Jon
McCallum
Johnston
English 1B
12 April 2006
1200 words
Head vs. Heart: The Federal Minimum
Wage Game
Since the onset, there
has been a great deal of controversy over the federal minimum wage which was
instituted by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Starting at 25 cents per
hour back in 1938, the federal minimum wage has been raised many times over
the years to keep pace with the ongoing rise of inflation. But while 18 states
have since lifted their minimum wage even higher than the federal level, the
remaining states have not seen an increase since the $5.15 per hour
established in 1997. Many argue that it is high time to increase the federal
minimum wage once again, but others contend that this will do more harm than
good (Katel). In order to understand why this conflict exists, we have to look
at the values and perspectives of each side.
While both sides show a
concern for the well-being of those who are trying to survive on a minimum
wage income, the proponents for raising the federal wage seem to place a
higher value on fairness and compassion for those in need. “People who work 40
hours a week should not be living in poverty. We should show that we value
work,” says Sarah Markley of the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now (ACORN), a prominent advocate for raising the minimum wage
(Markley). Markley advocates that it is not fair for people to work full-time
and still not have their basic needs met. Senator Edward M. Kennedy supports
this sentiment by pointing out that the “Members of Congress have raised their
own pay by $31,000, but the minimum wage hasn’t gone up a cent” (Kennedy).
Kennedy's forthright use of this example (it is the first thing mentioned on
his web site) makes it quite evident that this side of the issue is highly
motivated by what is fair. They value being honorable and just, and want to be
known as the kind of people who take a stand for such scrupulous principles.
This type of thinking is reminiscent of the legend of Robin Hood, who, with
his Merry Men, fought against injustice by stealing from the rich and giving
to the poor. While proponents for raising the federal minimum may not engage
in such swashbuckling action as Robin Hood, they still hold dear the same
value: a fair shake for the underdog. Modern-day Merry Man Jared Bernstein of
the Economic Policy Institute also argues to this end by pointing out that
past minimum wage increases have had little, if any, negative effect on the
overall economy, but yet they do have power to “determine whether low-wage
workers get a fair shake on payday” (Bernstein).
This high value of
justice goes hand in hand with the proponents’ sense of compassion. They want
to show themselves as people who genuinely care about other humans, especially
those in need. They come from a place where feelings and emotions play a
leading role in their beliefs and actions. This can be seen in Representative
Benjamin L. Cardin’s issued statement earlier this year which is apparently
designed to tug at one’s heart-strings. “How would you feel,” asks Cardin, “if
you or a member of your family had not received a pay raise of any kind - even
for inflation - in more than eight years?” Cardin goes on to say that in such
a case one would be “hard-pressed to make ends meet.” Terms such as “feel” and
“hard-pressed” suggest that proponents are coming from a place of empathy,
that they value emotion, and are driven by a desire to help those in difficult
situations. Do I hear a cheer of applause resounding from the depths of the
Sherwood Forest?
While the proponents
for raising the federal minimum may be likened unto Robin Hood, this does not
necessarily mean that their opponents fit the description of the villainous
Sheriff of Nottingham. What it does mean, however, is that the opponents are
simply motivated by a different set of values; where the proponents are
concerned about fairness, the opponents are caught up in the logic of the
issue. The opponents may be represented by the famous fictional detective
Sherlock Holmes, who relies on keen observation and wit to solve problems. A
Joint Economic Committee report for the House of Representatives by senior
economist Reed Garfield shows evidence of this. "The future of the American
economy," states Garfield, "depends on a correct understanding of the
causes of prosperity (italics mine)." Garfield goes on to say that "raising
the minimum wage is a wrong-headed solution (italics mine)..."
Professor Aeon J. Skoble of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) also
demonstrates how the opponents prefer a more rationally based approach over
compassion:
[Republican Douglas MacKinnon]
claims that compassion dictates that we care most about those most in need,
and that’s why it is imperative to raise the minimum wage. But since a forced
increase in the cost of something means that less of it will be purchased, and
therefore minimum-wage increases mean layoffs at the margins, it is precisely
these “most in need” who will be unable to find work; they will either get
laid off or be unable to find entry-level positions, of which there will be
fewer. (Skoble)
Skoble's reasoning indicates that
this side of the argument, while still concerned about those in need, places a
higher value on the process of logic to meet the need, rather than on the
feelings of the heart. In fact, Skoble, Berman, and Garfield all use the word
"misguided" when describing their adversaries which implies that they believe
their intellectual reasoning is superior to their proponent’s sympathetic
tendencies (Skoble, Berman, and Garfield).
Senior fellow of the
Cato Institute and nationally syndicated columnist, Alan Reynolds wears a
Sherlock Holmes’ cap when he uses his wit, or perhaps mere common sense, to
point out a loophole that many proponents tend to overlook: the fact that the
federal minimum wage does not apply to everyone. So, even if the federal
minimum wage was raised, there would still be many workers living at, or
below, poverty level (Reynolds). Perceiving that raising the minimum wage will
still leave many needy people out in the cold, opponents thus look to their
intellect to create a better solution. Richard Berman, executive director of
the Employment Policies Institute, exhibits sleuth-like logic when he sides
with President Bill Clinton in the belief that adjusting the Earned Income Tax
Credit can work “far more efficiently than raising the minimum wage” to “lift
the working poor out of poverty” (Berman). This idea suggests that a lot of
research and thought has gone into figuring out an alternative to raising the
minimum wage that could actually create a better effect than raising the
minimum. And to a significant degree, it has already been shown to work
(Rector). For the opponents, their investigation and analyzing makes the
solution to the minimum wage problem seem fairly clear; to them, it is
“elementary, my dear Watson.”
If only “Sherlock
Holmes” and “Robin Hood” could switch hats in this minimum wage game, thus
enabling the mindful opponents to grasp the logic of compassion and allowing
the empathetic proponents to feel into the heart of their adversaries’
intellect, what a game that might be!
Works Cited
Berman, Richard. "At Issue: Would
Raising the Minimum Wage Harm the Economy?" CQResearcher
December 2005. 27 March 2006
<http://www.thecqresearcher.com>
Bernstein, Jared. "At Issue: Would
Raising the Minimum Wage Harm the Economy?" CQResearcher
December 2005. 27 March 2006
<http://www.thecqresearcher.com>
Garfield, Reed. "The Case Against a
Higher Minimum Wage." Joint Economic Committee. May
1996. 4 April 2006
<http://www.house.gov/jec/cost-gov/regs/minimum/against/against.htm>
Katel, Peter. "Minimum Wage."
CQResearcher 16 December 2005. 27 March 2006
<http://www.thecqresearcher.com>
Kennedy, Edward M. Senator
Edward M. Kennedy Online Office. 3 April 2006
<http://kennedy.senate.gov>
Markley, Sarah. "Minimum Wage: The
Issues." CQResearcher December 2005.
27 March 2006 <http://www.thecqresearcher.com>
Rector, Robert E. and Patrick F.
Fagan. “The Good News About Welfare Reform” The Heritage
Foundation. 5
September 2001. 11 April 2006
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1468.cfm>
Reynolds, Alan. “When More Is
Less.” The Cato Institute. 18 July 2004. 3 April 2006
<http://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-040718.html>