Minimum wage and the dignity of work

Here’s something I typed up shortly after LA increased their minimum wage, and am now revisiting and editing:

The minimum wage in both Los Angeles and Seattle is now on its way to $15/hour, with unknown economic effects.  Backers tend to believe this’ll just equalize wages because companies will have to reduce the pay of their highest earners in order to fund the pay increases at the bottom, and, in a version of the government spending “multiplier,” these higher wages will increase spending, which will boost the economy overall.  Opponents respond that the higher wages will motivate more employers to automate work, and others will inevitably raise prices which will cause them to lose customers who will adjust their spending patterns:  deciding to cut down on meals out, or the lawn service, for instance.

What will actually happen?  No one knows.  Even in 1968, when the minimum wage was at its highest level, it was only $10.71 in inflation adjusted terms, according to this nifty graphic at CNN.

When confronted with the fact that small businesses can’t stay in business paying their employees the new hourly wage (which may be more than the owner herself owns), high-minimum-wage supporters are unsympathetic:  “if they can’t afford to pay their employees decently, they shouldn’t be in business” is the standard reply.

When confronted with the fact that in addition to teens and second-earner workers, there are among the minimum-wage workforce individuals with families to support who either don’t have the skills to qualify for a higher-paying job, or due to local economy, displacement, etc., aren’t able to find one, high-minimum-wage opponents usually voice support for government supplements such as an expanded EITC as a way to help provide for basic needs without disrupting the economy.  But this idea doesn’t ever seem to gain any traction.  (Well, the more sympathetic voices do; others simply say, “they shouldn’t have had those kids if they didn’t have skills to qualify them for better-paying work.”)

(I am, by the way, of the general belief that the minimum wage ought to be set at a level that meets the basic needs, assuming subsidized healthcare, of a single individual, with federal subsidies for dependents, but I also believe that the minimum wage ought to rise with inflation rather than having disruptive jumps.)

But I think that built into these two different attitudes is a belief about the dignity of work:

High MW supporters believe that work is dignified only to the extent that it provides enough pay for a worker to support a family.  (Yeah, it’s not clear to me what “support a family” means — how big a family must the wage be able to support?  Surely not Duggar-sized families?  Two kids and a dog and cat?)  Work that pays less than this, or a job which conceivably, if it existed, could only exist at a lower pay range, is undignified, and any individual who might otherwise accept such a job is really better off being unemployed, and receiving welfare benefits of some kind or another, until a “dignified” job comes along.

High MW opponents believe that all work is dignified, and a worker is better off working at any sort of job, even if the pay is low, even if government support or charity care, or a second shift elsewhere, is necessary to meet one’s basic needs and the basic needs of one’s family.

It’s not that simple, of course, but I think this is an unspoken part of the issue.