Minimum questions about minimum wage
President Obama wants to raise America's minimum wage to $9 per hour. That's a 24-percent increase from the current minimum wage of $7.25. Mr. Obama believes a higher minimum wage will help poor workers.
Here are some questions to ponder before throwing support behind the president's proposal.
What would you do if the price of your favorite beer rose by 24 percent? Would you buy less of that beer? Would you consider buying some other brand of beer instead? If your answer is “yes,” isn't it also true that employers — forced to pay their low-skilled workers 24 percent more — will hire fewer such workers? Might employers try to get by with fewer workers, perhaps by substituting machines (for example, automatic checkout lanes at supermarkets) for flesh-and-blood workers?
What would you tell a worker who lost her job because of the rise in the minimum wage? Would you tell her that she should be happy because, although she is unemployed, if she could find a job, her hourly wage would be $1.75 higher than she was earning at the job she lost?
The national minimum wage in America was designed, in the 1930s, by Northeastern industrialists to bankrupt upstart factories in the South. These Northeastern industrialists understood that the chief competitive advantage enjoyed by their newly emerging competitors was access to low-wage labor. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was meant to strip Southern firms of this advantage by forcing Southern factories to pay wages higher than were justified by market conditions in the South.
Do you think a piece of legislation with such unsavory origins — origins that had nothing to do with raising the wages of America's lowest-paid workers and everything to do with protecting from competition the profits of rich Northerners — is a trustworthy foundation to be relied upon today to raise the wages of America's lowest-paid workers?
In the late 1940s, the unemployment rate of black teenagers in America was lower than the unemployment rate of white teenagers. In the 1950s, the minimum wage began to rise steeply and, along with it, so did the unemployment rate of teens. But the unemployment rate of black teens rose much faster than did that of white teens.
Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and many other economists argue that the minimum wage is to blame. The arbitrarily higher wage creates a surplus of low-skilled workers; there are more people willing to work at the minimum wage than there are jobs at that wage. Because people are prohibited by law from competing for jobs by offering to work at wages lower than the minimum, employers have an overabundance of applicants for each entry-level job that needs to be filled. Employers thus tend over time to make “safe” hires — teens from prosperous suburbs with decent schools, rather than teens from the inner city with lousy schools.
Today, the unemployment rate of white teens is 20.8 percent. That of black teens is 82 percent higher, at 37.8 percent.
Do you think black teens' much higher rate of unemployment today than that of whites is explained by racial discrimination? Is such discrimination worse today than it was in 1948? Or might a better explanation for the changing employment fortunes of black teens be that the minimum wage prices more black teens than white teens out of jobs?
Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pirates fall short in bid for Lester, who’s traded to Oakland
- EPA talks on pollution limits trigger protests, arrests Downtown
- After years of lobbying, Big Ben has Steelers running the no-huddle
- Pa. senator investigates Rocky Mountain high at taxpayers’ expense
- Spaling, Penguins agree to $4.4 million deal
- Steelers hold high hopes for pass defense
- It’s lights out for Bayer sign on Mt. Washington
- Elderly funeral home director gets up to 12 years for murder
- Steelers notebook: Brown calls Sanders’ comments about Roethlisberger ‘terrible’
- Leechburg bank robbed
- Oakland eatery Fuel & Fuddle to reopen under new owners