A Rhetorical Analysis of “A National Wage Will Improve Living Standards” and “Living Wage Ordinances Reduce Employment”

         Rhetoric is essential to any political process. More often than not, the rhetoric used is filled with emotional outbursts and little substantial logic. This leads to passionate, dedicated individuals fighting for a cause they know nothing about. This rhetoric is not necessarily effective regardless of the argument’s positive or negative benefits. As is the case with much of the debate over a “living wage”, or a higher wage adjusted to meet the demands of minimum wage workers.  Both “A National Wage Will Improve Living Standards” by the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CoC) and “Living Wage Ordinances Reduce Employment” by Jill Jenkins discuss this same issue. Jenkins paper powerfully uses logos to prove her argument, but the CoC chooses to use pathos appeal emotionally.

         In “A National Living Wage Will Improve Living Standards” the rhetor is the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. The ideal audience would be one sympathetic to the claims made in the paper. The paper uses various emotional appeals that tend to polarize readers. A reader with an opposing viewpoint would be repelled by the wording used. The purpose of the text is to demonstrate the need for a Living Wage and to raise support for the political movement that advocates it. It was first published in 2000, so to information would still be considered relevant. Because the article cites only American statistics and deals only with the problems concerning the labor market in America , it is safe to say that it is written in an American context. The paper was first published in “Urgent: A Living Wage for Everyone Who Works” by the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It was reprinted in Opposing Viewpoints: Work, but accessed through the Opposing Viewpoints internet database. This demonstrates that the intended audience would have most likely been the political far left. However, it has been opened to a wider, unintended audience through the Opposing Viewpoints website.

The claim made in “A National Living Wage Will Improve Living Standards”, is that a “living wage”, or an adjusted minimum wage, will is necessary to improve the living standards for minimum wage workers in the United States. It is assumed that the audience shares the belief that all people should be granted a standard of living. This also implies that it is wrong to exploit people for personal profit, socially or economically. Additionally, the audience must believe that it is the government’s job to intervene and provide this higher standard for its people. This is a fault of the paper because while it may make perfect sense to the author, few readers will share the exact political views of the author. While almost everyone will agree on the point that workers should not starve, not all will agree with the above warrant. The claims made in the paper are all inclusive. An example of this would be “only comprehensive federal legislation can secure a realistic living wage for all workers” (CoC) (emphasis added). The author provides many reasons to support the claims made in the paper. While many inartistic proofs are provided, the author relies primarily on pathos. This results in a rhetorically weak but emotionally appealing argument.

         To support their call for a necessary raise in minimum wage, the rhetor states that the economic divide between the rich and poor keeps growing. To support this statement, the author cites various statistics from sources such as The Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Department of Health, the Economics Policy Institute, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. All of these sources are relatively credible. However, the statistics listed could be interpreted differently. The national poverty line may be set too low for a living wage activist, but just fine for a free trade supporter. Therefore, the relationship between those living below or just above the poverty line may be interpreted differently. The paper uses inartistic proofs relatively well, but does not give the audience the illusion of unbiased reporting of facts. The rhetor adds obvious emphasis which may cause the audience to question the validity of the context various inartistic proofs in the paper. The truth is that in reading these facts, predetermined attitudes will affect your interpretation. If you already sympathize with socialist politics, you are likely to be just as appalled by the statistics as the authors apparently were.  The statistics provided are accurate.

         The basic logical appeal of this paper is that poverty is increasing and that political action towards a living wage will solve that problem. The paper fails to address the basic economic effects of such an action. Surely, higher wages will raise the standard of living temporarily. Could the negative effects of such an action out weigh the positive? What about globalization, the market adjustment of higher prices because of higher output costs? The paper fails to look at the problem holistically and only addresses one side of the issue. It uses empty pathos instead of logos to support their argument. This is not very effective because it only strengthens the convictions of supporters and fails to win over anyone who believes differently. It effectively alienates everyone who does not agree.

         This publication was authored by Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. This is obviously a political committee. The wording used is obviously biased and emotional. While the information and statistics presented are factually correct, it is hard to believe that it all can be viewed as the author presents it. This leads the audience to question the rhetor’s ethos because it is presented in such a biased light. Additionally, while the rhetor may have a complete understanding of a singular viewpoint, they fail to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the social and economic proposition they present.  

The rhetor appeals to emotion repeatedly through the piece. The majority of the writing in the paper deals with pathos. In presenting the “injustices” done to the working class, the rhetor uses sympathy and compassion to get the audience to agree with their ideas. Additionally the rhetor appeals to the reader’s sense of justice in saying that justice is not being served. This would cause the reader to become angry as justice considered is a core American value. The intended audience would share the intended emotion and respond as the rhetor wishes. The unintended audience would not share the emotional response and therefore be turned off by such an emotional appeal masquerading as logical political discourse.

     This paper is organized effectively, providing the effects of a lower wage and then moving to the possible solutions a living wage could bring. The language is easy to understand and the tone is very effective at conveying emotion. The terms are not difficult to understand, and the majority are defined by the rhetor to allow further understanding. 

     The rhetor of “A National Living Wage Will Improve Living Standards” repeatedly uses pathos to call for the political action of the audience. While somewhat effective with an already believing audience, this will do little to gain new supporters. The rhetor first provides many inartistic proofs concerning income distribution and poverty in the United States . While such statistics as “The richest 2.7 million people have as much income as the poorest 100 million. The most affluent 1% control 40% of the nation’s wealth.” (Coc) may be effective at tugging at our sense of social justice, they do little to add to the case for a living wage. The rhetor repeatedly uses inartistic proofs to support their pathos. The rhetor also makes a strong case for the need for some sort of provision to the impoverished, but fails to prove how the economic effects of a living wage would provide long-term economic benefits. One example of this would be the repeated idea that the current minimum wage is set below the official poverty line. Another important point made is that the national poverty line fails to account for the problems of inflation and different costs of living. These points all vaguely point to a semi-logical conclusion, that a living wage is the only way to save the labor class. The paper then attempts turning sensationalism into political action. There is little logical discourse concerning the economic applications of a living wage. This emotional attempt would do little to sway the opposition; it would only serve to enhance pre-existing bias.

         In “Living Wage Ordinances Reduce Employment”, the rhetor is Jill Jenkins. Her intended audience appears to be diverse. She includes hard facts, indicating her intent to communicate with an audience that may not agree with her. By citing statistics she could either giver supporters more ammunition or attempt to win over new support. Jenkin’s purpose is to stop the “living wage” movement and find other ways to support minimum wage workers. This would be accomplished through a political process. The context for the argument is modern; the paper was published in 2002. It also focuses on only American applications of the issue. Additionally, this was originally published in The Unintended Consequences of ‘Living Wages’ by Jill Jenkin’s, Employment Policy Foundation Fact and Fallacy, vol.5, no 9. For the purposes of this paper, it was accessed through the Opposing Viewpoints internet database.

         Jenkin supports her statements using a combination of inartistic proofs and logic. Her claim that a living wage may not help the poorest people is supported by three strong logical statements; if wage floors are set high above the market demand for labor will decrease, living wage “victories” are normally on a local level and therefore create large disparities, and that a living wage my actually hurt the workers it intends to help. All of her statements are defended with inartistic proofs and logical conclusions.

            The rhetor then proceeds to attack the statistics used by her opposition. She states that “51% of all minimum wage workers are ages 16-24” and “30.4% of all minimum wage workers still live with their parents.” She claims that this fact places a larger number of workers above the official poverty line. Additionally, she states that projected incomes are understated by living wage advocates. These wages are usually calculated by taking minimum wage (then set at $5.15/hour) and multiplying it by 2,000 hours, accounting for a total income of $10,300. This is below the federal poverty level of $10,972. This account does not count overtime hours, or that there may be more than one wage earner in the family. Additionally, when Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC is factored into the equation, many families rise above the poverty line. All of her reasoning up to this point has been relatively solid. Where it breaks down is in her belief in the strength of the national poverty level. The government poverty level cited does not account for inflation or cost of living. The cost of living is certainly higher in San Francisco than it is in Brown Deer, Wisconsin .  It additionally fails to account for the number of members in the family. If this statistic is faulty, her argument placing workers above the federal poverty level is useless.

         Of the two articles, Jill Jenkins’ article would be the most persuasive. By providing numerous logical conclusions, she would win new supporters for her positions. She also refrains from using excessive pathos but still draws an audience into the debate. This allows for logical discussion without heated emotions. The CoC relies heavily on emotion to discuss living wage. This may rally support for the cause but will fail to win over the opposition. Their argument proves faulty with a closer examination.