Most of the attention from last week’s elections has gone to the presidential race, and rightfully so. But four states had minimum wage referendums on their ballots, and voters approved all of them.
Arizona, Colorado, Maine and Washington state already had minimum wages that are higher than the federal standard of $7.25 an hour. The biggest wage increase approved Tuesday is in Maine, where voters agreed to raise the pay from the current $7.50 to $12 per hour by 2020.
Arizona ($8.05 per hour) and Colorado ($8.31) also approved raising the minimum to $12 in 2020. The fourth state, Washington, currently has a $9.47 minimum wage and is raising it to $13.50 by 2020.
As it stands now, Mississippi is one of only 20 states that use the federal $7.25 per hour. Only 12 states are $9 an hour or higher. Washington, D.C. leads the way at $10.50, followed by California and Massachusetts at $10 each.
For years there has been a debate over whether a higher minimum wage reduces the number of low-paying jobs for underskilled workers and young people seeking their first job. It’s not hard to find advocates for raising it or keeping it at the current level. Others contend that eliminating the minimum wage, first established at 25 cents an hour in 1938, would force employers to compete harder for decent workers, and pay would rise as a result.
The case for keeping the minimum wage at $7.25 an hour is simple: As the cost of labor goes up, managers have a greater incentive to reduce expenses. One way to do that is to have fewer employees. Another way, and it’s kind of amusing that the people who picket McDonald’s for $15 an hour haven’t figured this out, is to use machines to do more work.
After all, the fallout from increasing labor mechanization helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency. Wage increases encourage this mechanization. If companies can use robots to help make cars and other complicated products, they can sure figure out how to automate more of the hamburger preparation process. So minimum wage advocates who believe their hourly pay should be doubled are essentially asking for their jobs to be eliminated.
The case for increasing the minimum is partly political: Workers will appreciate a government-mandated pay raise. Humanitarian impulses may play a role, as most employers do not wish to be known as paying pauper’s wages. Finally, the minimum has not increased since the summer of 2009, so Congress may address an increase in the next few years.
But there is a much easier way to get part-time, low-pay employees more money without raising the minimum wage at all.
When the Democratic Congress in 2009 passed the Affordable Care Act, one of its most punitive measures was the reduction of the number of hours that part-time employees could work in a week. Part-timers used to be able to work anything less than 40 hours a week; the ACA, best known as Obamacare, cut that to 30 hours.
The intent was obvious: Coax employers into making more part-time workers full-time, and thus eligible for employer-sponsored medical insurance. Maybe some did that, but other employers followed the law and cut the hours — and thus the pay — of part-time workers.
With Republicans in charge of both Congress and the White House in 2017, Obamacare is in trouble. It may have provided medical insurance for 20 million more people, but it did so at the cost of several hours per week for plenty of workers who get paid at or near the minimum wage. Restoring those hours would more than make up for any increase in the hourly wage, and that’s what Republicans should focus on next year.
Jack Ryan, Enterprise-Journal
