The Washington Post editorial “Hurting the 0.3%” takes an
offensive stance on a proposed minimum wage raise. The article relies heavily
on new numbers that speculate on the impact such a raise might make on employment.
The writer of the article begins by throwing jabs at those who have been
heralding the raise. They write focusing completely on the speculation that
between 0-1 million jobs may be lost due to a raise in minimum wage to 10.10 by
2016. This completely ignores the positives such a raise could have on the
0.3%. The Post article instead focuses
on the idea that most minimum wage workers are not from low-income households
because they are mostly “including teenagers and secondary earners”.
A New York Times editorial tackles the same subject with a
broader much more relevant view. They acknowledge the potential loss of
employment but also state the many positive effects such a pay-raise could have
on millions of Americans.
“The vast majority of
those getting raises would not be teenagers with part-time
jobs. Nearly 90 percent of them are adults 20 and older, and 53 percent of them
work full time. Women represent 56 percent of them.”
jobs. Nearly 90 percent of them are adults 20 and older, and 53 percent of them
work full time. Women represent 56 percent of them.”
Both articles target the same audience but the Washington Post
uses sloppy word choice and makes useless digs to convey their point. The
article is neither accurate, informative nor particularly persuasive. It makes the
work of teenagers from low-income families irrelevant and implies that
secondary earners are not important to their households. When more often than
not a secondary income is what keeps some American families above the poverty
line. Overall the Washington Post fails to adequately inform its audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment