in a speech that combined rank economic ignorance
with shallow demagoguery. And the first item on Barack
Obama's new economic agenda is an increase in the federal
minimum wage to $9, higher than the minimum wage in any
state excepting Washington.
A higher minimum wage is a cruel sentence of
unemployment for young and low-skilled workers, for whom the
real minimum wage is $0.00 per hour. It is also a poor way to
help poor people. The Congressional Budget Office estimated
that the last minimum-wage increase (to $7.25 per hour) would
increase wages by some $11 billion in the subsequent year but
only by $1.6 billion for poor families, meaning that it would
cost $6.88 to provide $1 in economic gain to poor households.
Some of that additional income no doubt flowed to families that
are low-income but above the official poverty line, which is to
the good, but many minimum-wage earners are nowhere near

18. poor; rather, they are low-earning members of reasonably well-
off households, including young people and parents working
part-time. If our policy goal is to make work more rewarding
for people at the lower end of the labor market, raising the
minimum wage is a clumsy and inefficient instrument. Wage
subsidies such as the Earned Income Tax Credit certainly have
their problems as well, but they are economically less
destructive, as are more straightforward measures such as the
reduction of payroll taxes, which eat away at the wages of the
poor disproportionately.
The main problem facing poor families is not a low
minimum wage, but high unemployment. While the president
likes to cite poorly understood income figures (which tell us
little or nothing about the incomes of actual households at any
given economic level, because the people who are in the top 20
percent or bottom 20 percent change from year to year and
significantly from decade to decade), he ought to be looking
instead at the data concerning household net worth and
continuity of employment, which reveal problems connected
tangentially at most with statutory wage floors.
In his minimum-wage speech, the president declared: "If
you're a progressive and you want to help the middle class and
the working poor, you've still got to be concerned about
competitiveness and productivity and business confidence that
spurs private-sector investment." This we agree with.
Unhappily, though, the president has moved in the opposite
direction, for instance making part-time workers more attractive
than full-time employees through his expensive health-care
mandate. And in the one key field in which the president enjoys
almost full autonomy from Congress--regulatory reform--he has
done nothing at all.
Raising the minimum wage is a symbolic project, the main
point of which is to engage in cheap demagoguery when
Republicans vote against it, as they will and as they should.
There is much the president could be doing to help the working
poor, from regulation to school reform, but he does little more

19. than make the occasional misguided speech.
Source Citation
"Unequal to the task." National Review 31 Dec. 2013: 14.
Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.
Internal Citation
(“Unequal”)
Minimal Wages
Commonweal, January 10, 2014
In a recent speech on economic inequality, President
Barack Obama drove home his argument for raising the national
minimum age with a quotation: "They who feed, clothe, and
lodge the whole body of the people should have such a share of
the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably
well fed, clothed, and lodged." Karl Marx? Franklin Delano
Roosevelt? No: Adam Smith, described by the president as the
"the father of free-market economics." Not that FDR would
have disagreed with Smith. Before helping to establish the
nation's first minimum wage in 1938, FDR declared that "no
business which depends for existence on paying less than living
wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country."
Today many businesses in this country depend, if not for
their existence, then for some of their profits on paying less
than living wages to their workers. The government keeps many
of these workers out of poverty by providing them with tax
credits and public assistance--in effect subsidizing their
employers by making up for inadequate wages. A full-time
worker making the current minimum wage ($7.25 an hour) earns
just over $15,000 a year, almost 20 percent below the poverty
line for a family of three. If such a family is to be "tolerably
well fed and lodged," they will need food stamps and housing
subsidies. Many of them, lacking employer-based health
insurance, will also qualify for Medicaid. From time to time, a

20. big company will unwittingly acknowledge that many of its own
workers don't make enough to meet basic needs. A Walmart in
Canton, Ohio, was recently embarrassed by reports that it had
organized a Thanksgiving food drive for its "associates."
It wasn't always this way. In 1968 the minimum wage was
$10.65 an hour in today's dollars. If it had kept up with
inflation and gains in labor productivity since then, it would
now be $25 an hour. No one in Washington supports raising the
national minimum wage that high, but Sen. Tom Harkin (D-
Iowa) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) have introduced
legislation that would raise it to $10.10 and index it to future
increases in the cost of living--mak-ing the minimum wage not
only more fair, but also more predictable and less subject to
political exploitation. The Economic Policy Institute estimates
that such legislation would affect 30 million American workers.
Contrary to popular misconceptions nourished by some in
the media, most of the low-wage workers who would benefit
from a higher minimum wage are not teenagers earning a little
pocket money and learning some basic job skills. More than 90
percent of them are adults and almost a third are parents. The
federal government spends around $7 billion a year on public
assistance just for the families of fast-food workers. If
conservative lawmakers are serious about streamlining
entitlement programs and promoting self-reliance, they should
be lining up behind proposals to raise the minimum wage.
So why aren't they? It isn't for lack of public support. A
large majority of voters from both parties are in favor of raising
the minimum wage. Whatever their opinions about welfare,
most Americans agree with Adam Smith that those who work
for a living should actually make one. Opponents of a higher
minimum wage say it will only hurt the poor by reducing the
number of jobs: when labor costs are higher, they warn,
employers will hire fewer workers. This argument has a certain
intuitive force, but several recent studies suggest that modest
minimum-wage increases have no significant effect on
employment levels. Lobbyists for retailers and fast-food

21. restaurants also argue that higher wages will drive up business
costs, which will be passed along to consumers as higher prices.
But research suggests that a $10.10 minimum wage would add
only a few pennies to the price of a hamburger. The lobbyists
don't mention that the big corporations they represent could also
absorb some of the higher labor costs by accepting lower profit
margins. Some of what a McDonald's franchise owner pays in
higher wages, for example, ought to come out of the fee he has
to pay to the McDonald's Corporation, which made $5.5 billion
in profit in 2012.
A higher minimum wage would be good for the nation's
economy. It would stimulate demand by giving low-wage
workers more spending power. It would save Washington and
the states billions of dollars on entitlement programs by
reducing poverty. But the argument for raising the minimum
wage is as much moral as economic; it is an argument about
fairness and the dignity of labor. No one who works full time in
the richest country in the world should need to supplement her
income with handouts, public or private. Or as the president put
it in his speech, "If you work hard, you should make a decent
living." Adam Smith couldn't have said it better.
Source Citation
"Minimal Wages." Commonweal 141.1 (2014): 5. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Dec. 2015.
Internal Citation
(“Minimal”)
Argument Essay
In your argument paper, you are going to choose a side of a
debatable (provided) topic. You will then need to persuade the

22. reader (your teacher) to agree with your opinion. The best
argumentative papers combine strong research and commentary
from the author.
You will have several topics to choose from that are listed
below. You will receive research from your teacher to use as
your sources for the paper. These are the ONLY sources that
you may use. You will receive articles that are in favor of the
cause and articles that are against the cause. You will also
receive an outline to help you with this paper. It is required that
you use this outline. Each body paragraph must include two
pieces of cited information with at least one of those being a
direct quote. You MUST also include a Works Cited page. Any
paper turned in without a Works Cited page will receive a
maximum grade of a 50. Also, your paper is NOT considered
turned in until both a hard copy and a digital copy are turned in.
Daily late points (20 points per day) will accumulate until both
steps are done.
Topics
Prompt 1
Does violence in video games promote violence/aggression in
children?
Prompt 2
Is it worth sacrificing personal privacy in order to maintain
social safety?
Prompt 3
Would raising the minimum wage help decrease poverty levels
or inadvertently increase unemployment?
Prompt 4

23. Does popular media have a negative influence on body image?
Prompt 5
Should society support paternity leave, or would paternity leave
be detrimental to the work force?
www.turnitin.com
· All students need a turnitin account.
· You need to ensure you sign up for the correct class. The code
for each class is listed below.
· The password for all classes is Davison.
7.
A
B
C
D
F
Organization
*Outstanding claim & concession
*Paragraphs are impressively coherent & cohesive; each
paragraph clearly expresses a specific purpose
*Relevant topic sentences that clearly relate back to thesis
*Solid claim & concession
* Paragraphs are coherent & cohesive; each paragraph expresses
a specific purpose
*Relevant topic sentences that relate back to thesis

24. *Vague claim & concession
* Paragraphs are loose in structure; ideas are not always clear
*Topic sentences loosely relate back to thesis
*Missing concession
* Paragraphs lack development; specific purpose of paragraphs
is often unclear
*Relationships between topic sentence and thesis often unclear
*No claim
*Paragraphs are not developed/focused; there is no obvious
purpose
*No relationship between topic sentence and thesis
Quotes
*Paper includes 6 required quotes
*Quotes impressively support ideas
*Paper includes 5 quotes
*Quotes sufficiently support ideas
*Paper includes 4 quotes
*Quotes adequately support ideas
*Paper includes 3 quotes

25. *Quotes loosely support ideas
*Paper includes 2 or fewer quotes
*Quotes do not support ideas presented
Ideas & Content
*Outstanding development of ideas, analysis, & efficient use of
quotes
*Outstanding choice of quotes to support claim
*Outstanding use of commentary to link quotes & claim
*Content is engaging and original
* Solid development of ideas, analysis, & efficient use of
quotes
*Solid choice of quotes to support claim
*Solid use of commentary to link quotes & claim
*Content is interesting and original
*Adequate development of ideas, analysis, & efficient use of
quotes
* Adequate choice of quotes to support claim
*Adequate use of commentary to link quotes & claim
*Content is appropriate and original
*Thin development of ideas, analysis, & inefficient use of
quotes
*Weak choice of quotes to support claim
*Weak use of commentary to link quotes & claim

26. *Content is vague and original
*Lacks development of ideas, analysis, & inefficient use of
quotes
*Quotes do not support claim
*Commentary does not link quote to claim
*Content is vague and unoriginal
Style
*Sentences are mature, exact, and demonstrate appropriate word
choice
*Outstanding use of transitions to move between ideas
*Paper adheres to all formal writing rules
*Sentences are well written and demonstrate appropriate word
choice
*Solid use of transitions to move between ideas
*Paper adheres to most formal writing rules
*Sentences are adequate and demonstrate acceptable word
choice
*Adequate use of transitions to move between ideas
*Paper shows general awareness of formal writing rules
*Sentences are awkward, overly simple, and word choice is flat
*Weak use of transitions to move between ideas
*Paper shows inconsistent awareness of formal writing rules
*Sentences are unclear/vague and word choice is poor
*No transitions between ideas

27. *Paper shows little or no regard for formal writing rules
Conventions
*No convention errors
*Paper adheres to all formal writing rules
*Few convention errors
*Paper adheres to most formal writing rules
*Moderate convention errors
*Paper shows general awareness of formal writing rules
*Numerous convention errors
*Paper shows inconsistent awareness of formal writing rules
*Excessive convention errors detract from paper’s readability
*Paper shows little or no regard for formal writing rules
MLA Format
*0-1 MLA format & documentation errors
*2-3 MLA format & documentation errors
*4-5 MLA format & documentation errors
*6-7 MLA format & documentation errors
* 8 + MLA format & documentation errors
*A paper turned in without a Works Cited page will receive a
maximum of 50.
*10 points will be taken off for any missing quotes (6 required)
and 25 points will be taken off for any missing paragraphs (3
required).
Argument Outline
I. Introduction

28. A. Introduce the topic without stating your view (General
terms)
B. Continue introducing the topic using specifics (specific ideas
of support, NOT EVIDENCE) (should
be at least 2 sentences)
C. Thesis: concession, claim and supports
(Although________________, claim_____________ because
support 1 and support 2)
I. Body Paragraph 1 - Counter Argument
A. State Concession (Although statement in a complete
sentence)
B. Counterargument (However, ___________________)
C. Research for counter argument
D. Commentary explaining how the evidence for the
counterargument disproves the concession
E. Transition into your 2nd evidence of counterargument
F. Research 2 for counter argument

29. G. Commentary on research
H. Closing (summarize how you have proven concession wrong)
III. Body Paragraph 2
A. Topic Sentence (Support 1)
B. Transition into evidence
C. Evidence (research)
D. Commentary
E. Transition into evidence 2
F. Evidence 2 (research)
G. Commentary:
H. Closing/transition into next paragraph (summarize support 1
and link to support 2)
IV. Body Paragraph 3

30. A. Topic Sentence (Support 2)
B. Transition into evidence
C. Evidence (research)
D. Commentary
E. Transition into evidence
F. Evidence (research)
G. Commentary
H. Closing/transition into next paragraph (Summarize support 2)
V. Conclusion
A. Restate thesis (reword the thesis, should not be identical to
thesis statement)
B. Summarize your counterargument and supports (should be at
least 3 sentences long)
C. Parting thought

31. Essay Checklist
Directions: For both your rough draft and your final draft, you
will need to check to ensure you have each of the items in the
table.
Rough Draft
Final Draft
1. A clear thesis statement that must include a concession.
2. NO “I” statements. There should not be any statements made
in the first person.
3. One counter-argument paragraph.
4. Two paragraphs that support your argument.
----------- ----------
---------- ----------
5. Two pieces of evidence per body paragraph. This means you
need a total of six.
_______ _______
_______ _______
_______ _______
_______ ________
_______ ________

32. _______ ________
6. A minimum of one direct quote per paragraph.
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
7. No “long” quotes. This means no quote longer than three
lines.
8. Use the “2 to 1” ratio. You should have two pieces of
commentary for each piece of evidence.
____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ___
____ ____ ____ ___
____ ____ ____ ___
9. Internal citation for each piece of evidence.

33. _______ _______
_______ _______
_______ _______
_______ _______
_______ _______
_______ _______
10. A separate works cited page in proper MLA format.
Argument Paper Rubric