Last week, in an editorial entitled “Raising the Minimum Wage Hurts (Young) Workers”, my colleague Michael made some valid arguments regarding the current state of the minimum wage across the country. While I am inclined to agree with him in most of these examples, I think his opinion is too unilaterally damning to the overall welfare of our economy, social infrastructure and by proxy, the preservation of freedom for all.
It is here that I aim to articulate a proposal that may see common ground from both sides of the aisle in regard to the issue of wages, as a common criticism of the practice is that it prices small businesses out of the market by demanding a financial burden that few can uphold within the first years of operation.
However, what if this was not the case? What if the only businesses that had to adhere to the federal minimum wage law—as it currently stands—were large businesses, and we implement a fairer system that encourages the growth of local markets while ensuring that a baseline of living be provided by these businesses in their formative years. To quote Mr. Plummer:
“Imagine you ran a cupcake shop, and you had two applicants for an open position that pays $10 per hour.
The first candidate is in her mid-twenties and has experience making cupcakes that makes her highly productive; let’s say she can make three dozen cupcakes and decorate two dozen every hour. Her productivity yields you, the employer, a surplus value on the $10 per hour you’d be paying her.
The second candidate, a high school student, is inexperienced and less productive. He can only make and decorate a dozen cupcakes every hour. Because of his low productivity, you cannot afford to pay him $10 per hour and still turn a profit. But you could afford to pay him $5.
And, as he gained experience, you could pay him higher wages commensurate with his increased productivity. If you didn’t, his skills would enable him to go work for your competitor across town for that $10 per hour.”
This would commiserate the system in which we currently exist, where merit dictates wage increases over time, and entry level skills dictating the initial starting wage for an individual. I agree with the logic here, as experience translates to skills and knowledge, which (if you buy into the current collegiate system, you too are inclined to agree with this) warrants a higher starting wage and wage growth potential.
What I disagree with is what preludes that quote:
“Young workers rely on entry-level jobs in order to advance to higher paying jobs. When the minimum wage is arbitrarily raised, there are fewer entry-level jobs available. It is the young people who truly pay the cost imposed by minimum-wage laws.”
This illustrates a slippery slope in fallacious logic. Raising the minimum wage does not equate to the creation of less entry-level jobs directly, as most often the costs associated with these raises are passed directly onto the consumer. The only thing a minimum wage hike is guaranteed to produce is a higher baseline cost for goods, thus nullifying the purpose of raising it in the first place.
However, I don’t think that warrants a removal of the minimum wage either. To do so would be to damn many citizens, typically in impoverished settings already, to a life not fit for the values we as Americans supposedly uphold. The battle of equality and privilege is so deeply entangled with the argument of minimum wage that it is nearly impossible to address one without the other, but I will acknowledge fully that I’ll be glossing over those important issues for the sake of remaining succinct. It remains, though, that the government exists to ensure the rights for all citizens, as the preamble to our constitution written by Gouverneur Morris, states,
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Would a livable wage then not be classified as the general welfare that secures the blessings of liberty?
Being not blind to the practicalities of our modern world though, I think it would be prudent to allow newer business to be exempt from minimum wage laws for their first years of existence, so that they may help to create jobs that are dependent upon the merit of those they hire in order to be truly successful–and once that business secures its spot in the market, then they shall be held to the rigorous standards that many multi-national corporations are.
This is not only fair economically to local businesses that tend to struggle, but also will ensure that they are allowed to create a market that relies on the skills of the individual—both points I think resonate with Mr. Plummer’s ideals.
I think raising the minimum wage slightly for larger businesses is not an awful idea either, as it ensures that Americans are afforded the chance to secure the liberty that has been promised to them.
Alexander Breth is a fourth-year student majoring in English. ✉ AB835895@wcupa.edu.