You are here

Reframing the Minimum-Wage Debate

http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/longform_cover_image/public/ap955555990903_banner.jpeg?itok=wwDP-bNR

Why “no job loss” is the wrong standard for setting the right wage floor.

David Howell, the American Prospect

http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/20229527c1c240439ddbc81bf821d95e.jpg If you like reading this article, consider joining the crew of all reader-supported Evergreene Digest by contributing the equivalent of a cafe latte a month--using the donation button above—so we can bring you more just like it.

http://evergreenedigest.org/sites/evergreenedigest.org/files/Money%20Pie.jpg September 5, 2016 | fter experiencing substantial wage gains during the shared-growth decades of the postwar era, American workers have increasingly confronted labor markets of precarious jobs that pay too little to provide a minimally decent standard of living. This reality has finally broken through politically in the movement for a $15 federal minimum wage. However, some prominent economists contend that a minimum wage high enough to provide a decent standard of living poses too high a risk of job loss.

But this fear is purely speculative; we have no reliable evidence that a $15 wage floor, phased in over four to six years, would cause declining employment opportunities for low-wage workers. Indeed, the wage threshold at which substantial employment effects are likely to occur may be considerably higher. What we do know is that a $15 wage would have big impacts on the living standards of millions of working families. The recent commitments of California and New York state to establish a $15 minimum are estimated to increase the income of more than one-third of the workers in each state. The effects on consumer demand, and consequently on other low-wage employment, will be enormous.

David Howell is a professor of economics and public policy at The New School (New York City)

Full story …