The Market--Not Politicians
Should Determine Wages
by


This first appeared in the
North Hills News Record

It's no surprise that the pleas for an increase in the minimum wage would become more shrill and insistent given the healthy state of the economy.

Even though entry-level wages, especially in the North Hills (of Pittsburgh, PA) usually far exceed the federal minimum of $5.15 an hour, it hasn't stopped the social engineers from making demands.

They're now repackaging the stale idea of raising the minimum wage and insisting that all workers should earn what they dub a "living wage."

One such individual, who obviously whiled away a college career without venturing anywhere near a business course said, "We need to raise the bottom to a level that people can survive. If you work, you deserve to be able to support your family."

Another whined about how unfair it was that child-care workers earned less than car mechanics.

I've decided that people who say things like this must believe that money is just randomly distributed. To them, workers who make decent incomes are just lucky.

But incomes aren't arbitrarily set. It sounds trite, but most incomes are determined by supply and demand.

Earnings have nothing to do with how hard a person works. I've unloaded airline food carriers and washed rotting food from filthy trays in the sweltering summer heat for minimum wage. It was hard work, but it certainly didn't take any special skill to wash dishes, and there are zillions of people capable of doing it.

Earnings also have nothing to do with how valuable a person's contribution to society is. Granted, you can make the argument that good child-care workers are priceless, but to those parents paying child-care workers, there are plenty of people who can provide child care--including the parents themselves. The number of child-care options keeps the wages of child-care workers low.

Contrast this to say computer programmers. They have specialized skills that are also in high demand. That's reflected in their paychecks.

I would challenge anyone who believes that mandating higher wages for low income workers to stop being so stingy. If forcing employers to pay their employees more genuinely raises living standards, why not set this so-called living wage at $20 an hour and eliminate everyone's financial worries.

Because at $20.00 an hour, it's easy to see how prices would skyrocket. The price of a McDonald's hamburger would end up beyond the reach of what most people are willing to pay.

Because of that, businesses would be forced to cut costs which means many unskilled workers would lose their jobs or never even get hired in the first place. And businesses that are labor intensive would replace expensive labor with machines. And machines don't sue or get sick.

It may seem compassionate to support a living wage, but in reality the compassion is based on intellectual laziness. The only way for a person to truly raise his/her wage is to develop skills that people are willing to pay more for.

Lest anyone think I'm being overly judgmental of those who toil for low wages, I should add that there were years when I earned what would be considered far less than a "living wage" with no benefits. When my son was born, I had no health insurance. I had to pay all medical expenses in cash.

Eventually, through hard work and diligence, I learned skills that the marketplace rewards with higher pay.

There is definitely no equity when it comes to income. But before anyone is too quick to criticize the uneven playing field, it should be noted that incomes aren't distributed. They're earned.

© Copyright Deborah A. Ayers 1999. All rights reserved.