Aug 03, 2013
You know the boilerplate argument against higher wages in America, because you've heard it so many times from Fox News' and CNBC pundits. But as service industry workers now mount protests against poverty-level pay and as the Associated Press reports that "four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare," it is worth reviewing the blowhard's case for low wages one more time -- just to see whether it even makes sense.
The three tiered argument goes like this: 1) Higher wages for workers create higher costs for corporations; 2) corporations pass on those higher costs in the form of product price increases; and 3) those price increases must be enormous for corporations to recoup all of their increased labor costs.
What gives these assertions such mass appeal is their populist insinuation that higher wages would hurt the Average Joe. Ultimately, that Average Joe is supposed to conclude that the supposed harm modest wage increases will inflict on him will be far greater than the benefit they will generate for him and the economy as a whole.
For the sake of evaluating this particular conclusion, let's set aside all of the other moral and economic questions at play in the larger debate over wages. Let's, for instance, bypass a discussion about why the richest nation on earth has a $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage that condemns many workers to destitution. Let's also for a moment disregard the fact that CEOs of the biggest restaurant companies make more in a morning than the average minimum-wage worker in their companies make in a year. Let's even ignore evidence that raising the minimum wage boosts the economy by putting money in the hands of those who will most quickly spend it.
Let's instead focus on a very simple question: Is it really true that higher wages would be devastating for individual consumers?
The answer, it seems, depends on your definition of "devastating." Is 5 cents really "devastating"? What about 22 cents or 46 cents? Does that somehow qualify as "devastating"?
Those figures aren't pulled out of thin air -- they come from three data-driven reports proving that it costs mere pennies at the register to put more dollars in millions of Americans' paychecks.
The first analysis comes from 100 economists who, in a letter to policymakers, estimated that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour would result in just a nickel increase in the price of a Big Mac.
That was followed up by a report in Newsweek based on the calculations of University of Massachusetts economists. They found that raising McDonald's workers wages to $15 an hour would likely add just 22 cents to the retail price of the Big Mac.
It is much the same for Wal-Mart. According to a study by researchers at the City University of New York and the University of California, raising the wages of all of the retailers' employees to at least $12 an hour would cost the average customer just 46 cents more during their typical trip to the store. Over an entire year, that's just $12.50.
With those numbers in mind, let's circle back to the concept of harm by considering what is more devastating: wages that relegate millions of people to a life of poverty or having to fork over just a bit more pocket change during your next trip to McDonalds and Wal-Mart?
As Congress contemplates raising the minimum wage and more workers take collective action in the fight for better pay, the answer should be more obvious than ever.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
David Sirota
David Sirota is an award-winning journalist and bestselling author living in Denver, Colorado. He was nominated for an Academy Award for his work helping create the story for the film DON'T LOOK UP, which became one of the most widely viewed movies in Netflix's history. He is the founder and editor of The Daily Poster, an editor at large at Jacobin Magazine and a columnist at The Guardian. He served as Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign speechwriter in 2020. Sirota is the author of "Back to Our Future" and "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money & Corruption Conquered Our Government--And How We Take It Back". His website: www.davidsirota.com.
You know the boilerplate argument against higher wages in America, because you've heard it so many times from Fox News' and CNBC pundits. But as service industry workers now mount protests against poverty-level pay and as the Associated Press reports that "four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare," it is worth reviewing the blowhard's case for low wages one more time -- just to see whether it even makes sense.
The three tiered argument goes like this: 1) Higher wages for workers create higher costs for corporations; 2) corporations pass on those higher costs in the form of product price increases; and 3) those price increases must be enormous for corporations to recoup all of their increased labor costs.
What gives these assertions such mass appeal is their populist insinuation that higher wages would hurt the Average Joe. Ultimately, that Average Joe is supposed to conclude that the supposed harm modest wage increases will inflict on him will be far greater than the benefit they will generate for him and the economy as a whole.
For the sake of evaluating this particular conclusion, let's set aside all of the other moral and economic questions at play in the larger debate over wages. Let's, for instance, bypass a discussion about why the richest nation on earth has a $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage that condemns many workers to destitution. Let's also for a moment disregard the fact that CEOs of the biggest restaurant companies make more in a morning than the average minimum-wage worker in their companies make in a year. Let's even ignore evidence that raising the minimum wage boosts the economy by putting money in the hands of those who will most quickly spend it.
Let's instead focus on a very simple question: Is it really true that higher wages would be devastating for individual consumers?
The answer, it seems, depends on your definition of "devastating." Is 5 cents really "devastating"? What about 22 cents or 46 cents? Does that somehow qualify as "devastating"?
Those figures aren't pulled out of thin air -- they come from three data-driven reports proving that it costs mere pennies at the register to put more dollars in millions of Americans' paychecks.
The first analysis comes from 100 economists who, in a letter to policymakers, estimated that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour would result in just a nickel increase in the price of a Big Mac.
That was followed up by a report in Newsweek based on the calculations of University of Massachusetts economists. They found that raising McDonald's workers wages to $15 an hour would likely add just 22 cents to the retail price of the Big Mac.
It is much the same for Wal-Mart. According to a study by researchers at the City University of New York and the University of California, raising the wages of all of the retailers' employees to at least $12 an hour would cost the average customer just 46 cents more during their typical trip to the store. Over an entire year, that's just $12.50.
With those numbers in mind, let's circle back to the concept of harm by considering what is more devastating: wages that relegate millions of people to a life of poverty or having to fork over just a bit more pocket change during your next trip to McDonalds and Wal-Mart?
As Congress contemplates raising the minimum wage and more workers take collective action in the fight for better pay, the answer should be more obvious than ever.
David Sirota
David Sirota is an award-winning journalist and bestselling author living in Denver, Colorado. He was nominated for an Academy Award for his work helping create the story for the film DON'T LOOK UP, which became one of the most widely viewed movies in Netflix's history. He is the founder and editor of The Daily Poster, an editor at large at Jacobin Magazine and a columnist at The Guardian. He served as Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign speechwriter in 2020. Sirota is the author of "Back to Our Future" and "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money & Corruption Conquered Our Government--And How We Take It Back". His website: www.davidsirota.com.
You know the boilerplate argument against higher wages in America, because you've heard it so many times from Fox News' and CNBC pundits. But as service industry workers now mount protests against poverty-level pay and as the Associated Press reports that "four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare," it is worth reviewing the blowhard's case for low wages one more time -- just to see whether it even makes sense.
The three tiered argument goes like this: 1) Higher wages for workers create higher costs for corporations; 2) corporations pass on those higher costs in the form of product price increases; and 3) those price increases must be enormous for corporations to recoup all of their increased labor costs.
What gives these assertions such mass appeal is their populist insinuation that higher wages would hurt the Average Joe. Ultimately, that Average Joe is supposed to conclude that the supposed harm modest wage increases will inflict on him will be far greater than the benefit they will generate for him and the economy as a whole.
For the sake of evaluating this particular conclusion, let's set aside all of the other moral and economic questions at play in the larger debate over wages. Let's, for instance, bypass a discussion about why the richest nation on earth has a $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage that condemns many workers to destitution. Let's also for a moment disregard the fact that CEOs of the biggest restaurant companies make more in a morning than the average minimum-wage worker in their companies make in a year. Let's even ignore evidence that raising the minimum wage boosts the economy by putting money in the hands of those who will most quickly spend it.
Let's instead focus on a very simple question: Is it really true that higher wages would be devastating for individual consumers?
The answer, it seems, depends on your definition of "devastating." Is 5 cents really "devastating"? What about 22 cents or 46 cents? Does that somehow qualify as "devastating"?
Those figures aren't pulled out of thin air -- they come from three data-driven reports proving that it costs mere pennies at the register to put more dollars in millions of Americans' paychecks.
The first analysis comes from 100 economists who, in a letter to policymakers, estimated that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 an hour would result in just a nickel increase in the price of a Big Mac.
That was followed up by a report in Newsweek based on the calculations of University of Massachusetts economists. They found that raising McDonald's workers wages to $15 an hour would likely add just 22 cents to the retail price of the Big Mac.
It is much the same for Wal-Mart. According to a study by researchers at the City University of New York and the University of California, raising the wages of all of the retailers' employees to at least $12 an hour would cost the average customer just 46 cents more during their typical trip to the store. Over an entire year, that's just $12.50.
With those numbers in mind, let's circle back to the concept of harm by considering what is more devastating: wages that relegate millions of people to a life of poverty or having to fork over just a bit more pocket change during your next trip to McDonalds and Wal-Mart?
As Congress contemplates raising the minimum wage and more workers take collective action in the fight for better pay, the answer should be more obvious than ever.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.