ANSWERS TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST MANDATORY WAGE LEGISLATION
Laws which mandate wage level, - such as the one which may be passed this fall by the voters in Spokane - are ubiquitous in the United States. Only four states, all in the South, have no state minimum wage. And we have a federal minimum wage. Through an abuse of language and the facts of life, some expansion of these laws to special companies and conditions have come to be known as living wages. But in no case have the levels finally mandated risen to the level of a true living wage as measured by any scientific study.
Now, since these legislated pay levels are all but national policy, it is a little odd that as they are adjusted they should meet any substantial opposition in principle. But they do. And who are these radicals who want to overthrow the current regime? They can be divided into two overlapping groups: some of those who must pay the mandated wage increases and those who make an ideological case against the law. Let's consider the second group.
First, I dismiss the free marketeers by saying there never has been and never will be a free market that need concern us. Such phantoms exist only in the minds of ivory tower inhabitants and their unthinking followers.
Then there are those who say the law is bad for the low-paid working class at large in that there will be a lot fewer jobs. This proposition has been disproved by several studies and economic models. Along these same lines the opponents warn against employers deserting a region with these "high" wages and so inflicting a blow to the local tax base. I say it is along the same lines in that in both cases the advocates express a fake concern for the welfare of those other than themselves. This second attempt to stir up fear also fails to hold water when real world examples are studied, such as those of San Franciso and Santa Fe.
Now let me move on to those who say there is nothing wrong with a minimum wage as long as it is low enough. These folks like to call it an entry level wage, not a real wage but a token or sort of charity paid by the employer while the worker gathers the skills needed to move out of his or her slot, said slot described as a sort of holding pen for the unskilled. They make it sound like the jobs are simply make-work jobs and not essential to the business enterprise. This latter is a very dubious claim. I've heard all of the above with my own ears more than once from big companies , industry reps, and a chamber of commerce spokesman. While I started this paragraph giving the benefit of doubt to those discussed in the last paragraph as to their agreement with some measly minimum wage, I suspect many of them would just as soon entirely do without one.
The philosophy underlying this last claim of those opposing a minimum wage seems to be this: Might makes right. We pay as little as we can get away with - and then rationalize. On the one hand they say the low paid worker does not produce enough to justify the pay, but when a high paid worker such as a CEO does not produce he can be paid plenty, as Home Depot recently demonstrated. The difference is that the low paid worker has no power and can be replaced. The higher paid workers do have power in one form or another, such as proprietary knowledge of the company, unique skills, and so forth. Of course, this variation in power is feathered from the bottom to the top.
Traditionally, unions have come in as an equalizer of power on the side of the low paid worker. But for a number of reasons large sections of the labor force are now without union representation and not likely to get any soon. So those members of the community who value justice must ban together in support of the exploited worker and pass a law, thereby meeting the power of money and property with the power of a people's law.
Now, since these legislated pay levels are all but national policy, it is a little odd that as they are adjusted they should meet any substantial opposition in principle. But they do. And who are these radicals who want to overthrow the current regime? They can be divided into two overlapping groups: some of those who must pay the mandated wage increases and those who make an ideological case against the law. Let's consider the second group.
First, I dismiss the free marketeers by saying there never has been and never will be a free market that need concern us. Such phantoms exist only in the minds of ivory tower inhabitants and their unthinking followers.
Then there are those who say the law is bad for the low-paid working class at large in that there will be a lot fewer jobs. This proposition has been disproved by several studies and economic models. Along these same lines the opponents warn against employers deserting a region with these "high" wages and so inflicting a blow to the local tax base. I say it is along the same lines in that in both cases the advocates express a fake concern for the welfare of those other than themselves. This second attempt to stir up fear also fails to hold water when real world examples are studied, such as those of San Franciso and Santa Fe.
Now let me move on to those who say there is nothing wrong with a minimum wage as long as it is low enough. These folks like to call it an entry level wage, not a real wage but a token or sort of charity paid by the employer while the worker gathers the skills needed to move out of his or her slot, said slot described as a sort of holding pen for the unskilled. They make it sound like the jobs are simply make-work jobs and not essential to the business enterprise. This latter is a very dubious claim. I've heard all of the above with my own ears more than once from big companies , industry reps, and a chamber of commerce spokesman. While I started this paragraph giving the benefit of doubt to those discussed in the last paragraph as to their agreement with some measly minimum wage, I suspect many of them would just as soon entirely do without one.
The philosophy underlying this last claim of those opposing a minimum wage seems to be this: Might makes right. We pay as little as we can get away with - and then rationalize. On the one hand they say the low paid worker does not produce enough to justify the pay, but when a high paid worker such as a CEO does not produce he can be paid plenty, as Home Depot recently demonstrated. The difference is that the low paid worker has no power and can be replaced. The higher paid workers do have power in one form or another, such as proprietary knowledge of the company, unique skills, and so forth. Of course, this variation in power is feathered from the bottom to the top.
Traditionally, unions have come in as an equalizer of power on the side of the low paid worker. But for a number of reasons large sections of the labor force are now without union representation and not likely to get any soon. So those members of the community who value justice must ban together in support of the exploited worker and pass a law, thereby meeting the power of money and property with the power of a people's law.
