The previous post made me think of the argument for and against minimum wage.
Those who support it have the emotionally attractive edge. They say it helps the poor. They also have the easy-to-envision edge. It’s easy to envision Minimum Wage Worker Bobby getting a raise.
Those opposed would seem to have an emotionally attractive edge, too. They say it hurts the poor. If you care about helping the poor, that should get your attention.
But, how it hurts the poor is tougher for someone to envision and maybe not very emotionally attractive, as well.
They say it hurts the poor by reducing entry-level job opportunities for the folks who need them the most, people with little or no job experience. How do you get to the next run in the economic ladder without experience?
What does ‘reducing job opportunities’ mean? That’s tougher to envision than Minimum Wage Bobby getting a raise. Does it mean the burger shop not hiring an extra worker next year? Does it mean that some businesses will never materialize because the costs are too high? Yes and yes. But, again, that’s tougher to imagine than Bobby getting that raise.
And, is entry-level work really a run on the economic ladder? Does it lead to bigger and better and things? That is also hard to imagine, since most folks are brainwashed to believe that it’s education, not entry-level job experience, that moves you up the economic ladder.
They would need to be paying close attention to observe how important many of the work skills, habits and interpersonal skills learned on those entry-level jobs are to their jobs later in life.
The minimum wage argument boils down to, I can envision Bobby getting a raise and I think that is worth more than some nameless person down the road not getting something they never knew they were going to get.
So, how do you frame the argument against minimum wage to make it both more emotionally attractive and easy to envision?