Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 23, 1995 TAG: 9502230071
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
For some, that figure bottoms out at the minimum set by law. Currently, the $4.25 minimum earns a full-time worker $8,840 a year, $3,260 below the federally defined poverty line for a family of three. By contrast, the minimum wage in the 1960s was worth $6.38 in 1994 dollars - not great money, but enough to live on for that family of three.
It's time for a raise.
Opponents of raising the minimum wage pooh-pooh this scenario, saying the people filling these jobs aren't bread-winners. They're kids living with Mom and Dad and working to support a car and a fondness for name-brand clothes.
OK, one-third of the nation's minimum-wage workers are teen-agers. But even if none of them truly need to work - not a fair assumption - that leaves two-thirds who are 20 years of age or older.
Nearly two-thirds of the 4.2 million Americans earning minimum wage or below are women. Ah, but - like the teen-agers - most of them don't really need the money, opponents argue. The women work to get out of the house, to bring in a little extra money for luxuries (like saving for the kids' education).
OK, one study indicates a majority of workers earning minimum wage are spouses and teen-agers in households with incomes above $43,000.
But of the two-thirds of minimum-wage (or below) workers who are women, most are single mothers supporting a family. And many women who are second wage-earners are not flipping burgers for pin money. They have to work to support the household.
Few things are as subjective as interpreting objective data. But consider the minimum wage in two regards: in the context of welfare reform, and as a matter of fairness.
Most Americans, whether they call themselves Republicans or Democrats, liberals, moderates or conservatives, agree that welfare is bad and work is better. People who eschew public assistance for minimum-wage jobs should be better off for their labor.
Now, they are not. Mothers getting Aid to Families with Dependent Children start seeing those benefits lowered dollar for dollar when they start work. They're still better off - until the other assistance they receive, and which also is phased out - is taken into account: Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies.
Never mind child care. The loss of Medicaid alone, to take a minimum-wage job that provides no health insurance, makes it economically unwise for a single mother to get off welfare.
A rise in the minimum wage to $5.15 will not correct all of the disincentives to work, but it would help.
And this would be fair. At the heart of the American work ethic lies the notion that if you play by the rules, work hard, try to take care of yourself and your family, you shouldn't be a charity case.
Ah, but what has fairness to do with wages, some critics of the minimum ask. They are right, certainly, in noting that governments can't set rates in the marketplace.
Establishing a floor, however, is not the same thing as setting wage rates. Surely, opponents of the minimum wage would not suggest that America's child-labor laws be eliminated, allowing the market to govern at what age and wage children may be exploited.
For critics who grant that some minimum wage is reasonable, the debate moves from the issue of government intervention to a haggling over the rate and the timing of inflation-related adjustments.
Most employers want to do what's right. When they look at the market equation for the value of labor, they factor in fairness along with skill-level and labor availability so they can attract and retain good workers.
For some employers, though, a minimum wage prevents peonage. Without periodic adjustments for inflation, this small insurance against exploitation loses its effectiveness.
by CNB