Another aspect of minimum wage debate
By
-
To the editor:
Mr. Lewis, I certainly wouldn’t question your sanity as you suggest some might. On the contrary, I think you are quite lucid. The way you cherry-pick facts to facilitate your opinions is not the ranting of a madman, but rather the result of a sly and wily intellect.
After reading Mr. Meyer’s article and your opinion of the minimum wage law, I find it somewhat difficult to dissect the two, so my reply will be addressed to Mr. Meyer and yourself as one. (Sort of a two birds, one stone approach.)
The pros and cons of the minimum wage have been debated since its inception in 1938 during the Great Depression and will likely to continue, so I find blanket statements on it such as yours a little disingenuous. The selections of facts from the 2009 Bureau of Labor survey are correct, but then your insidious nature when on to distort the numbers by comparing them to the entire population of over 300 million.
Are you really suggesting that everyone from babies to wheelchaired-bound grannies in nursing homes are part of the work force? According to a 2008 survey by the Bureau of Labor, there were roughly 145 million employed workers and 9 million unemployed for a total of 154 million. So as is apparent your comparison is already 50% skewed. Subtract the number of people on salary where the hourly minimum wage is irrelevant and your representation shrinks even more.
In a study done by economists Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt for the Economic Policy Institute in 2000 they found that of the 8.4 million workers ( age 18 to 64) who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage 2.7 million (32%) are the parents of 4.7 million children (contrary to your thinking these kids didn’t have jobs). They also found that most minimum wage workers are adults (71%) age 20 and up. A more recent study in 2007 by the Center for American Progress revealed that 13 million workers would benefit from a minimum wage increase. Of this number 7 million were families with children.
To dispel the assertion that it prices low-skilled workers out of the workforce the Economic Policy Institute study concluded the employment effects, while negative in some models, never reach anywhere near the level where the benefits to low wage workers would be outweighed by their cost in terms of job losses.
Mr. Meyer’s teenage son (or yours if you have one) can still work for $5 per hour, learn skills, and establish a resume of reliability. The federal minimum wage law allows for people under the age of 20 to be paid $4.25 per hour during their first 90 days of employment. If he is really willing to work for nothing, I would be glad to teach him the skills of auto detailing. (The road salt and dirt has taken the luster off my vehicles.)
Perhaps your greatest distortion is trying to blame the teenage unemployment rate on the minimum wage law. Extrapolating this theory the minimum wage brought down Wall Street, crushed the real estate market, and sent shock waves throughout the global economy.
I also think its worth noting that the report sited by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress titled "50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage” was a 1995 paper put forth by House Republicans in their “Talking Points” publication. (Not exactly a labor-friendly organization.)
I find it regretful you had to resort to try and demonize the minimum wage with that greatest of all evils “Obamacare,” but I understand your propensity to do so.
As stated before, this debate will no doubt continue for a long time, but will best be served by honest, unbiased, and responsible arguments.
Sincerely,
Ken Rentz
Hillsboro[[In-content Ad]]
Mr. Lewis, I certainly wouldn’t question your sanity as you suggest some might. On the contrary, I think you are quite lucid. The way you cherry-pick facts to facilitate your opinions is not the ranting of a madman, but rather the result of a sly and wily intellect.
After reading Mr. Meyer’s article and your opinion of the minimum wage law, I find it somewhat difficult to dissect the two, so my reply will be addressed to Mr. Meyer and yourself as one. (Sort of a two birds, one stone approach.)
The pros and cons of the minimum wage have been debated since its inception in 1938 during the Great Depression and will likely to continue, so I find blanket statements on it such as yours a little disingenuous. The selections of facts from the 2009 Bureau of Labor survey are correct, but then your insidious nature when on to distort the numbers by comparing them to the entire population of over 300 million.
Are you really suggesting that everyone from babies to wheelchaired-bound grannies in nursing homes are part of the work force? According to a 2008 survey by the Bureau of Labor, there were roughly 145 million employed workers and 9 million unemployed for a total of 154 million. So as is apparent your comparison is already 50% skewed. Subtract the number of people on salary where the hourly minimum wage is irrelevant and your representation shrinks even more.
In a study done by economists Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt for the Economic Policy Institute in 2000 they found that of the 8.4 million workers ( age 18 to 64) who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage 2.7 million (32%) are the parents of 4.7 million children (contrary to your thinking these kids didn’t have jobs). They also found that most minimum wage workers are adults (71%) age 20 and up. A more recent study in 2007 by the Center for American Progress revealed that 13 million workers would benefit from a minimum wage increase. Of this number 7 million were families with children.
To dispel the assertion that it prices low-skilled workers out of the workforce the Economic Policy Institute study concluded the employment effects, while negative in some models, never reach anywhere near the level where the benefits to low wage workers would be outweighed by their cost in terms of job losses.
Mr. Meyer’s teenage son (or yours if you have one) can still work for $5 per hour, learn skills, and establish a resume of reliability. The federal minimum wage law allows for people under the age of 20 to be paid $4.25 per hour during their first 90 days of employment. If he is really willing to work for nothing, I would be glad to teach him the skills of auto detailing. (The road salt and dirt has taken the luster off my vehicles.)
Perhaps your greatest distortion is trying to blame the teenage unemployment rate on the minimum wage law. Extrapolating this theory the minimum wage brought down Wall Street, crushed the real estate market, and sent shock waves throughout the global economy.
I also think its worth noting that the report sited by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress titled "50 Years of Research on the Minimum Wage” was a 1995 paper put forth by House Republicans in their “Talking Points” publication. (Not exactly a labor-friendly organization.)
I find it regretful you had to resort to try and demonize the minimum wage with that greatest of all evils “Obamacare,” but I understand your propensity to do so.
As stated before, this debate will no doubt continue for a long time, but will best be served by honest, unbiased, and responsible arguments.
Sincerely,
Ken Rentz
Hillsboro[[In-content Ad]]