“. . . It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. . . .”

            William Shakespeare, The Oxford Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V. Scene V.

    If Shakespeare had been addressing the flawed political rhetoric used to shout down any economic discussion of the value of today’s minimum-wage legislation, he couldn’t have phrased a better or more descriptive summary.  I find their elitist pronouncements about job environment for minimum wage earners much akin to the 18^th century Marie Antoinette attitude of, “If the peasants have no bread, then let them eat cake.”

    The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported on a stalled bill in Utah’s state legislature, which would increase the state minimum-wage ahead of the current federal minimum-wage, and subsequently index annual increases to the national inflation rate.

    “Neil Hansen, D-Ogden, presented HB114 to the House Business and Labor Committee Wednesday, recommending raising the minimum-wage each year to keep pace with the consumer price index.  The measure stalled, with all but two legislators voting to adjourn without taking action on the bill.

    Utah mandates a $5.85 hourly minimum-wage. Federal law requires the minimum-wage to increase incrementally over the next two years. On July 24 it jumps to $6.55, then a year later to $7.25.  According to www.laborlawcenter.com, the minimum-wage in other states ranges from $5.85 to Washington's $8.07.

    Rep. Ben Ferry, R-Corinne, asked Hansen why he wanted to separate Utah from the federal system.  ‘Several states have different minimum-wages higher than the federal standard,’ Hansen replied. ‘In fairness to those making minimum-wage - some are trying to provide for families - and inflation rises but the minimum-wage does not.’”  --Minimum-wage increases, Proposal Stalls in House Committee, By Cathy McKitrick, The Salt Lake Tribune, 01/31/2008

    The persistent mantra and a political urban legend is that there are a significant number of people in minimum-wage jobs supporting families.  If we look hard enough, we could possibly find an instance or two where that is true. However; when the US Congress went out to prove the need for the last round of minimum-wage increases--three studies turned up only a few antidotal instances of minimum-wage earners with families who were a) in the job for more than 6 months; b) working more than part time; c) not a student; d) without a spouse earning greater than minimum-wage; e) in the minimum-wage job as the sole source of income (i.e. retirees); or, f) not receiving government financial subsidies in supplement to wages earned.  The studies even fudged a bit by “imputing” an average "hourly" wage, for some farm and factory workers, actually paid based upon production or output.  This was done in an attempt to expand the minimum-wage population to include a greater number of immigrant/migrant workers.

    While not providing percentages, the findings indicate "a majority" of interviewed workers, earning at or slightly above the federal minimum-wage, had the expectation of using the new skills learned in their current employ to obtain better jobs in the “near future.”  In other words, most US minimum-wage employ is being used as a short-term entry-level opportunity, leading towards anticipated future jobs with better pay.

    When I was a kid, my first job with a paycheck was working for the local dry-cleaner doing odd-jobs at a "student-wage." The student-wage paid roughly half of the then minimum-wage.  The other merchants were hiring older kids who got the higher paying minimum-wage.  I was in Junior High School, and 13 years old.  It was understandable that the minimum-wage employers didn’t want to take a chance on a younger worker, when they could hire a 16 year old High School student, who should be more mature and responsible, for the same price.  I was at the dry-cleaner job for <6 months.  I used references from the student-wage dry-cleaner job to show my next employer that I was demonstrably dependable, reliable and responsible.  Because of my age, I was hired on a trial basis during the Christmas shopping season and later was kept on when some of the less industrious older kids got laid-off before the start of the January linen-sales.

    I worked at that job for <6 months, using that experience to help get a much better paying "summer job" (another trial period opportunity--which lead to a nice raise in the Fall and I continued on as part-time employee after school).  I made more during that next summer than I did the prior year from the income of both the earlier student-wage and the minimum wage jobs combined.  That Fall, my part-time job paid about one and half times the minimum wage, and I made sure to work hard enough that my employer considered me to be a bargain for what he was paying me.  I kept that job for the entire school year before once more trading up for higher wages the following summer.

    The point is, MY KIDS don't have the same path to entry level employment.  We've legislated away most of these opportunities.  Wage increases have destroyed a number of starter jobs. Increased employer taxes have destroyed others.  Increased employer work place liability & regulations have destroyed still more.  Of the remaining manual labor/low skill starter jobs, teenagers now have to compete with an ever increasing influx of older immigrant workers who are grateful to assume these entry-level jobs–paying a LOT more than even the best jobs available to them back home.

   Increasing the minimum-wage by $1 an hour, for a full-time employed person, will generally result in <$20 net pay per week; or, just about $1K per year. That will NOT result in any appreciable change to the workers standard of living.  It WILL however, result in a few less available entry level jobs for those who would have used such work as a starting point into the larger job market or to climb the rungs of employment towards a satisfactory vocation or career.

   Increasing the minimum-wage is a hollow victory for a few politicians that haven't yet considered doing a reality check using a calculator. The vocal advocates for higher minimum-wages obviously know VERY LITTLE about the kinds of jobs such legislation would be affecting.  When confronted by the historic FACT that there have been reductions in entry-level jobs EVERY TIME the minimum wage has been raised, they ignore the relevant financial realities and pretend that their good intentions will more than make up for the fact that those who were unemployed, who would have taken the unskilled entry-level jobs, are now both unemployed AND unemployable.

  For those without job, or even the near-term prospect of job, it is small comfort or solace that the liberal activist and the progressive politician have achieved a personal moral victory against the greedy bourgeoisie –at the expense of many of the proletariat’s employment opportunities.  To the moneyed activist, the insulated politician and the reality-disenfranchised academia, the loss of entry-level jobs appears to be an inconsequential matter. . . after all, who in their right mind would really want to do such distasteful work at such a low wage?  Aren’t they really much better off unemployed than working at menial and low-paying jobs?