Atrios guest-blogger Echidne responds to George Will’s latest column, in which he argues that the proper minimum wage is zero, with a post that… well, let me just let this line speak for itself:
Why not allow the minimum wage be negative? Workers could pay the employers. There is nothing magical about the number zero, once one starts walking down the path Will has chosen.
I started typing about five different snarky responses, but nothing really seems adequate, so I’ll just let that one stand.
I do want to note, though, that it’s a little odd to slag Will for noting that only 0.6 percent of the workforce (mostly non-poor) makes minimum wage, on the grounds that he didn’t also cite government figures adverting to another 1.4 million who “were reported as earning wages below the minimum.” So who’s in this group? Presumably some people who’re just being unlawfully underpaid, but also large numbers of waitstaff and others who are exempt from the usual minimum wage because they make the bulk of their income directly from consumers, as tips, rather than from employers in the form of wages. But whatever the reason, if they’re not being paid the minimum wage, why exactly are we supposed to think they’re likely to be affected by a raise in the minimum wage?
6 responses so far ↓
1 Anonymous // Jan 5, 2007 at 4:09 am
Because the opportunity cost of waiting tables has changed? It’s the same reason that an increase in the minimum wage also affects workers who occupy the wage brackets slightly above the new floor.
2 steveintheknow // Jan 5, 2007 at 9:35 am
Worst slippery-slope argument ever.
3 Tony // Jan 5, 2007 at 10:07 am
Since Echidne wants to play with semantics, a negative wage is already legal. It’s even advertised. It’s usually called a price instead of a negative wage, but the outcome is the same. Do vacationers who help drive cattle on a dude ranch receive compensation, or do they pay for the experience. Oppressive labor practice or smart capitalist? Depends on your politics and how much you believe in liberty, I suppose.
4 Nick // Jan 5, 2007 at 11:30 am
Well, there is also a minimum wage for waitstaff, and if a worker’s tips/commission don’t make up the difference between their wage and the normal minimum the employer is required to make up the difference.
Any minimum wage increase law written by even a moderately thoughtful politician, however, is going to include an increase in the minimum wage for workers who receive tips and commission. Echidne’s point there is entirely reasonable. They still won’t be paid the new “minimum”, but their pay will go up.
There may be arguments against the minimum wage–I find Will’s column unconvincing–but whatever they are, they are not based on the smallness of the number of workers who will be affected.
5 asg // Jan 5, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Words fail me, too.
6 Jane Galt // Jan 6, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Actually, it’s worse than that. Many of the “below minimum wage workers” actually are making the minimum wage–they’re people who filled out “$5.00” as their wage. Will and Echidne are both in ignorance of the data.