16 of 24

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 3

500 people makes them the only game in town as far as grocery stores are concerned, because they have the raw numbers to be able to spread themselves all over town. But let's say they pay their employees a wage commensurate with the local cost of living, which means they can only hire 200 people. That's going to leave areas of town without grocery services which will mean someone else can start a grocery store, creating two businesses where otherwise there would have been one. This will have the added effect of localizing business, making the business more responsive to local needs and conditions, which will mean better customer service overall. Anyone who has ever tried to communicate with a chain store's home office in another state about a local problem caused by that store knows what I'm talking about.

Speaking of cost of living, a common objection to the idea of a living wage is that the meaning of the term is not clear. I'm not sure how it could be any less clear: You are making enough money to live on. That amount is going to vary according to what area of the country the employee calls home, the employee's personal circumstances, and so on, and there is no way to implement a one-size-fits-all approach, but if any employee has to live with family members in order to have a home even if they are not in debt or don't have children, that wage is ridiculously and unfairly low. I think that if it's true most minimum-wage workers don't support a family or don't live on their own, that would be because their wage doesn't allow them to do those things. Like as not the minimum-wage earner "not supporting a family" does have a family, but has to move in with other wage-earning relatives to stretch resources or has to go to the government for handouts. Considering that conventional wisdom says a person who has little money is poor because they are lazy, not paying an employee enough money to live on creates a false impression of that person in society's eyes, doubly punishing them.

The really sad part is that while anti-minimum-wage activists claim that increasing wages drives up prices, it also puts more disposable income into the hands of consumers, who can then afford to buy more products from businesses. While there are several factors leading to price increases of which wages are only one, there is only one way to get consumers to spend more money, and that is to put more money into their pockets. We can do it by reallocating tax money in the form of benefits, we can do it by making unsecured credit easier to obtain (and we see how well that approach has worked, which is to say "not at all"), or we can do it by raising wages. I think it should be obvious by now which option is best.

Learn more about this author, Dana Seilhan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3

Add your voice

Know something about Minimum wage: Is it fair??
We want to hear your view. Write now!