Been interested in economic theory lately, and heard a compelling argument from Milton Friedman about the negative side effects of policies such as this (specifically referring to 'equal pay for equal work', but it seems to me to be applicable to minimum wage as well).
The theory goes that when you set a limit on wages, it incentivizes employers to be that much more choosy about their applicants. It makes it harder for someone without entry level work skills, without a high school diploma or with a rap sheet to get their foot in the door. It helps those people who already have jobs and hurts those looking for one. So you're automatically handicapping many of the very people these sorts of social programs are meant to help. If there was no minimum wage, a potential employee would have more bargaining power to negotiate lower pay in exchange for the chance to prove themselves in the work place. In a time when every job has dozens and dozens of applicants and a business still only has X amount with which to pay its total pool of employees, its problematic if policies are making for those desperate enough to do what it takes. That's 66% more true here, since the increase proposed could shrink the money available to support three new positions down to two.
As a side note, there was an interesting corollary effect proposed: it further allows prejudiced employers to discriminate at the hiring level. Sure, many racists/sexists/whathaveyou will continue to make decisions based on those biases regardless, but at least here they would be positively incentivized to put them aside and hire someone who was willing to be paid less and in order to keep more of the money that the business is already bringing in. Hell, they might even have their prejudices tested- or changed- in the meantime.
I'm sure I'm going to get all sorts of flak for this, but i found the logic compelling enough to stick with me.
Log in to comment