Now Seattle is proposing a $15 minimum wage. It’s planned to be phased-in over a number of years but let’s assume that they’re not taking heaving interim inflation for granted (and the phase-in is complete, it’s slated to rise with inflation). If Seattle is every bit as machine-run as Chicago, this means it’ll be rubber-stamped by the city council — whether this is a city in which the city council actually has some independence, I don’t know.
But here’s a fun exercise: look at the BLS data. They show wages by occupation, and, in this version, show wages for Seattle specifically.
What do Seattleans earn?
Forest and conservation workers earn the least: $9.14 an hour, at median.
Fast food workers: $9.46
Gaming dealers: $10.05
Lifeguards and ski patrol: $10.56
Barbers, $10.59
Hotel and motel clerks: $11.13
Childcare workers: $11.15
Crossing guards: $11.67
Bakers: $12.08
Vet assistants: $13.05
Security guards: $13.59
Pharmacy aides: $14.10
Janitors: $14.10
Orderlies: $14.35
General office clerks: $14.75
Tire repairers and changers: $15.27
Hairdressers: $15.86
Forest and conservation technicians: $16.07
Phlebotomists: $16.83
Court reporters: $17.76
Carpet installers: $18.01
I could keep going, but you get the point. A high minimum wage is a very blunt tool. Imagine that all these below-$15 occupations are all moved up to the $15 mark. What would the consequences be moderately-skilled workers earning the same wage as fast food workers? Yes, to a certain degree, these jobs may be more desirable in terms of the work itself, the working conditions, and so on, so that, even at the same pay rate, people may prefer to be a hotel clerk than a McDonald’s worker. But would you really spend money on training in order to qualify for a job which pays no better than the unskilled job down the street?
Which means that these jobs would inevitably have to raise their pay — they simply can’t pay at the same level as an unskilled job. And the same would hold true for these jobs that are only somewhat above the minimum wage. I don’t know what the difference between a “forest and conservation worker” and “forest and conservation technician” is, but I’m going to guess that the latter has had some specialized training and a couple promotions — would the lure of a $1.07 raise be enough? Of course not.
Raising the minimum wage to a level so high that it disrupts the wage levels for moderately-skilled occupations is not just an inefficient way to fight poverty but would be extremely disruptive for an economy.
But, hey, if it sounds good and gets the votes, who cares about the actual real-world consequences, right?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In