Raising Minimum Wage
Won't Help Working Poor
by


This first appeared in the
North Hills News Record

In his state of the Union address, President Clinton seized an opportunity to win back points with labor by proposing another increase in the minimum wage.

He said, "In an economy that honors opportunity, all Americans must be able to reap the rewards of prosperity. Because these times are good, we can afford to take one simple, sensible step to help millions of workers struggling to provide for their families: We should raise the minimum wage."

I'm not surprised he said this. Surveys continue to show widespread support for increasing the minimum wage. But compassion is no excuse for ignorance.

According to the 1990 census, the overwhelming majority of minimum wage earners are high school or college students. Only 2 percent of working poor families work at the minimum wage.

Assuming that doesn't matter to the compassionate crowd and raising the minimum wage can truly lift someone's standard of living, why be so stingy? Why not set the minimum wage at $20 an hour and wipe out poverty entirely?

"Don't be ridiculous!" you say. At $20 an hour, prices would skyrocket. Unskilled workers would lose their jobs or never even get hired in the first place. And many labor-intensive jobs would be replaced with machines or moved overseas to cheaper labor markets.

The so-called compassionate one insist that modest increases in the minimum wage don't hurt the economy. They point to the drop in our current unemployment rate after two consecutive increases in the minimum wage as some kind of "scientific" proof that raising prices for labor does not cause employers to buy less of it.

Don't kid yourself. An increase still is an increase. The only difference is its magnitude.

Wages are set by the market just like any other price. An employer will pay no more than what it takes to attract good workers. Depending on the supply of labor, cost of living, and a variety of other factors, the entry level wage might be higher or lower than the federal minimum allowed by law.

Many employers in the North Hills already pay more than minimum. Some even provide benefits, paid vacation, and tuition reimbursement for part-time workers. Employers must pay what a worker is willing to work for.

The vast majority of people adversely affected by an increase in the minimum wage are young, illiterate or among the lowest ranks of the socio-economic ladder.

They don't vote. They don't work on political campaigns or contribute campaign money. They don't write letters to the editor and don't otherwise make themselves heard politically. They're virtually invisible in the political process.

So politicians can posture as the saviors of these low-income people while actually destroying their prospects for attaining upward mobility.

Minimum wage jobs often are the first rung on the ladder of success. They teach many valuable skills that pay off later. Entry-level, unskilled workers learn teamwork, how to follow directions and deal with people. They learn the importance of being on time, finishing assigned tasks, taking responsibility for mistakes, coming to work regularly and being well groomed.

Most middle-class children pick up these skills at home. But many others lack good adult role models. The job site usually is the only place they learn these basic door-opening skills. And they can't learn them if they are unemployed.

When Bill Clinton was campaigning for his first election, he stated that increasing the minimum wage is "the wrong way to raise the incomes of low-wage earners." He was right. You can't create wealth by government decree.

© Copyright Deborah A. Ayers 1998. All rights reserved.