.jpg)
People on both sides of the political aisle have long debated the “right” minimum wage. As a hot-button topic, the discussion often ends in gridlock, and the minimum wage remains unchanged. Determining a minimum wage satisfactory to most people should be entirely possible without being hampered by political ideology. To begin, let us name minimum wage as “living wage”, and define it to be the appropriate amount of hourly wage required for a full 40-hour work week that allows a worker to live slightly above the poverty level in their state.
Let’s examine the argument from the left. President Obama has stated that if the minimum wage were to be increased, fewer people in the lower working class would live in poverty. His reasoning is based in the assumption that the larger income would, in part, flow back into the American economy, thereby providing additional stimulus and helping it to expand and grow. Furthermore, those people earning a living wage should also be able to save money, paving their way to a more secure future. Former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has supported the President’s position and stated that not earning a living wage has the potential to trap individuals in poverty indefinitely. Senator Elizabeth Warren has also argued on behalf of increasing the living wage. She believes the productivity of American workers has increased and yet their wages do not reflect their higher efficiency. The leadership of experienced, high ranking political officials on the left has stated clearly and has developed reasonable arguments that should be considered not only for the workers directly affected but also for the overall health of the American economy.
Meanwhile, the view from the right offers a different set of variables to consider. Economist Dr. Joseph Sabia states that raising the living wage alone does not grant every person a job with a decent wage. According to David Neumark and William Washer, raising the living wage too high will push some people out of the job market and potentially lead to wage discrimination. Specifically, young workers would be affected due to their lack of job experience, which could lead employers to favor more experienced candidates. Moreover, if people are priced out of the entry level job market due an increase in the living wage, no matter the age of the individual, the incentive to turn to illegal ways of making ends meet dramatically increases. Another point made by those on the right is that raising wages could cause unwanted consequences to both the public and the worker. For example, reducing workers’ hours and benefits, would lead to higher prices on goods and services for the consumer.
After viewing both sides of the argument it is easy to understand why determining a common ground living wage is difficult. However, to review the issue ad infinitum and to not achieve one living wage that applies to every state is not acceptable. So the following should be considered as a path to finding common ground. First, the federal government should not set a living wage that applies to every state. Instead the living wage decision should be debated and established by each state based on what a living wage is in that particular state. This would require taking into account things like taxes, economic status, and employment rate. Then, you can tie the minimum wage to inflation so that the minimum wage does not have to be debated with so much frequency. Additionally, raising the state’s living wage will provide the opportunity for people now trapped in poverty by their state’s and federal welfare programs to return to work and contribute value to the economy. According to Ron Unz, an American businessman and 2016 senatorial hopeful, says that the US spends upwards of $250 billion on welfare per year. Therefore, raising a state’s living wage to one that is suitable for living and taking people off of the welfare system will save taxpayers money in a way that will keep the US competitive in a global market. Secondly, new workers should be given privileges that allow them to work for less than the state’s living wage in order to help them land their first job and not bind them to their employer. In addition, to have more new workers hired, employers need to have incentives to take the risk in hiring new workers. These incentives could include giving a company a tax break after it has hired a new worker, and allowing them to continue to hold that tax break as long as the new employee is with that company or until the employee earns a promotion involving a pay increase. Also when a company is starting out and is in its developing stages (one to three years) it too should receive the privilege to pay below minimum wage if necessary to sustain the company. The Pew Research Center made an accurate claim that the reason why many Illegal immigrants take American jobs is because the Americans are reluctant to accept these jobs. However, with the states setting a living wage that better suits the living standards of the people within that state, more Americans will be motivated to enter the workforce, which will reduce the opportunity for illegal foreign workers to be exploited into accepting low wages. Moreover, to assure that Americans can keep more of what they earn, the federal, state, and local governments should reduce the subsidizing of some goods and services, which are then made more expensive and out of reach for the working poor (for example: ethanol production and some agriculture products). Workers earning the current minimum wage have seen their purchasing power decline significantly since 2000. Therefore, achieving a more equitable living wage standard in each state will help reduce federal and state spending on welfare programs, which probably will revive regions of the American economy that have suffered by the outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and illegal immigrants.
People on both sides of the political aisle have long debated the “right” minimum wage. As a hot-button topic, the discussion often ends in gridlock, and the minimum wage remains unchanged. Determining a minimum wage satisfactory to most people should be entirely possible without being hampered by political ideology. To begin, let us name minimum wage as “living wage”, and define it to be the appropriate amount of hourly wage required for a full 40-hour work week that allows a worker to live slightly above the poverty level in their state.
Let’s examine the argument from the left. President Obama has stated that if the minimum wage were to be increased, fewer people in the lower working class would live in poverty. His reasoning is based in the assumption that the larger income would, in part, flow back into the American economy, thereby providing additional stimulus and helping it to expand and grow. Furthermore, those people earning a living wage should also be able to save money, paving their way to a more secure future. Former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has supported the President’s position and stated that not earning a living wage has the potential to trap individuals in poverty indefinitely. Senator Elizabeth Warren has also argued on behalf of increasing the living wage. She believes the productivity of American workers has increased and yet their wages do not reflect their higher efficiency. The leadership of experienced, high ranking political officials on the left has stated clearly and has developed reasonable arguments that should be considered not only for the workers directly affected but also for the overall health of the American economy.
Meanwhile, the view from the right offers a different set of variables to consider. Economist Dr. Joseph Sabia states that raising the living wage alone does not grant every person a job with a decent wage. According to David Neumark and William Washer, raising the living wage too high will push some people out of the job market and potentially lead to wage discrimination. Specifically, young workers would be affected due to their lack of job experience, which could lead employers to favor more experienced candidates. Moreover, if people are priced out of the entry level job market due an increase in the living wage, no matter the age of the individual, the incentive to turn to illegal ways of making ends meet dramatically increases. Another point made by those on the right is that raising wages could cause unwanted consequences to both the public and the worker. For example, reducing workers’ hours and benefits, would lead to higher prices on goods and services for the consumer.
After viewing both sides of the argument it is easy to understand why determining a common ground living wage is difficult. However, to review the issue ad infinitum and to not achieve one living wage that applies to every state is not acceptable. So the following should be considered as a path to finding common ground. First, the federal government should not set a living wage that applies to every state. Instead the living wage decision should be debated and established by each state based on what a living wage is in that particular state. This would require taking into account things like taxes, economic status, and employment rate. Then, you can tie the minimum wage to inflation so that the minimum wage does not have to be debated with so much frequency. Additionally, raising the state’s living wage will provide the opportunity for people now trapped in poverty by their state’s and federal welfare programs to return to work and contribute value to the economy. According to Ron Unz, an American businessman and 2016 senatorial hopeful, says that the US spends upwards of $250 billion on welfare per year. Therefore, raising a state’s living wage to one that is suitable for living and taking people off of the welfare system will save taxpayers money in a way that will keep the US competitive in a global market. Secondly, new workers should be given privileges that allow them to work for less than the state’s living wage in order to help them land their first job and not bind them to their employer. In addition, to have more new workers hired, employers need to have incentives to take the risk in hiring new workers. These incentives could include giving a company a tax break after it has hired a new worker, and allowing them to continue to hold that tax break as long as the new employee is with that company or until the employee earns a promotion involving a pay increase. Also when a company is starting out and is in its developing stages (one to three years) it too should receive the privilege to pay below minimum wage if necessary to sustain the company. The Pew Research Center made an accurate claim that the reason why many Illegal immigrants take American jobs is because the Americans are reluctant to accept these jobs. However, with the states setting a living wage that better suits the living standards of the people within that state, more Americans will be motivated to enter the workforce, which will reduce the opportunity for illegal foreign workers to be exploited into accepting low wages. Moreover, to assure that Americans can keep more of what they earn, the federal, state, and local governments should reduce the subsidizing of some goods and services, which are then made more expensive and out of reach for the working poor (for example: ethanol production and some agriculture products). Workers earning the current minimum wage have seen their purchasing power decline significantly since 2000. Therefore, achieving a more equitable living wage standard in each state will help reduce federal and state spending on welfare programs, which probably will revive regions of the American economy that have suffered by the outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and illegal immigrants.
