The Minimum Wage Myth

In a free market, demand is a function of price: the higher the price, the lower the demand. These rules apply equally to both prices and wages. When employers evaluate their labor and capital needs, cost is a primary factor. When the cost of hiring low-skilled workers moves higher, jobs are lost. Despite this, minimum wage hikes, like the ones recently set to take effect, are always seen and reported as an act of governmental benevolence. 

Before bringing on another worker, an employer must be convinced that the added productivity will exceed the added cost (this includes not just wages, but all payroll taxes and other benefits.) So if an unskilled worker is capable of delivering only $6 per hour of increased productivity, such an individual is legally unemployable with a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

Low-skilled workers must compete for employers' dollars with both skilled workers and capital. For example, if a skilled worker can do a job for $14 per hour that two unskilled workers can do for $6.50 per hour each, then it makes economic sense for the employer to go with the unskilled labor. Increase the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour and the unskilled workers are priced out of their jobs. This is why labor unions are such big supporters of minimum wage laws. Even though none of their members earns the minimum wage, the law helps protect their members from having to compete with lower-skilled workers.

There are numerous other examples of employers substituting capital for labor simply because the minimum wage has made low-skilled workers uncompetitive. For example, handcarts have replaced skycaps at airports. The main reason fast-food restaurants use paper plates and plastic utensils is to avoid having to hire dishwashers.

As a result, many low-skilled jobs that used to be the first rung on the employment ladder have been priced out of the market. When was the last time someone other than the cashier not only bagged your groceries, but also loaded them into your car? By the way, it won't be long before the cashiers themselves are priced out of the market, replaced by automated scanners - Wal-Mart is already doing this.

The disappearance of these jobs has broader economic and societal consequences. First jobs are a means to improve skills so that low-skilled workers can offer greater productivity to current or future employers. As their skills grow, so does their ability to earn higher wages. However, remove the bottom rung from the employment ladder and many never have a chance to climb it.

Because the minimum wage prevents so many young people (including a disproportionate number of minorities) from getting entry-level jobs, they never develop the skills necessary to command higher paying jobs. As a result, many turn to crime, while others subsist on government aid. Supporters of the minimum wage argue that it is impossible to support a family on the minimum wage. While that is true, it is completely irrelevant, as minimum wage jobs are not designed to support families. In fact, many people earning the minimum wage are themselves supported by their parents.

The only way to increase wages is to increase worker productivity. If wages could be raised simply by government mandate, we could set the minimum wage at $100 per hour and solve all problems. At that level, most of the population would lose their jobs, and the remaining labor would be so expensive that prices for goods and services would skyrocket. That's the exact burden the minimum wage places on our poor and low-skilled workers, and ultimately every American consumer.

Since our leaders cannot seem to grasp this simple economic concept, how can we expect them to deal with the more complicated problems that we have?


  1. Anonymous9:42 AM

    I agree with many of your arguments, and follow your blog on a regular basis. With the current system in place (and not likely go go anywhere anytime soon), one of my questions though, is how to you offset the rising cost of living if you don't raise wages?

  2. that it is impossible to support a family on the minimum wage

    That's not true.
    $5/hour is $10K/year.
    It is still above median family income in the world.

  3. @Anonymous
    The market will determine wages. If people have the skills to provide value to an employer, then the employer should be willing to provide them a competitive wage, regardless of what the "cost of living" may happen to be.

  4. Dennis you are silly. You cant take income from here and compare to the 3rd world. $10k IS more than the median family income but how much does it cost to live in the 3rd world? I lived in Egypt on a rent of less than $300 a month, with food and everything costing peanuts compared to what it costs here.

  5. @Peter very interesting argument. I've never heard this before. Thanks for sharing