Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage.

I will be arguing in negation of the resolution which states: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage. To argue such a notion, I will be debating both pragmatically and in a moral fashion to show that a living wage is both impractical and unjust to enforce. Contention I: A living wage ordinance hosts a pool of flaws. Besides being an inherent flaw on a policy level, a living wage has a great deal of problems that lie elsewhere. Subpoint A: A fair living wage is indeterminable. Each individual, family, and community are different. “Living wage measures are completely arbitrary and that [individuals], both conservatives and liberals, aren’t well qualified to determine what’s an acceptable lifestyle for other people.” [1] It is beyond anyone’s capability to instigate a just living wage. A government should not have authority to mandate the lives of others by forcing employers to pay a wage that is unjust. Subpoint B: A living wage won’t create jobs. Advocates for the living wage trumpet the unfounded claim that a living wage will solve for unemployment by creating new jobs. This is quite simply false. Brendan Buck notes, “Mandating higher wages has real costs, including fewer people working. With unemployment Americans' top concern, our focus should be creating — not destroying — jobs for those who need them most.” [2] Buck was referring to a study conducted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), where they indicated that job loss, of approximately 500,000, was inevitable. This isn’t, however, the only study that recognizes potential job loss. According to CBS News, economists David Neumark and William Wascher, two-thirds of 100 researchers reported a negative effect on employment in the US. [3] The report itself also specifies that “[The] evidence tends to point to disemployment effects of minimum wages for many other countries as well.” [4] These studies show a relatively consistent view of negative wage effects not only in the US, but as a policy flaw around the globe. But even beyond studies, we find the actual implementation of a higher wage has been detrimental. Seattle implemented a $15 living wage, but even before it went into effect, it had caused restaurant closings and job losses. The Washington Policy Center explains, “The shut-downs have idled dozens of low-wage workers, the very people advocates say the wage law is supposed to help.” [5] Seattle Magazine describes, “The Seattle Times and Eater have reported extensively on restaurant owners’ many concerns about how to compensate for the extra funds that will now be required for labor: They may need to raise menu prices, source poorer ingredients, reduce operating hours, reduce their labor and/or more.” [6] It is glaringly evident that past implementation and the majority of studies conducted about the living wage relatively consistently support the idea that a living wage is harmful to employment. Subpoint C: Inflation is an inevitable consequence. Besides an inherent inability to construct a just living wage in the first place, and the fact that proposed living wages would create job losses, we observe yet another policy flaw. In an effort to award the impoverished with more dough, we raise the prices for everyone. The report by CBO explains, “The real value of the minimum wage has both risen and fallen, as the nominal increases have subsequently been eroded by inflation.” [7] However, this report isn’t the only one that supports this notion. Debra Burke, professor of law at Western Carolina University notes, “Increase in labor costs can spur inflation and undercut the real minimum wage, precipitating an endless spiral.” [8] Moreover, corporations themselves have spoken out, declaring that a living wage will hurt their businesses: “U.S. corporations, however, say that forcing them to raise wages will mean fewer jobs and higher prices, hurting those with lower incomes in particular.” With advocates heralding how a living wage will help the poor, it is increasingly evident that this is not the case. Instead of assisting these needy individuals, a living wage, or wage increase, is certain to have negative consequences. Contention II: Supposed benefits of a living wage are largely illogical. While the few poor individuals that actually receive the higher wage will benefit, the broad scale tells a widely different story. Many of those poor and low-skilled workers don’t get the living wage. Suppose you are a small business owner, in a government poised to raise the minimum wage. Your profits are a little above even. I propose a rhetoric: If the wage is raised, what will happen to your business? The only logical options are to A) cut workers, which only increases unemployment, B) raise prices, which hurts not only the poor, but to a degree, also the middle and upper class. But, if you were to cut workers, who would you cut? The less-skilled workers earning minimum wage, or the better skilled workers who would now be paid the new minimum wage? The logical option is to keep the best workers. It is obvious of the dilemma with which you would be faced. Living wage laws are aimed to help the poor, lower class workers with less skill and education. However, these, in fact, would be the ones most affected; and in a detrimental manner. In a strictly moral sense, this defies the lofty ambitions of living wage advocates. They claim their policy will help the poor, but logic and evidence refutes this claim. Instead, the class they aim to help is hurt the worst. Contention III: A living wage will facilitate job loss. Though advocates repeatedly claim that a living wage will have little, if any, effect on unemployment, it is increasingly evident that a living wage will instead hurt employment. An article by The Atlantic shows, “the minimum wage could reduce young adult employment by 2 percent.” [10] Moreover, a paper done by economists Jonathan Meer of Texas A&M and Jeremy West of MIT explains, “We find that the minimum wage reduces net job growth, primarily through its effect on job creation by expanding establishments.” [11] The Mises Institute simplifies, “In essence, minimum wage increases make it more likely that firms won’t hire new people than that they will fire current employees.” [12] New data is also consistent with this motif of unemployment concerns. The Employment Policies Institute explained, “New analysis from economists at Miami and Trinity University (2012-13) provide[d] state-level estimates on the number of jobs that would be lost as a result of a $10.10 wage hike. Across all 50 states, the updated analysis shows that up to one million jobs would be lost.” [13] Many claim the primary job of the living wage is to dispel poverty. However, this theory is highly flawed. Forbes published an article which stated, “As a poverty program, raising the minimum wage is like killing flies with a shotgun, not very well targeted. About 60% of the officially poor don’t work, so the only thing raising the minimum wage does for them is to make it harder for them to get a job if they ever decide they want one. Congress raised the minimum wage 10.6% in July, 2009. In the ensuing 6 months, nearly 600,000 teen jobs disappeared.” [14] Conclusion: As I explained earlier, this debate is to be debated and judged based on pragmatism and morality. I have presented multiple pragmatic arguments, and a few moral as well. However, the practical arguments also have an application in morality. If we implement a policy that will cause A) job loss, B) inflation, C) and harm the primary target, we implement a policy that is unjust and immoral. Conclusively, a living wage largely results in primarily negative consequences of both pragmatic and moral nature. For these reasons, among others, a just government should NOT require employers to pay a living wage. Sources: [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.usatoday.com... [3] http://www.cbsnews.com... [4] http://www.economics.uci.edu... [5] http://www.washingtonpolicy.org... [6] http://www.seattlemag.com... [7] http://www.cbo.gov... [8] http://alsb.roundtablelive.org... [9] http://www.usatoday.com... [10] http://www.theatlantic.com... [11] http://econweb.tamu.edu... [12] https://mises.org... [13] https://www.epionline.org... [14] http://tinyurl.com...