Published: December 13, 2006 10:16 am            

Trying to solve the minimum wage issue

Is it possible for college-educated people with full-time jobs to discuss a proposed minimum wage increase without coming off as condescending?

I’m not so sure that it is. What started off as a desire to write a column breaking down the pros and cons of minimum wage increase proposals in Iowa and Illinois turned sour in my brain after kicking it around with my editor. I realized that no matter how I worded it, blaming “the system” would come off as an indictment of people who have minimum wage jobs.

For starters, I think we all can agree that the federal minimum wage (which Iowa also uses), is far too low at $5.15 an hour. Working 2,080 hours a year (40 hours a week for 52 weeks), would yield $10,712. That’s about $893 per month before taxes, and even if one person could afford to pay rent, utilities and grocery bills on that, it certainly wouldn’t leave anything for savings or any luxuries beyond a spare candy bar here or there.

But after that point, what can we agree on? Having even a state government apply a minimum wage to its entire population is an economic foolishness given the difference in cost of living from one town to the next. What happens is that profit-minded employers in each community must make their own determination about how little they can pay to obtain the labor they require.

When multistate regions are factored into the picture, the entire equation goes out of whack. In Illinois, the minimum wage is at $6.50 and climbing. If the governor signs new legislation, it’ll be $7.50 by July 1 and $8.25 by 2010.

Iowa won’t be able to keep up with that pace, which means ground-level jobs in Fulton will be much more desirable than those in Clinton.

But beyond the numbers, I think we need to look at what purpose we as a country (or state, if need be), intend the minimum wage to serve. And here’s where I get into trouble.

On Monday, I said I didn’t believe “minimum wage” should provide enough money for one person to support a typical American family. There’s a reason they call it the minimum, I argued, and dramatic increases in the minimum wage don’t guarantee attendant increases in the typical wages paid to people who have two- or four-year college degrees, or even those who now make $7 or $8 an hour.

But there are many, many reasons people end up working for the minimum wage. I’ve never had such a job, and I think that disqualifies me from having a dog in this fight. I’m guessing there are some people working for $5.15 an hour putting a lot more of themselves into those jobs than some CEOs of Fortune 500 companies who get severance packages that exceed the gross national product of most Central American countries.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized the issue isn’t the minimum wage, or at least it’s not entirely the minimum wage. It’s the economy in general, and that’s proven a nearly impossible egg to crack.

As someone who went to college, earned a degree and got a full-time job, I think I deserve to be paid more than the minimum wage, and I am. But it’d be pretty arrogant to say people who want to make more money should just go to college. College costs are climbing everywhere, and not just for private schools.

Under a rate increase approved Monday, Iowa residents will have to pay $6,273 for a year of tuition and fees at the University of Iowa That’s a pretty big chunk of the $10,712 someone could make working a full-time, minimum wage job — and if they had such a job, they certainly wouldn’t have time for a full-time academic career.

But for politicians, raising the minimum wage is easy. Funneling more money toward public education so it’s equally accessible to the entire population involves more difficult choices.

It would be easy to suggest abolishing wage minimums and allowing the market to sort itself out. Yet we must, as a country, guarantee our citizens are paid fairly if we’re going to demand countries we trade with do the same (not that we do enough of that, of course, but we can tackle only so many issues at once).

Now I’ve used an entire column, argued myself around in circles and into a corner. Of course, you’ve read this far, so I suppose now we both feel a little silly. My only hope is that I’ve been able to illustrate just how complex this issue truly is without offending the people it affects the most.

If I’ve been able to accomplish both — highly doubtful, I know — then I need to go see the boss. I think I deserve a raise.

Scott T. Holland’s column appears every Wednesday in the Clinton Herald. His e-mail address is scottholland@clintonherald.com.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.