Why Is the Federal Minimum Wage Not a Living Wage?

The debate over minimum wage versus living wage in the United States centers on the adequacy of the federally mandated minimum wage in meeting the basic needs of workers. The minimum wage, currently set at $7.25 per hour, is the lowest hourly pay that employers can legally pay their employees. In contrast, a living wage is defined as the hourly rate that an individual must earn to cover the essential costs of living, such as housing, food, healthcare, and transportation, which often varies by location and family size. Proponents of raising the minimum wage argue that it has not kept pace with inflation and the rising cost of living, leading to increased poverty and reliance on social welfare programs. They contend that a higher wage floor is necessary to ensure economic stability and dignity for all workers. On the other hand, opponents claim that significantly increasing the minimum wage could lead to job losses, as small businesses may struggle to afford higher payroll costs, potentially reducing employment opportunities for low-skill workers. They also argue that a one-size-fits-all approach does not account for regional economic differences. The debate continues as policymakers and economists weigh the potential benefits of reducing poverty against the possible risks of negative economic impacts.

This debate requires context before assuming a position. Context refers to the circumstances, background, or setting in which communication takes place. It encompasses various factors such as the environment, cultural norms, the relationship between communicators, and the specific situation or time in which the communication occurs. Context is essential in communication because it helps to clarify meaning, ensuring that messages are interpreted accurately and appropriately.

Without context, words and actions can be misunderstood or misinterpreted, leading to confusion or conflict. For example, a joke told in a casual, friendly setting might be well-received, but the same joke in a formal or serious situation could be seen as inappropriate or offensive. Context provides the necessary framework that guides how messages are conveyed and understood, making it a crucial element for effective and meaningful communication.

When providing evidence in an essay, you often need to provide context before the evidence so that the reader both understands the evidence and why you are using it to support your point. In this chapter, you’ll learn techniques to introduce evidence, including creating context.

Why You Should Care

Using evidence correctly is crucial for making your arguments persuasive and credible. Properly introducing and explaining evidence helps your reader understand and be convinced by your points. Whether discussing issues like the minimum wage vs. living wage debate or other topics, mastering this skill is essential for clear and compelling writing.

Why Explanation is Necessary

Evidence alone is often not enough to persuade your audience. Different people can interpret the same piece of evidence in various ways, drawing different conclusions. Therefore, it is crucial to explain your evidence so that your audience can understand how it supports your point.

Context is critical in the minimum versus living wage debate because it shapes our understanding of the economic, social, and regional factors influencing wage policies. Without considering the context, such as the cost of living in different areas, the specific needs of low-income families, and the economic conditions of small businesses, policymakers risk making decisions that could lead to severe repercussions. For instance, setting a high minimum wage without accounting for regional cost variations might force small businesses to cut jobs or shut down, exacerbating unemployment and poverty. Conversely, maintaining a low minimum wage in high-cost areas can perpetuate poverty and food insecurity, as families struggle to meet basic needs despite working full-time. The wrong economic choices could also lead to increased reliance on social welfare programs, putting additional strain on public resources. Thus, understanding and incorporating context is essential to creating balanced wage policies that protect workers’ livelihoods without destabilizing local economies.

Nearly every field depends on context. In legal cases, both prosecution and defense might interpret the same fingerprint differently, necessitating clear explanations to avoid jury confusion. Climate scientists must contextualize temperature data to convincingly argue for human-induced global warming against natural variability claims. Business presentations require sales teams to clarify revenue increases as results of specific strategies rather than market growth. Health officials need to link vaccination data directly to disease reduction to validate campaign effectiveness.

Without proper context, evidence can be misinterpreted, undermining persuasive efforts.

But What Context Is Necessary, and How Much?

Who Is Your Audience?

To understand what context is necessary and how much you need to provide, you need to first know who your audience is. What do they know about the topic? And how do they feel about the topic?

Since you may never meet your audience in person, you should consider some basic demographic factors about them. Are they young? Old? Rich? Poor? How much education do they have? Where are they from? What are their values and beliefs?

For example, imagine you are writing an essay about the economic factors involved in setting a national minimum wage. If you’re audience is a 16-year-old shift worker at McDonald’s, you will likely need to provide more context than if your audience was someone well-versed in economic policy, like billionaire Warren Buffet.

Many college instructors will provide you with information about who your intended audience is, or they would be willing to clarify if you asked. Knowing your audience will help you decide what context is necessary, and how much you need to provide.

What Is Unclear?

Is there anything about the evidence that is unclear? What needs to be explained and why? For example, would the following evidence be unclear to the average American reader:

The sentence above doesn’t exactly roll off your tongue, right? This evidence is unclear because it uses highly technical language that may not be easily understood by a general audience. Terms like “regression analysis,” “labor market elasticities,” “cross-wage elasticity of demand,” and “exogenous wage floor adjustments” are specific to economic policy and statistical analysis, making it difficult for non-experts to grasp the meaning and implications of the evidence. Without clear explanation, the audience might struggle to understand how this evidence supports an argument about the impacts of minimum wage changes on employment.

Techniques to Introduce Evidence

Luckily, there are four techniques you can use to introduce your evidence. Whenever you present a piece of evidence in your writing, pause to consider which of these techniques you should use. You will rarely need to use all four techniques for a single piece of evidence, but you will almost always use at least one or two. Review your evidence carefully and try to imagine it from your intended reader’s perspective. Will creating context help them understand the evidence? Will establishing the source’s credibility make them trust the information? Will defining a term increase their comprehension? Just like selecting the right tools for a project, you will select which techniques to introduce a piece of evidence.

Create Context

Context helps your audience understand the information. If the evidence may be confusing without context, provide the necessary background. When discussing the minimum wage vs. living wage debate, context is crucial. Without context, evidence might be misunderstood. For instance, “The current federal minimum wage in the U.S. is $7.25 per hour.” Without context, this might seem sufficient, but with context—”This wage has not increased since 2009, despite rising living costs”—the reader gains a clearer understanding of its inadequacy. Background details will help the reader understand the bigger picture around a piece of evidence.

Another strategy to create context is relating information to the audience. Connect the topic or evidence to something your audience already knows or cares about. For instance, when discussing the impact of the minimum wage on local communities, you might say, “Imagine trying to support your family on a salary that hasn’t increased in years, despite rising rent and grocery costs. Many of your neighbors, who work full-time jobs, face this exact struggle every day. Just as you’ve noticed prices increasing at your local grocery store, they too find it harder to make ends meet with a stagnant wage.” By connecting the topic to familiar experiences and concerns, the audience can better understand the relevance and urgency of the issue.

Establish Credibility

When a source is unfamiliar to your audience, establish its credibility by explaining where the information comes from and why it is reliable. Imagine you find a fact from a lesser-known source, like the Economic Policy Institute. You could introduce the evidence like this:

“According to a 2020 report by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank specializing in economic research…”

Notice that establishing credibility should be brief; you are not providing the source’s entire resume. Identify one (maybe two) credentials that prove the source has the necessary qualifications on the topic. Establishing its credibility will help the reader trust the information.

Define Terms

Define terms that are subjective or unfamiliar to your audience. In academic writing, it is crucial to define terms for your audience to ensure clarity and precision in your argument. When should you define a term?

Technical or Unfamiliar: when a word is technical or unfamiliar, providing a definition helps prevent misunderstandings. For example, when discussing economic policies, terms like “elasticity” might be unfamiliar to some readers. Explaining that “elasticity refers to the responsiveness of the quantity demanded or supplied of a good to a change in its price” ensures everyone understands the concept.

Subjective: A subjective word means different people will have different definitions for the term, such as “freedom.” When you have a subjective term, either in the evidence or in your own writing, it is essential to clarify your definition to avoid ambiguity. For instance, in a discussion on social justice, you might define “freedom” using Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, which emphasizes not just the absence of constraints but the positive ability to achieve well-being and participate in society. Sen argues that true freedom involves having the capabilities to pursue the kind of life one values.

By defining technical or subjective terms, you provide a clear framework for your readers, facilitating better comprehension and engagement with your work.

Choose a Signal Phrase

Signal phrases help establish how a quote is delivered and can signal how the reader should interpret the evidence. Signal phrases–like stated, argued, questioned–are introductory phrases that lead into a quotation, paraphrase, or summary. They help attribute information to its original source, provide context, and smoothly integrate evidence into a piece of writing. Signal phrases are essential for clearly indicating when someone else’s ideas or words are being used, ensuring proper attribution and enhancing the credibility of the writing.

Conclusion

Effectively introducing evidence is essential for making your writing clear and credible. Techniques such as creating context, establishing credibility, using signal phrases, and defining terms help ensure your audience fully understands and is convinced by your evidence.