On July 24, the Federal minimum wage will increase to $7.25.  That’s an improvement over the current minimum of $6.55, but still a far cry from the $9.50 that is necessary to prevent full-time workers from living in poverty.  The time has come to push for this “living wage,” and the time has come to present it as one of the central justice issues for our generation.

It will be a very difficult fight.  Not only do conservatives tend to believe that raising the minumum wage increases unemployment (which it doesn’t), many go so far as to claim that businesses bear no responsibility for the welfare of their workers.  Michael Kruse, a conservative Presbyterian blogger, writes:

It is not the function of business to sustain workers’ lives… Justice requires that we compensate each person according to the economic contribution that they make.

Kruse then offers the example of two men applying for a job doing yardwork. Both are equally skilled and do the same quality of work. One is single. The other is married with four children. The single man needs $7.50 an hour to support himself and asks for $10. The father of four needs $15.85 and asks for $16. Which man would we hire?  Kruse says:

The overwhelming majority of us are going to hire the first man. Why? Because we are heartless evil capitalists, callous to the plight of the second man? No. Because we determine wages and prices based on the value of the services rendered, not on the need of the person rendering the service. (emphasis is Kruse’s)

I can honestly say that I would hire the second man if at all possible. In fact, if I had the means, I would scrounge around to find more work so I could hire them both. And I know a lot of people who would do the same. I disagree that an overwhelming majority would look only at the value of the service rendered in making their decision.

The custodian at a church where I used to work had to unexpectedly take in two of his grandchildren, and he needed a significantly higher salary to support them. The church had the option of refusing his request for a raise and replacing him with someone who could afford to work for less. In my mind, such a move would have been terribly unjust. Of course we did not tell him, “Sorry, but market forces and the value of your labor dictate that we can’t be concerned about the welfare of your grandchildren when we decide if you can have a raise.” We didn’t think twice. We adjusted the budget and gave him what he needed.

The conservative reply to this argument is that in the free market, workers are free to improve their marketability and take their labor elsewhere if their wages are insufficient. In a perfect world, that would be a reasonable expectation. But the real world is polluted by racism, sexism, age-ism, homophobia, educational inequality, and a host of other prejudicial barriers that create a highly unlevel playing field and condemn millions to a lifetime of poverty.

Conservatives will also contend that the soultion lies not in mandating wage increases, but in giving the poor the tools and resources necessary to compete effectively in the marketplace. In fact, both should be done. We can meet immediate needs now by immediately raising wages, but this does not exclude us from also promoting their long-term self-development. This means putting a heavy amount of investment into rescuing our failing public schools; working vigorously to redevelop economically devastated communities; and making some real reform to our health care system that is so obviously failing the poor and the working class.

Clearly, then, it does not fall exclusively on the shoulders of business owners to ensure the welfare of workers. But they do have the greatest potential for making immediate improvements. A wage increase for tomato pickers today means that they can feed their families tonight. Providing adequate health insurance for employees today means they can take their sick children to the doctor tomorrow. The business world has enormous potential at its fingertips to make life instantly better for millions of suffering people. In my mind, I cannot comprehend how that is not called justice.

The immediate demand on the business community, however, does not excuse the other institutions of society from doing their share. Kruse is absolutely right when he makes the point that churches, civic groups, schools, and charities should also bear a great deal of the responsibility to work for the welfare of the poor.  But the government has its part to play, too.  And right now, the best thing the government can do the alleviate the shameful blight of poverty on our nation is to mandate a living wage.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: