The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
Should We Cut the Minimum Wage?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The current debate raging over the role of the minimum wage is usually presented as being fought between two choices. On the one side are those who advocate a large wage hike and on the other are those who oppose any change. But in reality, there is a third alternative, namely cutting the minimum wage, and that is the more principled counterpart to the proposal for raising it.

The reasoning is simple. Given all the very serious problems of poverty and unemployment in our society, with the existing minimum wage playing a significant role, no one with a straight face can assert that our current system is ideal, the best of all possible worlds. So if everyone who places principles over political expediency admits that the existing minimum wage is part of the problem and set at a damaging level, the obvious question is whether it should be raised or lowered.

Certainly this is recognized by the leading ideological opponents of a minimum wage hike, who hail from the libertarian camp and have always questioned the existence of a minimum wage on both moral and practical grounds. Several months ago I debated George Mason economics professor Bryan Caplan, a leading figure in that camp, and he explicitly called for the abolition of the minimum wage. His views are totally representative of the hard-core libertarian movement that so dominates the economic thinking of conservative Republicans.

Although this “abolitionist” position is a little too stark and extreme for most participants in the debate, calls for solving our poverty problems by sharply cutting the minimum wage are fairly common in public policy circles. In December, Reagan economic advisor Martin Feldstein advocated reducing the minimum wage to \$4 per hour in a major WSJ piece and just a few days ago former business executive Robert G. Strayton took to those same pages to endorse a similar solution to American poverty, proposing adoption of a \$5 minimum wage.

Beliefs so widespread in policy circles inevitably leak into the political world as well, and there was a media flurry several months ago when it was discovered that Illinois Republican Gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner had suggested his state should reduce its local minimum wage to the federal floor of \$7.25. I suspect these sentiments, whether voiced or unvoiced, are very widespread in conservative circles. To these individuals “everyone knows” that the minimum wage is a bad and damaging idea, although a highly popular one, and they are torn between standing up for their beliefs or taking the side of what they regard as economically-ignorant populism.

Today’s conservatives cannot be solely blamed for such a stance. Back in the late 1980s, The New York Times itself ran a lead editorial bearing the memorable title “The Proper Minimum Wage: \$0.00.” In those days, educated and principled liberals and conservatives alike had converged on that position, and at least to the end of the 1990s such notable progressive economists as Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman were characterizing the minimum wage in terms that would fit very comfortably on the op-ed pages of today WSJ, while lesser liberal pundits were ridiculing the notion of a minimum wage hike as late as 2011.

Indeed, every single argument advanced against raising the minimum wage is an equally strong one for cutting it. If a higher minimum wage would eliminate jobs for teenagers and “minorities,” then surely a lower minimum wage would boost such employment. If raising the minimum wage would cause employers to use technology to replace their McDonalds servers, lowering the figure would certainly lead to the replacement of automation with low-skilled human labor. It cannot be denied that the very low cash wages of Victorian Era servants produced an enormous plenitude of such positions, and this is still the case today in much of the Third World, with even many lower middle class families regarding the presence of multiple domestics as a natural perquisite of their status. After all, if wages are cut in half, any business or individual employing low-paid workers can immediately fund two job openings for every previous one.

Why is this obvious counterpart to the “Raise the Wage” position so rarely found outside the confines of the WSJ Op-Ed page and similar ideological venues? The case of the aforementioned front-runner for the Illinois Republican gubernatorial nomination provides an illustrative explanation. Once it was discovered that on several occasions he had called for a minimum wage cut, the resulting media firestorm threatened the total collapse of his heavily-financed candidacy, and in sheer desperation he immediately threw his principles overboard and instead endorsed a large hike in the minimum wage.

So while committed supporters of raising the minimum wage are likely advocating an idea they sincerely espouse, the same cannot be said for most of their stand-pat opponents, whose position is almost entirely disingenuous. But a principled public debate on whether either to raise or to lower the minimum wage would be as one-sided a political battle as can be imagined, which is why it almost never takes place. Dishonest shadow-boxing is its typical substitute.

Indeed, our public discourse would take a more enlightening turn if mainstream journalists began to recognize this situation and sharply probed the views of wage-hike opponents, asking questions such as: “So do you support cutting the minimum wage, and if not, why not?” Not only would this an approach be useful from the policy perspective, but it might regularly generate the sort of major headlines that reporters and their editors find very appealing.



With regard to recent developments, I’ve been quite pleased at the reaction to my Forbes article suggesting that Walmart would enormously benefit from a \$12 per hour minimum wage, a suggestion as shocking as it is logically based. According to the publication’s website, the piece has garnered over 20,000 pageviews, 1200 Likes, and 170 Tweets, very solid metrics for this sort of sober policy issue. More importantly, it was brought to the personal attention of at least one Walmart board member, perhaps opening the door for positive developments in that direction. After all, the public endorsement of a big minimum wage hike would cost that huge corporation not a single dollar and surely produce a tidal wage of the sort of favorable national media coverage it has sorely lacked in recent years. Doing well by doing good is an attractive proposition for most executives.

I was also pleased to attend President Obama’s minimum wage announcement at the White House last week, though less pleased that the East Coast storm disrupted my return plans. My appearance on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show went well, and E.J Dionne of the Washington Post focused his nationally syndicated column on the ironies of the minimum wage debate and my own initiative effort, as partially excerpted below:

There is a magnificent public policy that achieves many of the goals conservative politicians regularly extol. These include promoting work over dependency, reducing the cost of social welfare programs, fostering economic growth and strengthening families.

The policy in question is raising the minimum wage. The only mystery is why so few conservative politicians see the issue this way. Rank-and-file conservatives know better. A December Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 53 percent of self-described conservatives supported a minimum wage increase. Republican politicians who are so solicitous of conservative opinion need to follow the moral and practical intuitions of those they say they represent.

One conservative, at least, is speaking for this majority. Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley millionaire and one-time Republican candidate for governor of California, is championing an initiative to raise his state’s minimum wage to \$12 an hour. His reasons are thoroughly in keeping with his ideology.

Unz has argued that a minimum wage hike “would function as a massive stimulus package.” He told ABC News that if the national minimum were increased to \$12, “probably between \$150 billion and \$175 billion a year would go into the pockets of the lower-wage families that spend every dollar they earn. It would cause a tremendous boost in economic demand.”

He also pointed to the fact that government — through wage subsidies in the tax code, Medicaid and food stamps — is now conferring substantial benefits on employers of low-wage labor.

“One of the strange things in our society right now is that we have all these low-wage workers who are getting \$7.50, \$8 or \$9 an hour,” Unz said, “and because they earn such small wages, the government subsidizes them with billions or tens of billions of dollars of social welfare spending that comes from the taxpayer. It’s a classic example of businesses’ privatizing the benefits of their workers while socializing the costs.”

• Category: Economics • Tags: Minimum Wage 
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. AG says:

    “The Proper Minimum Wage: \$0.00” sounds like slavery.

  2. I think that as long as we are pushing the envelope, putting all proposals on the table, that we also debate the salutary effects of cutting the maximum wage. Think how many thousands of new jobs could be financed by a pay cut of just one of the plutocrats! Lowering the minimum wage would promote real hardship, but this would do the opposite.

    I propose this as a former director at a Fortune 500 company, where layoffs of employees did not accrue to the corporation’s bottom line, but always were directly applied to upper management salaries, benefits, pensions and perks instead. Since these economic sophisticates realized that lowering wages of employees increased their own, the opposite holds just as true.

  3. I agree Fran. I wonder if it is possible to create an equable ratio regarding pay and perks. It would be interesting if the plutocrats couldn’t earn more than 3 times what their poorest paid employees get.

    If nothing is done the plutocrats are going to have to be taxed more and their earnings given to the poor unless they want a french style revolution on their hands. This is what an economics professor told me. He said the market bites back when you interfere with it so he argued that the rich should be taxed and those taxes given to the poor. Even if the minimum wage is increased, it will have to be increased again and again. Should there be a mechanism to increase it as we go along?

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Raising or lowering the minimum wage is a meaningless argument to those living in high unemployment, low or no economic development, low power areas. Without energy, there can be no work. Energy comes first – and yet, this country for all of its energy consumption has left millions of its people literally in the dark. Just as I was among the first teachers to devise ESL programs that allowed non-English speaking students to be fully integrated into regular classrooms (i.e. fully English speaking) within a single year (no bi-lingual education needed), I have led this company to be the first to design projects that solved the social problems in low power areas, providing not just needed energy and energy transmission, but also, providing permanent jobs and job growth by using all local labor, using all USA made equipment and attracting local equipment manufacturing (for true energy independence) and preserving farmland, fallow fields and forestland. While Buffett pontificates but looks only to the profit of his company, H.I. 5’s profit is as much in the new sources of energy and jobs, preserved families, farms, forest stands and environment, as in the sale of power or transmission lines. We have also designed products to address other needs. Needless to say the billionaires and multi-millionaires debating taxes, education, etc. have failed to even consider that without a job or hope of one, their debates are irrelevant. I agree that executives are overpaid in this country, but unlike those who so pontificate, I live by my beliefs.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?