Media Undermines Minimum Wage Increase
Residents of nine states - Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont and Washington - will see a boost to their local economy from a state minimum wage increase taking effect in the new year.
Unfortunately, media coverage of the change varies across place and often undermines public support for this progressive step.
For example, an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer begins with the suggestion that the raise benefits only the workers getting the increase:
"Local minimum wage workers will have something to celebrate with the coming of a new year."
The reporters continue with this narrow frame by implying that certain employers and the state's 300,000 minimum wage workers will be the only ones to feel the impact of the change.
The online comments regarding the article illustrate the destructive debate that inevitably flows from this framing. When the reporter suggests the impact is only felt by a small group of employees and certain employers, the debate devolves to the worthiness of workers and an us-vs-them depiction of who benefits and who suffers.
For example, one commenter shares an out-of-date (but widely held) perspective on the ability of workers to climb the wage ladder.
"You're not supposed to survive on minimum wage as an adult, because it's supposed to be the starting point not what you make an hour when you have chosen to add more mouths to feed. Secondly, if you start at minimum wage, within a very short period of time you will get raises. now the conditions are: you have to show up on time, do a good job, and make yourself a valuable employee. Wow, big surprise, then you continue up the ladder."
Another commenter illustrates how the "charity" framing leads to the us-vs-them debate that undermines public support for improving jobs.
"all this does is hurt the middle class. Push up the wages off teenagers and young college students, which force up prices in stores for the average middle class america....stupid stupid stupid."
We could debate the assertions of these commenters. But that's not an argument we really want to have - or that we can win with "facts". Public understanding of this issue won't change just because we have good data.
Instead, it's our job to work for better media coverage.
Our own talking points should start with the fact that these increases strengthen the local economy by ensuring that there are better jobs in the community - a benefit that accrues to everyone.
Advertisement
Rec'd!! Great article, thanks for putting it up. An oft overlooked issue and as you point out one that is more important than we think.
Now if we can just get that minimum wage up to the $19/an hour it should be.....
January 2, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOOD TAKE. And I agree with Joseph's comment.
You know with what kids these days pay in college tuition, they need all the monies they can get.
We can always raise the MW and put in exceptions for beginners.
Why do the powers that be want to take away so much from those who need the help most? I will never understand that heartless attitude.
January 2, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD, I don't know that it is a heartless attitude. In spite of how much we all want to see everyone do better, there are economic realities that have to be faced. There are other ways of addressing this problem than through increasing the minimum wage.
January 2, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at it more like a "just wage" or a "just price" for goods. Jamie Galbraith talks about this in his book "The Predator State". There should be a living wage in a democracy and social safety nets to make our society a just one. The living wage is just one part of the equation, but an important part.
January 3, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely rec'd. Great new perspective here, and a very timely consideration as we try to determine where to place monies for economic stimulus. As we know, every penny placed in the hands of the poor quickly gets into circulation - unlike the billions we sent to Wall Street that was passed out as dividends and bonuses that even now is perhaps funding the bonds we sell to get the money we send to Wall Street..... All kind of a pin strip suited circle jerk, eh?
The reader responses you highlight are extremely troubling. Rather than seeking justice for all, these neanderthals instead seek comfort by casting aspersions at those slightly less fortunate than themselves. Absolutely incredible!
Meanwhile, as these nitwits stand shoulder to shoulder with the wealthiest in claiming righteous ownership of the rewards of honest labor, blah, blah, blah, it's always interesting to note the numerous ways in which their wealthier "brethren" continue to pick their pockets.
And they think those less fortunate than them are the stupid ones!
January 2, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure it is the minimum wage that is the problem. Living wage is the issue. Continuing to increase the minimum wage just increases the prices for the goods the minimum wage people want to buy. Instead of making eight bucks an hour and paying a certain price for things, they make 16 bucks an hour and pay twice as much for everything...no progress is made.
If they had health care, affordable child care, help with college tuition, and perhaps a few other benefits people here have mentioned on other threads, they would have the ability to further their education and get jobs that provide a living wage.
There is a place in this economy for wages that do not provide a complete living...high school students, people who just want to add a few extras to their lives, seniors who need, or want to supplement their pensions, people who don't need to work, but want to be out there in the world...
To just say, okay the minimum wage is now $16 per hour will NOT fix the problem. Anyone who says it will has not owned a small business that sells anything other than the necessities of life.
January 2, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...they would have the ability to further their education and get jobs that provide a living wage."
Why shouldn't every full-time job provide a living wage? The idea that higher education should be the only ticket to a decent standard of living is complete nonsense. We could mandate that every United States citizen is required to achieve a graduate degree and the structure of our economy would be no different, but there would be a whole lot more lawyers and MBA's stocking retail shelves, mopping floors, doing clerical work and picking up garbage. Why? Because these jobs are absolutely necessary to a functioning society.
I repeat: Every full-time worker deserves a living wage.
January 2, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you are naive, don't understand economics on any level, or are in possession of information those of us who have actually been in business don't know about. If you do have this info, I wish you would share it with us.
January 2, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you too dense to understand this extremely simple concept or do you just not like the idea of a Janitor making $18 an hour?
Again: The idea that higher education will lead to a living wage for all of the working poor is ridiculous. The reason for this is very simple. If Joe the Janitor goes back to school and subsequently finds a better paying job what happens to his old one? Another minimum-wage worker fills it of course. Why? Because society will still need that Janitor (dishwasher, stock boy) and it always will! The end result of the education "solution" is a world in which people get a B.A. to mop floors.
The real solution is that all full-time workers receive a living wage regardless of how "skilled" or "unskilled" we perceive the work to be because the work they do is absolutely necessary.
January 3, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I reaffirm the minimum wage should be at least $19/ an hour. Workers are more productive than they ever have been, yet they and their families are made to suffer for it.
More on why the minimum wage should be $19.12 here:
http://www.workinglife.org/blogs/view_post.php?content_id=8774
January 2, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the face of it, the article you cite is interesting, but simplistic. He doesn't address any of the inflationary issues or issues of "minimum vs living" wage. I still contend that there is a place for each, and they should not, and cannot be the same.
January 2, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plenty of people can't make a "living" earning minimum wage, what more of a debate do you need? I would hope the minimum wage could guarantee that. If you put in 40 hours a week you should be able to support yourself- that should be your reward. Small businesses? End corporate welfare and then give small businesses the tax breaks instead. Problem solved. Continually walking things back and starting from a postion of "no" is getting this country no where. Instead of saying "no" how about, "how do we make this work"?
January 2, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
another bonus of an increase in the minimum wage could be a reduction in the work week itself to say 30 or 35 hours a week.
January 2, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then let's throw in an all expense paid 2 week vacation to the Bahamas once a year and back rubs at the end of every workday...and what the heck, let's go for 25 hours...Why not, since we're thinking big picture...
At some point in time reality has to be part of the discussion.
January 2, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
reality is what you make it.
January 2, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
a one week vacation in the least should be expected, yes. why does that seem like soooo much to you?
January 2, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, I am real sensitive on this issue. But there are minimum wages and there are minimum wages.
There can be exceptions for employers with less than 10 or 20 or even 30 employees. There can be exceptions.
But i am sick and tired of franchisers making tens of millions of dollars off of poor workers, workers who do not get tips.
January 2, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble is, some are trying to paint all employers w/ the same brush, and it just isn't possible.
I employed 10-15 of those people who were, for the most part, worth a lot more than they were making. But it was in an economically depressed area where we sold all the things that make life fun, but none that are necessities...On an hourly basis they made more than I did. They were grateful for the employment and I never took advantage of them. Had I been forced to pay $19 per hour, the jobs would have been gone, and so would the fun of shopping in the kind of place most small towns could only dream of. I was only able to keep the business open because my husband had a "real" job and anything I brought in was extra.
I sat with them at the hospital when their kids were sick, advanced them pay when a personal crisis necessitated it, kept their hours up when the workload didn't merit it, pulled money out of personal finances for Christmas bonuses (small as they were) in years when the money from the business just wasn't there...
I hate getting lumped in w/ all the fat cats when employers are getting tarred and feathered, so it's a sensitive issue for me, too.
BTW...I didn't think our like for each other was in question! :-) But thanks for mentioning it!
January 2, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need all kinds of changes to our broken system, as your story indicates. We need single payer health care, free college and technical training. With a living wage comes dignity. Then a person no longer must look for charity to fill in the gap. Charity makes a person a supplicant and not someone who can stand up on his own two feet.
The culprit is inequality. When the gap is great like we have here in the U.S., there is no longer upward mobility. We have reverted to feudalism and depend on the kindness of our lords. All things should not and cannot be equal, but the gap must be narrowed. The CEO of COSTCO guarantees a living wage and benefits for his employees. He makes in salary 10 times the median salary, not 400 times.
Keep reading Jonathan Tasini. He is a real fighter for justice and is not superficial at all. He knows his stuff. And he cares about everybody that puts in a hard day's work. Good man.
January 3, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good idea. Europeans have between 4 and 6 week paid vacations. They give you an extra paid week if you get married. They give you paid leave and help with a new baby. Those are real family values. And they do pay for massage therapy which works, by the way.
They also put great value on workers who take care of their children and old people. They give them free education and pay them well and treat them with respect. Here we treat these people like slaves and look down on them.
January 3, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Minimum wages amuse those of us who have taken economics 101 immensely.
A minimum wages is an efficient way of increasing the unemployment rate by exclusing workers without the skills that would make them worth the minimum wage. Not a huge deal at $5.15 an hour, or even, perhaps, the $6-8 an hour prevalent in a number of states. But nonetheless, minimum wages raise the prices of basic services and reduce the number of jobs on offer.
Now, in the United States right now, this is mitigated by a "grey market", which includes everything from cash jobs to the Home Depot parking lot, where the minimum wages (not to mention taxes) are dodged and the unskilled find work.
Raising the minimum wages expands the grey market the way tax increases encourage tax shelters (and tax cheating). It's expensive to break the law, but maybe not as expensive as not doing so for some people or some businesses.
I'm consistently amused that people who claim to care for the least fortunate support a policy which structurally reduces their employability.
January 2, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Create jobs. If workers aren't skilled enough- train them. Oh, but wait that would be companies paying for workers, not the governement investing in corporations. Free market and all that.
Basic services will go up (exactly) and people will have more money to pay for them. The increase in services would be a small increase on everyone for many being taken out of poverty. But, that's the problem isn't it? The grass costs YOU more money to be cut, don't think about that guy down the street who can stop buying dog food for dinner. Big picture people, big picture.
January 2, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it does not. That is Republican bullshit.
When the bastards at the top make 100 mill a year, and do not wish to pay the janitor a liveable wage, the Reps talk about all the harm the janitor is doing to the economy .,
BULLSHIT.
January 2, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
THAT is true and should have nothing to do w/ minimum wage... janitors working for companies whose top brass make 100 mill a year should not be making minimum wage. There is absolutely NO excuse for it.
I am not sure how you write the law...maybe by # of employees (exempting those w/ 25 or fewer) or tying wages of the lowest paid employee to those of the highest...
But one thing that will not accomplish the goal of more, higher wage jobs is mandating that every burger flipper or sales clerk in the country make $19 an hour...not in this lifetime.
January 2, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Stilli, I agree with that. As long as there are other programs out there to help the no count.
Medical care, day care, NIT, housing allowance...that way the employer is sharing in the financing of a livable wage without paying the entire tab.
Besides Stilli, I like you.
January 2, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this harmony between you two just warms the cockles of my heart.
I embrace you both!
January 2, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's to warm cockles! (clink!) BTW, we really do like each other (see above!) we just like to keep you on your toes!
January 2, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
El Presidente wrote: "A minimum wages is an efficient way of increasing the unemployment rate by exclusing workers without the skills that would make them worth the minimum wage."
Where does one go after making this assertion? Is there a reaonable argument that these people are less then worthy of the bare essentials?
Later El Presidente discusses the 'Grey Market" of cash jobs and parking lot deals at Home Depot. The people taking advantage of the desperate are the criminals here. Do we punish someone for being in a situation where they need to accept less then minimum wage, or do we punish those who knowingly pay them less then the minimum wage? The "employers" in this instance are almost always improving a functional part of their home. They are not fixing a leak, they're getting a new vanity.
It seems to me that we are chasing our tails with minimum wage, but there is no cure. Infaltion happens and if the law does not demand employers adjust wages accordingly, they do not, and there is no career path for unskilled labor. There is only a path for skilled labor.
January 3, 2009 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the Uncle Miltie Friedman flim flam free market fundies should be relegated to the basement from which they originally slithered. Many have been indoctrinated by what amounts to a pseudo science. Economics 101 as taught by Friedmanites is just repackaged feudalism.
Read a real economist, James Galbraith. In his "Predator State" he makes a compelling case for full employment and a just wage. He emphasis is on getting the inequality gap narrowed by reining in the ludicrous CEO pay that has put this whole economy out of whack with all that funny money gambled instead of being used in our local communities for human and concrete infrastructures.
Or read another real economist, Dean Baker and his "The Conservative Nanny State". Baker called out the mortgage and housing bubble back in 2002.
And the best economic journalist is Naomi Klein. Nothing very amusing in her writings.
January 3, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo! Extremely well said, and should be the very first principle taught in Econ 101.
What El Presidente and others seem to ignore is a very simple 2nd principle, if you will: Anyone working for a living should be earning a living wage.
And a 3rd principle: Any "job" that cannot support payment of a living wage falls beyond the definition of gainful employment and should be declared for what it is: Exploitation. Such exploitation should be strongly sanctioned, not just with fines, but with prison time and with strong condemnation from a compassionate society.
We must abandon this idea that we are well-served by a system that declares it proper for those with more wealth to feast upon the poor. And the necessary realignment begins by establishing what a "living wage" is in today's dollars and then mandating this as the floor for wages to be paid. This wage rate should then be adjusted for cost of living on a frequent basis.
Every effort should be undertaken to provide full employment in the economy as Galbraith outlines. But we should also have in place an adequate social safety net that includes universal health care, social security, and food stipends for those who are unemployed. Our commitment to our fellow man should include a promise that if, in fact, we are incapable of providing a family supporting job in our economy, then we will at least provide minimal sustenance at a fundamental level enjoyed by all citizens.
As to the "grey market" and the other concerns that the free markert capitalists always worry about? I'd say the exploitation of the poor and unfortunate among us is an offense against society worthy of at least some jail time. Let the "grey market" go on unabated as it is now if that's what the wealthy require to get their marble vanities (aptly named, no?) installed, etc. But serve notice to them that there will be severe penalties incurred if the one who gets left behind at the Home Depot parking lot drops a dime on them and complains that they just hired a worker at a slave's wage.
And maybe let those who employ illegal immigrants as nannies and maids understand that the penalty for not paying a living wage is something more than simply forfeiting opportunity to serve in a President's Cabinet, a' la' Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, and Linda Chavez. (And to think Chavez was actually nominated to be Secretary of Labor in her circumstance, fer chrissakes!)
And perhaps serve notice upon the meatpacking industry that this is the 21st century, not the time of Dickens and The Jungle when we simply chewed up immigrant labor (legal and otherwise) and spit it out 'cuz there's always more where that came from. These jobs will most certainly remain, independent of the wage rate. Why, then, do we allow this cycle to continue of hiring undocumented workers only to then have them busted and deported so we can hire more undocumented workers, all without some bean-counter owner going to jail?
Ultimately, we need to decide just who is served by this economy. The Friedman Freaks will tell you it's the "survival of the fittest" (with, of course, the regs and such all tilted in favor of the wealthy "owners" of this economy). I say instead that we cannot call ourselves a civil society until we embrace fully the notion that there is a common dignity in man that requires us to share the Blessings of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness with all; that this economy "works" only when it works to the benefit of us all.
And as to El Presidente's Friedmanesque arguments as to why this is impossible, I say that we must first establish the objectives, such as full employment and a "just wage" as Galbraith calls for, and then determine how to make it happen. It might mean slower growth, perhaps. It might mean that the multi-million dollar salaries that are now the preferred sign of a successful economy might go away. But in the end, we will have achieved a measure of justice within our economy that is now sorely lacking.
I apologize for the length of this. I guess I should have opened this by saying "Don't get me started!..."
January 3, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad to see el presidente took economics 101, since he then would know that since I entered the work force in 1954 the productivity of the average worker has increased 700% while his wage has increased,wait for it,20% adjusted for inflation. So, who got the increase in the value of the workers labor? Do you have to ask?
January 2, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presumably since 1954 the productivity of workers has increased due to an increase in capital per man and the productivity of capital rather than the value and scarcity of the workers themselves. That's what that tells me: the workers are only that much more valuable than they were in 1954.
Getting on people for using the grey market from the employer side is silly; if any of the "poor souls" in the grey market on the employee side could get a job anywhere else (and they probably could, sans minimum wage - everybody's worth something) they would.
Grey markets don't exist unless there are distortionary government interventions. I'm not opining on the morality of same (I don't think economic transactions are morally relevant); I'm just telling people what makes the grey market necessary/attractive/present.
And that thing is government regulation of the labor market.
January 3, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about a tiered system of minumum wages? Would that work? Where a teenaged burger flipper would get...I don't know...$7/hr. min. wage, but, say a 28 yr.old janitor would start out at the $15 or $16 level because it's more likely the janitor would have a family to support.
Just an idea to kick around.
January 3, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I am being misinterpreted. What I'm saying is not that I think janitors should make less money, or that executive compensation practices in the United States are optimal.
All I'm saying is that if you set a minimum wage, no one will hire people who aren't worth that minimum wage. I'm not talking about any one making $100 million a year (and almost no one is, but that's another story, about the weird effects of incentive compensation).
I'm talking about the guy running a McDonald's, making $40K a year, hiring employees. If he has to pay more per hour, he hires less people. If other managers have to pay more per hour, fewer of them will make a profit, there will be fewer restaurants, etc.
And it's the barely employable, most marginal folks who get hurt the most.
When I post on a blog, I don't care about them in particular any more than the guy making $100 million. I am only here to point out who you're trying to hurt, not tell you whether you should think something or not.
That's your business. I just point out the effects of policies, and imply the question of whether we really want those effects.
Restrictive wage and work rules are why Europe has structurally high unemployment. I don't happen to think that's an improvement on our current situation.
January 3, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
High unemployment in "Europe" is another media bias in favor of the free marketeers. "Europe" is a big place. If you exclude Southern Europe the unemployment figures dramatically drop. Denmark is the third wealthiest nation in the world and has the least inequality of income. But Europe taken as a whole is more unequal and has higher unemployment than the U.S.
Paying a living wage is efficient. People stay in a job that pays a decent wage. They don't move around. There is less training of new employees. The economists David Card and Alan Krueger proved that raising the minimum wage in California and New Jersey in the 1980s had unemployment falling not rising.
January 3, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read Card and Kreuger, and their results are interesting. But given the rapid expansion of employment in the 1980's, it's far from conclusive.
At best, it's a demonstration that in an expanding economy, modest minimum wage increases are not sufficient to prevent growth. And I never said they were; only that they are a drag on expansion of employment and output.
Thing is, minimum wages increase costs, and thereby prices. Inflating the prices of common goods and services isn't exactly a method of creating wealth (for anyone) or assisting working men and women. Remember; everyone is hurt by rising prices, while only a few are impacted by minimum wages (for good or ill).
It's like farm subsidies. They're great for farmers who can take advantage; but they're terrible for everybody else and fatal for farmers who can't.
January 3, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably the best plan I've seen for full employment, part of which is raising the minimum wage. A sensible 14 step plan by Dr. Sheila Collins of William Patterson University:
http://www.untiedmethodist.com/untiedmethodist/2005/08/full_employment.html
(A great article and, yes, it's on a Methodist site- don't let that turn you off).
January 3, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"UntiedMethodist?" Is this, like, a twelve step group for S&M addicts? ;O)
It's a great article, and puts the lie to all those who offer all kinds of bogus claims that economic justice isn't viable when they instead simply mean "I've got mine, and I'm very happy to keep it, thank you very much!"
January 3, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink