U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–112 PDF 2004

WOULD AN INCREASE IN THE FEDERAL MINIMUM

WAGE HELP OR HINDER SMALL BUSINESS?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT 

& GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 29, 2004

Serial No. 108–61

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland, Vice 

Chairman 

SUE KELLY, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

EDWARD SCHROCK, Virginia 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado 

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

FRANK BALLANCE, North Carolina 

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California 

ANI ́BAL ACEVEDO-VILA ́ , Puerto Rico 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

DENISE MAJETTE, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

[VACANCY]

J. MATTHEW SZYMANSKI, Chief of Staff 

PHIL ESKELAND, Policy Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT AND GOVERNMENT 

PROGRAMS 

TODD AKIN, Missouri, Chairman 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

[VACANCY]

JOE HARTZ, Professional Staff

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES

Page 

Kersey, Mr. Paul, Bradley Visiting Fellow in Labor Policy, The Heritage 

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 3

Garthwaite, Mr. Craig, Director of Research, The Employment Policies Institute ........................................................................................................................ 5

McCracken, Mr. Todd, President, National Small Business Association ............ 8

Fredrich, Mr. Mike, Manitowoc Custom Molding, LLC ........................................ 9

Bernstein, Dr. Jared, Senior Economist, Economic Policy Institute ................... 11

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Akin, Hon. W. Todd .......................................................................................... 20

Prepared statements: 

Kersey, Mr. Paul, Bradley Visiting Fellow in Labor Policy, The Heritage 

Foundation ..................................................................................................... 23

Garthwaite, Mr. Craig, Director of Research, The Employment Policies 

Institute ......................................................................................................... 28

McCracken, Mr. Todd, President, National Small Business Association ..... 36

Fredrich, Mr. Mike, Manitowoc Custom Molding, LLC ................................ 40

Bernstein, Dr. Jared, Senior Economist, Economic Policy Institute ............ 48

(III) 

(1)

WOULD AN INCREASE IN THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE HELP OR HINDER SMALL BUSINESS? 

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE, EMPOWERMENT, AND

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:37 a.m. in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. W. Todd Akin, [chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Chairman AKIN. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come to 

order. I will be making an opening statement here, and then we 

will be hearing from our different panelists. 

I just wanted to thank everybody for coming in this morning and 

know that your time is busy, but we are really looking forward to 

what you have to share. 

The subject of the hearing today is the question on the proposed 

changes in the federal minimum wage on small businesses and 

their employees. I would especially like to thank our witnesses who 

have agreed to testify before this Committee. 

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established a federal minimum wage of 25 cents an hour for most workers. From 1939 to 

1997, the maximum wage was raised 19 times. The current basic 

minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, with a lower wage for tipped employees, certain new hires under the age of 20 and full-time students who work part-time. 

Various bills dealing with the federal minimum wage have been 

introduced during the 108th Congress. Most recently, during Senate consideration H.R. 4, the welfare reform reauthorization legislation, an amendment to raise the federal minimum wage to $7 an 

hour, an increase of more than 35 percent, was introduced by Senators Boxer and Kennedy. 

Debate surrounding any increase in the federal minimum wage 

usually includes reference by proponents to the benefits that would 

be derived from any increase to some of our nation’s neediest citizens. 

All of us here want to help ensure that all Americans are able 

to advance in a society where opportunity is abundant and prosperity is the norm, but, as we work for these goals, a mandatory 

2

wage imposed on the private sector from Washington is not the solution we need, in my opinion. 

Although well motivated, the preponderance of evidence suggests 

that rather than helping them raising the minimum wage actually 

has an adverse affect on the nation’s low income and lower skilled 

workforce. 

A study conducted by the Employment Policies Institute suggests 

that despite the robust economy at the time, the 1996 minimum 

wage increase of just 50 cents an hour destroyed approximately 

645,000 entry-level jobs. These low skilled citizens are most likely 

to take these entry level positions and, therefore, are the most adversely affected when these types of jobs are eliminated. 

Recent news indicates that our economic recovery is beginning to 

move into high gear. The report that non-farm payroll employment 

increased by 308,000 in March reflects our strong economic indicators. 

As legislators, it is our responsibility to pursue policies that will 

continue to expand this economy and encourage job creation and do 

away with policies that kill jobs. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 

Greenspan once said: ‘‘The reason I object to the minimum wage 

is I think it destroys jobs, and I think the evidence on that, in my 

judgment, is overwhelming.’’

I have to say that I do agree with Greenspan. Whether it is in 

good times or bad, pursuing increases in the federal minimum 

wage costs low skilled and low income Americans their jobs. 

I look forward to hearing testimony from each of the panelists 

today. Before we get started, I would like to give Congressman Tom 

Udall, and he gets an extra star for coming in when there are no 

votes. Actually three stars. He is doing very well today. I give him, 

the Committee’s Ranking Member, an opportunity for an opening 

statement as well. 

Tom? 

[Chairman Akin’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

three stars. I always like to get those. No doubt about it. 

The importance of the minimum wage is increasingly evident 

today as an estimated 6.9 million workers rely on it to provide for 

them and their families. Unfortunately, the fact is that it barely 

does provide for many of these workers. 

Currently set at a rate of $5.15 per hour, a full-time, minimum 

wage worker earns a little more than $10,000 a year, almost $5,000 

less than the $15,000 poverty level for a family of three. 

Also troubling are the 2002 Bureau of Labor Statistics figures 

that showed how many workers actually earned the minimum 

wage. According to their figures, 570,000 workers were paid minimum wage, while over 1.6 million were paid less. 

Our nation’s economy cannot afford to be underpaying such a 

large number of American workers. In addition, many of those individuals who earn the minimum wage usually do not receive employment benefits such as health insurance and pensions. 

As discussions regarding raising the minimum wage progress, 

the rhetoric often heats up about why this cannot or should not be 

done. We have heard that an increase in the minimum wage lowers 

3

employment, that it makes it harder for low skilled workers to find 

jobs and that low income families will not really reap any benefits. 

The bottom line is that American workers deserve a raise, and 

it is long overdue that they receive one. It has repeatedly been 

shown that minimum wage increases actually have raised employment or allowed it to remain constant. 

In 1991 and 1996 during the debate on the minimum wage, it 

was suggested that raising it would result in an economic downturn. Once raised, however, the once feared economic downturn 

never materialized. In fact, it was during this time that our country enjoyed two of the longest economic upswings in our nation’s 

history. 

While it is not clear how much the minimum wage increase contributed to this economic surge, I do know this. What is clear is 

that the negative effects predicted from providing American workers with better wages did not come to pass. 

Today we likely also will hear the argument that by increasing 

the minimum wage we are hurting our nation’s small businesses, 

yet there is still no evidence to indicate that this is true. In fact, 

some data show that the impact on our nation’s small businesses 

would not be significant. 

One such study conducted by the Jerome Levy Institute in 1997 

found that the most recent increase in the minimum wage did not 

affect the majority of small businesses. Ninety percent of the small 

firms surveyed for their study stated that the increase did not affect their employment or hiring decisions, and the reason is that 

many U.S. small businesses already pay wages above the minimum 

wage. 

I believe it is time for Congress to step in and authorize an increase in the minimum wage. At a time when we are giving millions of dollars in tax breaks to corporate America, we also need 

to take into account the hard working families in this country. 

They, too, deserve to see an increase in their wages, and we must 

take legislative action to make sure that our nation’s hard working 

families are able to live on today’s minimum wage earnings. 

Chairman Akin, thank you for holding this important hearing. I 

also would like to thank the witnesses for coming today, and I look 

forward to hearing their testimony and yield back. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you. 

We are going to now proceed I think pretty much in the order 

you are seated. Dr. Paul Kersey, Bradley Visiting Fellow in Labor 

Policy from the Heritage Foundation. 

Paul, give me one second. Opening will be five minute statements. Please proceed, Paul. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL KERSEY, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. KERSEY. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am 

Paul Kersey; not Dr. Paul Kersey, but Paul Kersey, Bradley Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Thank you for inviting me 

to discuss the economic effects of the minimum wage. 

I should say up front that I am speaking for myself today, and 

my opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Heritage Foundation. 

4

It is understandable to want to help out poor families, and toward that end it has been suggested that Congress increase the 

minimum wage from the current $5.15 an hour to $6.65 an hour. 

Well, I have good news and bad news for you. The bad news is 

that increasing the minimum wage will do little to improve conditions for the working poor because relatively fee of the recipients 

of such an increase are living in poverty. The good news is that the 

working poor do not necessarily need government help. Research 

shows that the dead-end job is largely a myth. 

This is not to say that the working poor do not have a hard road 

ahead of them, but for those who persevere it is a road that leads 

out of poverty. We should not block off that path by making low 

wage jobs more scarce, which is a likely result of an increase in the 

minimum wage. 

Our analysis of 2003 U.S. Census data shows that of 7.8 million 

American workers receiving an hourly wage of $6.55 an hour or 

less, the immediate beneficiaries of a change in the minimum 

wage, only 15 percent are living in poverty, and over half belong 

to families earning double the poverty level. One-fifth of low income workers belong to families earning at least $80,000 annually. 

In other words, the typical beneficiary of a minimum wage increase will not be a poor father or mother scrambling to keep a 

family fed, clothed and housed. The recipients of the pay raises demanded under this proposal are at least as likely, if not more so, 

to already be members of the middle class. 

For those low wage earners who are members of poor families, 

we should not overstate the effects that an increase in the minimum wage will have. Our review of the Census data indicates that 

fewer than one-quarter of those affected by the proposed new minimum wage work full-time. 

In fact, last year Heritage scholars Robert Rector and Rea 

Hederman looked at the average hours of work performed by adults 

in poor families and found that a little more than one quarter, 27.8 

percent, reported 2,000 hours or more. Two thousand hours would 

be equivalent to one parent working full-time year-round. Nearly 

as many families, 27.4 percent, reported no work at all. 

Increasing working hours would have a far greater benefit for 

these families, both immediately and in the long-term, than increasing the minimum wage. Although the minimum wage increase 

currently proposed may raise family income by as much as 30 percent in the short-term, Rector and Hederman showed that increasing work hours to the equivalent of having one adult working fulltime nearly doubles the average income of these families, even 

after accounting for lost government benefits and increased taxes. 

Over the longer term, minimum wage or near minimum wage 

work can serve as a springboard to better jobs. Unskilled workers 

may gain new skills or gain a record of reliability that allows them 

to move on to better paying positions. 

Low wage earners frequently show their wages rise quickly. Fulltime workers hired at the minimum wage received a median pay 

increase of 13 percent in their first year. The schedule of increases 

currently under consideration—first to $5.90, then to $6.65 an hour 

a year later—is not all that much greater than the pay raises that 

occur naturally. 

5

Artificially raising wages will cut off this difficult but direct path 

to greater prosperity for many poor families and will delay the 

entry of other workers, including youth, into paid work by needlessly increasing the cost of unskilled labor. Employers will not be 

able to afford to hire as many unskilled workers and will respond 

by cutting back their services or replacing workers with machinery. 

The average estimate by labor economists is that for a 10 percent 

increase in the minimum wage, employment among those affected 

drops by five percent. If the minimum wage is increased from $5.15 

to $6.65 an hour, demand for unskilled labor could drop by as 

much as 15 percent in jobs that earn the minimum wage, resulting 

in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and making it more 

difficult for poor families to take this escape route out of poverty. 

One final thought about poverty. While it is natural to have sympathy for our fellow citizens who work at low-wage jobs and still 

live in poverty, we should remember that our notion of poverty is 

this country is relative. Using U.S. Census data, Heritage Foundation scholars examined the living standards of poor Americans and 

found that the average poor American has a car, air conditioning 

in his house, at least one color television with cable or satellite television reception, a home that is in decent condition and enough 

food in the refrigerator. 

Poverty in America, especially for those who do not work, is less 

a matter of material deprivation than of emotional and spiritual 

loss, the pervading worry that comes from knowing that one is dependent on the arcane determinations of state and federal bureaucrats and the loss of self-esteem that comes from knowing that one 

is not self-sufficient. 

For the working poor, this aspect of poverty is largely abolished. 

They are able to face the future with optimism and confidence, 

however modest their income, precisely because it is earned. 

Chairman AKIN. Paul, we are just about out of time here. Can 

you just finish up? 

Mr. KERSEY. Certainly. There is really no such thing as a deadend job. Low-wage jobs provide the poor with an escape route from 

poverty. It would be a shame if in the name of helping the working 

poor we made this escape route more difficult for them to follow. 

Thank you very much. 

[Mr. Kersey’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you for your comments. 

Our second witness is Craig Garthwaite. Did I get that right, 

Craig? 

Mr. GARTHWAITE. Yes. 

Chairman AKIN. And you are the Director of Research in the Employment Policies Institute. 

Thank you. Would you please proceed? 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG GARTHWAITE, THE EMPLOYMENT 

POLICIES INSTITUTE 

Mr. GARTHWAITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Committee, for the opportunity to testify. 

Across Capitol Hill today, Senator Ted Kennedy and other supports of a minimum wage hike have brought Hollywood celebrity 

Ben Affleck to support their cause. While I am a fan of Mr. 

6

Affleck’s movies, I am afraid no amount of star power can overcome 

the economic destruction wrought by a minimum wage increase. 

As the Chairman noted, Dr. Greenspan’s statement best summarizes the problem with the minimum wage increase. Dr. Greenspan 

was referring to the decades of economic research from economists 

at universities such as the University of Chicago, Cornell University and the University of Michigan, which show that an increase 

in the minimum wage decreases employment. 

A 1998 survey by economists at Stanford, Princeton and MIT 

found that the average economist believes a 10 percent increase in 

the minimum wage will lead to a 2.1 percent decrease in effective 

employment. 

Overall job loss, however, is not the most insidious employment 

result from a minimum wage increase. This result is the fact that 

the job loss is concentrated on the least skilled employees, the very 

individuals supporters of a minimum wage increase are attempting 

to help. 

These low-skill employees lose their jobs because of increased 

competition for more experience and higher skilled employees attracted to the new wage. Employers, who already attempt to match 

productivity to wages to the greatest degree possible, are more 

than happy to hire these new employees. The end result is that 

low-skilled Americans face extreme difficulties finding the entry 

level employment necessary for future economic success. 

In 2004, Duke University economists found that this new competition following a wage increase comes primarily from teenagers 

in wealthy families. Previous research by economists at Cornell, 

Boston University and Michigan State University found that lowskill employees are pushed out of the labor force in favor of higher 

skilled teens and others who are perceived as desirable employees. 

This loss of low-skill jobs is not a new phenomenon. It dates back 

to the original minimum wage. The Administrator of the Wage and 

Hour Division of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Labor Department 

wrote in a report to Congress analyzing the original 25 cent minimum wage that ‘‘in a number of instances there have been reports 

that workers who had been receiving less than the new minimum 

wage had been laid off and replaced by more efficient workers.’’

Even supporters of increasing the minimum wage admit this 

point. The union-backed Economic Policy Institute stated that a 

higher mandated wage will ‘‘attract good workers and encourage 

them to provide high-quality services.’’ In that instance, what happens to the employees previously in these jobs? Where are they 

supposed to learn the skills that we all learned in our first jobs? 

Recently, a small number of studies have been put forth by 

economists stating that the minimum wage does not decrease and 

may even increase employment. These studies, primarily conducted 

by Drs. David Card and Alan Krueger, are a testament to poor survey methodology. 

Respected labor economist Finis Welch of Texas A&M University 

summarized the objections of these studies best when he said: ‘‘The 

consensus view has big problems with Krueger’s results and methodology. Alan ought to consider the old saw. If you drop an apple 

and it rises, question your experiment before concluding that the 

laws of gravity have been repealed.’’

7

The experiment in question in this situation involved poorly 

trained survey takers utilizing unclear questions that generated inexplicable changes in the data over the time period studied. 

Overall, the consensus view of the academy has returned to the 

fact that increase in the minimum wage does decrease employment, 

particularly for minorities and poorly educated individuals. 

In addition to job loss, the minimum wage is a blunt policy tool 

unable to discern between a low wage worker who may be from a 

wealthy family and a low-income family head. According to recent 

U.S. Census data, only 15 percent of the beneficiaries from a proposed increase in the minimum wage to $7 an hour would be single 

earners with children. The remaining 85 percent are teenagers living with their working parents, adults living alone or individuals 

who are married with a working spouse. The average family income for these beneficiaries is $44,000 a year. 

These results really should not be surprising. Even former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich admitted that ‘‘after all, most 

minimum wage workers are not poor.’’

The poor targeting of minimum wage results in the majority of 

benefits not reaching poor families. Researchers out of Stanford 

University found that only 24 percent of the benefits from the minimum wage hike go to the poorest 20 percent of the families. 

I have spoken quite extensively about what a minimum wage 

does. It is important to consider what this anti-poverty program 

does not do. It does not decrease poverty. Research from economists 

at Ohio University found no connection between a minimum wage 

and decreased poverty. For some subgroups, the office found that 

minimum wage could increase poverty. 

These findings were predicted by Nobel Prize winning economist 

Joseph Steigler when he stated that the blunt nature of the minimum wage makes it ‘‘an inept device for combating poverty, even 

for those to succeed in retaining employment.’’

When individuals work, they are able to leave poverty because of 

their increased skill level and corresponding wages. As Bill Clinton 

said: ‘‘The best anti-poverty program is still a job.’’

Recent research at Miami University of Ohio and Florida State 

found that nearly two-thirds of minimum wage recipients receive a 

raise within one to 12 months of employment. These raises are 

non-trivial. Over the past 23 years, the median annual growth in 

wages for non-minimum wage employees has been nearly six times 

that of employees earning more than the minimum wage. 

The wage growth has even occurred since 1998, a time period 

during which minimum wage supporters implied the classist notion 

that low-wage employees have been unable to earn the raises based 

on their hard work and skill level. 

Chairman AKIN. Craig, we are going to need to wrap up here. 

Mr. GARTHWAITE. All right. I can wrap up. 

Instead of supporting an ineffective anti-poverty tool, policy makers should support strategies that increase entry-level opportunities for low-skill Americans. The earned income tax credit is the 

most effective anti-poverty program in existence. The credit provides a tax free cash supplement to the incomes of working families 

while simultaneously creating an explicit incentive for increased 

work and reducing poverty. 

8

Minimum wage, on the other hand, will not decrease poverty and 

will limit the employment opportunities of the least skilled Americans. By denying these individuals early entry into the labor force, 

the minimum wage will push them further into a life of poverty 

and government dependence. 

Thank you. 

[Mr. Garthwaite’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you, Craig. 

Our next witness is Mr. Todd McCracken. He is president of the 

National Small Business Association. 

Todd? Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF TODD MCCRACKEN, NATIONAL SMALL 

BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MCCRACKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I will attempt to summarize my written 

statement and make my remarks relatively brief. 

Chairman AKIN. Todd, did you want to submit for the record 

your other comments? 

Mr. MCCRACKEN. Yes, I would please. 

Chairman AKIN. Without objection. 

Mr. MCCRACKEN. The National Small Business Association has 

represented small businesses since 1937. We work on a bipartisan 

or nonpartisan basis to do what is best for the small business community. 

On this particular issue, we think it is pretty clear that an increase in minimum wage does not serve the small business community, and it does not serve the employees of the small business 

community either, we do not believe. 

To sort of illustrate this point, I would like to use an example. 

I use an example of a hardware store in my written statement, but 

I would like to sort of talk about that a little bit and sort of help 

the Committee understand that increasing the minimum wage is 

really an exercise in small businesses making choices. That is what 

it is really all about and about removing one of those choices from 

the equation. 

I mean, if you have a small maybe hardware/lumber store in 

middle America someplace that has 15 or 20 employees, many of 

whom are part-time, many of whom are relatively young workers 

for whom it is their first job in many cases, this is a company that 

is already having a very hard time staying afloat. 

This is a company that is having to compete with the Wal-Mart 

at the edge of town, having to compete with the Home Depot that 

just came in. They cannot compete based on price. They have to 

compete based upon service. They have to compete based upon to 

some extent community goodwill. 

If you increase the minimum wage on these folks, some other 

people are probably making at or near the minimum wage. Some 

are not, but what you see is say minimum wage goes up by $2 an 

hour. You see the minimum wage workers seeing their wages go 

up. 

The people who were making maybe $1 or $2 above minimum 

wage? Well, they are going to expect their wages to go up $1 or $2 

an hour as well, so really the whole wage scale goes up a little bit. 

9

Everyone is making a couple bucks more an hour. That is probably 

$40,000 or $50,000 a year by the time you add it all up, plus the 

FICA taxes that I pay on top of that and everything else. 

I am already not making enough for my business because of the 

competition from the big box stores that have come in, so what 

choices do I have? I cannot electively have the business be less 

profitable. I may as well close my doors if that happens. 

I have to make other choices. What I will do is some of my employees who are full-time employees probably do have a health insurance benefit. Well, when that rate increase comes in next year 

I am going to pass more of that on to my employees, and they are 

going to pay a bigger share of their health insurance bill. 

I am going to look and see if some people are working 30 hours 

a week can I get by with them working 25 hours or a week or 20 

hours a week. The new kid that I just hired to help out a friend 

in church who needed some extra money and they are not doing so 

well and I hired him to sweep floors after school, I cannot afford 

to do that anymore. 

What it does is generate a whole series of other choices and decisions that a small business owner or operator has to make inevitably to continue to run a profitable business, to continue to keep 

other employees employed and happy. 

None of these choices are really ones that I think serve the interests really of most employees. It does not serve really to increase 

the overall welfare of most of those employees because they wind 

up making less some other way. 

It is our strongly held belief that if we really want to help the 

working poor there are plenty of tools at our disposal to do that. 

The federal government has at its disposal rather this very 

strange, blunt object of a federal mandate in the minimum wage, 

and we ought to pursue those if we think that folks who are working at low wages need to make more money and not rely on handicapping the small business community in its day-to-day business 

decision as a way to do that, A, because it does not make sense, 

and, B, because it does not do that. 

That is basically my statement. Thank you. 

[Mr. McCracken’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. Todd, thank you very much. I appreciate your 

testimony. You brought it in time, so you get one of the stars here 

today. You are doing pretty good. 

Our next witness is Mike Fredrich. Mike, did you come all the 

way from Wisconsin today? 

Mr. FREDRICH. Yes, I did. 

Chairman AKIN. We really appreciate that, Mike. From 

Manitowoc Custom Molding, LLC. Mike? 

STATEMENT OF MIKE FREDRICH, MANITOWOC CUSTOM 

MOLDING, LLC 

Mr. FREDRICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting me here today. As mentioned, I am the president and owner 

of what I think would be considered a small business. We have 90 

employees. They are non-union employees, and our hourly wages 

range between $8 and $23. 

10

So why are we here? We do not have anybody that is being paid 

minimum wage now, so why should we care? Well, we do care. It 

amazes me when I look at what goes on in Washington out there 

from the hinterland in the frosty north that there is a total disregard for action and reaction. 

In the economy—I call it the physics of business—there is an action and reaction, and the previous speaker, Todd, identified that. 

We do not have any minimum wage employees, but we start off 

people at $8 an hour. We are able to fill positions. Not easily, but 

we do fill them. 

If there is an increase in the minimum wage as proposed, and, 

by the way, we are fighting this in Wisconsin because Wisconsin 

is trying to do this on their own, so this is not the first time I have 

testified on this subject. If there is an increase in minimum wage, 

all the people that we have there at $8 an hour now expect that 

their wage should go up. Maybe it should. I mean, everybody wants 

to make more money, and there is a balancing act between running 

a business that is going to stay in business and make profits and 

satisfying people’s needs. 

What happens in Washington is you ignore the other part of 

what you do. You ignore the reaction. I will just give you an example of our reaction because this is exactly what we will do. If we 

have a forced increase in our wages, the mandated increase, we 

have two options which we can look at. 

One of which was identified by the previous speaker is our 

health are. We now have an 80/20 co-pay for our health care for 

our employees. Everybody is eligible. Our premium for single people is $300, and the premium for families is $800. We pay 80 percent of that every month. 

If our wage scale is forced to increase, the first reaction we would 

have is we are going to change that ratio. We are going to change 

it to 75, to 70/30, but definitely that scenario we are going to 

change. 

We have tried not to do that over the past two years even though 

our expenses have increased because it is an important thing for 

people, and we feel it is our responsibility to try and help people 

with health care, but it will give us no option. That is one thing 

we are going to do. 

The second thing we are going to do, and we have already done 

it in some cases, is we are going to outsource production. We have 

established relationships with companies in China, and in many 

cases our products are so price sensitive, especially when they go 

into the retail business and they end up on the shelves of WalMart. It is so price sensitive that a penny increase in our product 

will force them to outsource, or maybe they will go and have the 

whole product made in China. 

In our case, what we would do is we would outsource the molding 

for them. We would go to China and say you mold this product for 

us. We will import it, and we will turn around and sell it. I mean, 

that is what is happening, and that is what is going to happen in 

our case. 

A third quick example of how the minimum wage will affect the 

decision that we make. We are going to hire starting on Monday 

a young man who is a junior in high school. He has great mechanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:24 Sep 24, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\94112.TXT MIKEA
11

ical aptitude. His father works at our company. He is the head of 

our maintenance. 

We are going to bring him in and give him a job, a summer job. 

He is coming in at the minimum wage, $5.15. He is going to work 

in the maintenance department. He is going to do all sorts of stuff. 

It is like cleaning out your closet at home. You just never get 

around to it. We have all sorts of jobs like that. In the meantime, 

he can develop some expertise and learn some things. 

He is not worth right now $5.15 an hour. I do not know what 

he is worth, but he is probably not worth anything. We are going 

to have to train him. By the end of the summer, he will be worth 

something. He will have learned something. He will have developed 

some skills. It will be a good thing for him. 

Increases like Wisconsin is going to do—they go to $6.80 an hour, 

which is what they are proposing. He gets no job. He cuts lawns. 

He does something else, but he does not work at our company. 

I have very little time. I will sum this up in saying I look at minimum wage as the $100 or nothing argument. I think it should be 

$100 or I think it should be nothing. I do not know how many people in this room make $100 an hour, but would it not be great if 

we all did? 

What would happen if we did? We would not have jobs probably, 

many of us. Maybe you in government would because you could 

create the money, but in the private sector there would be no jobs. 

Anybody who advocates an increase in the minimum wage, why 

in the heck would they stop at $7? Go to $15. Go to $20. Go to $25 

if you really think that is going to help people Then you can ignore 

the results and just see what happens because it does happen even 

for a small increase as you are proposing here, which on a percentage basis is not that small. 

There is a reaction, and you must understand that you cannot 

operate in a vacuum. 

Chairman AKIN. Mike, we are about out of time. 

Mr. FREDRICH. Okay. 

[Mr. Fredrich’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. You will have a chance to come back around and 

make some comments as we do the questions. 

Mr. FREDRICH. All right. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. FREDRICH. Thank you. 

Chairman AKIN. Our last witness is Jared Bernstein, senior 

economist with the Economic Policy Institute. 

Jared? You are a doctor. Is that correct? 

Mr. BERNSTEIN. That is right. 

Chairman AKIN. Good. Thank you. Could you please proceed? 

STATEMENT OF JARED BERNSTEIN, ECONOMICS POLICY 

INSTITUTE 

Mr. BERNSTEIN. I sincerely thank the Chair and the Committee 

for the opportunity to testify on this issue of great importance to 

working families, and I submit my written comments for the 

record. 

Chairman AKIN. Without objection. 

12

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Congress has long recognized the need for a policy that prevents market forces from driving the wage of our lowest 

paid workers down below a level deemed to be minimal by both our 

elected officials and our general sense of fairness and decency. 

Since it is not indexed to inflation, the buying power of the minimum wage declines unless our nation’s leaders enact an increase. 

Thankfully, there are a couple of proposals being discussed right 

now to raise the minimum, and I speak to these specific proposals 

below. 

It is not widely recognized that we as a nation are on track to 

tie the longest period over which Congress has failed to enact an 

increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage was ignored 

for nine years over the 1980s until George H. Bush signed an increase in 1990. The next increase came under President Clinton in 

1996 with bipartisan support from a Republican majority Congress. 

Thus, while increasing the minimum wage is often a divisive 

issue, it is instructive to note that partisans have historically 

worked together to ensure that the lowest paid among us are not 

wholly subject to the vicissitudes of the marketplace. The current 

period is the second longest on record without an increase. 

I am now going to refer to a set of charts that I prepared and 

are submitted for the record. The real minimum currently stands, 

the minimum adjusted for inflation, at 30 percent below its peak 

level in 1968 and 14 percent below its level in 1997 when it was 

last increased. 

The importance of that last point is as follows. The inflation that 

has occurred since the last increase passed in 1996 has now fully 

eroded its value. That is, in 2004 dollars the minimum wage in 

1995 was $5.19 compared to $5.15 today, so the last increase is essentially gone. 

The last minimum wage increase in 1996–1997 increased the 

earnings of about 10 million workers, about nine percent of the 

workforce. The two current increases under discussion, one to $7 

an hour, one to $6.25, would reach far fewer workers, about seven 

million for the higher one and four million for the lower one, so in 

this case these are modest proposals. 

Now, we have heard a lot about the negative employment outcomes discussed on the panel so far, and this is despite the fact 

that contemporary economic research casts a long shadow of doubt 

on this contention. The so-called disemployment argument is particularly difficult to maintain given some recent developments in 

the history of minimum wages. 

First of all, recent studies solidly reject the conventional 

hypotheses that we have heard discussed thus far, but, secondly, 

and I think much more importantly as Representative Udall mentioned, following the most recent increase legislated in 1996, the 

low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades. 

The fact that employment and earnings opportunities of lowwage workers grew so quickly following that increase continues to 

pose a daunting challenge for those who maintain that the minimum wage hurts its intended beneficiaries. 

On the point of small business, there is a recent study which I 

present in my testimony which shows the outcomes between states 

with higher minimum wages at the federal level and those who 

13

have kept their minimum wage at the federal level for small businesses. 

Between 1998 and 2001, the number of small business establishments grew twice as quickly in states with higher minimum wages. 

Employment grew one and a half percent more quickly, so small 

businesses, according to these data, have actually performed better 

in states with higher minimum wages. 

We have also heard a criticism of the target efficiency of the minimum wage, the fact that some minimum wage earners reside in 

high income families. In fact, most of the gains of minimum wage 

increases flow to those in the bottom third of the income scale. 

Many of those folks are above the poverty line, but they still need 

the increase because their incomes are too low for them to make 

ends meet given the current minimum wage. 

We have also heard the EITC, the earned income tax credit, discussed as an important source of income for low-wage workers and 

a substitute for a minimum wage increase. I show in my testimony 

that the interaction of the minimum wage and the earned income 

tax credit is critical for full-time working parents with children. 

In fact, after the last minimum wage increase the earned income 

tax income and the higher minimum wage combined to put a mom 

with a couple of kids working full-time above the poverty line. That 

has now eroded to the point that the minimum wage plus the EITC 

no longer achieves that goal. 

If Congress acts to increase the minimum wage in tandem with 

the earned income tax credit, such families will again be above the 

poverty line. 

Thank you very much. 

[Mr. Bernstein’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman AKIN. You did a good job at right exactly there at five 

minutes. 

We are now at a place where we can take a question or two. I 

would defer to the Minority Member, Mr. Udall. Congressman 

Udall, if you would like to ask a question? 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess the first question is directed to Mr. Bernstein. Others on 

the panel seem convinced that increases in the minimum wage lead 

to job losses, but you raised the latter 1990s as a period wherein 

the minimum wage was raised and the low-wage market took off. 

In fact, low-income working families saw their incomes rise faster than any time in the past 30 years, and unemployment fell to 

a 30-year low. Can you help us square these apparently contradictory accounts? 

Mr. BERNSTEIN. As I said in my spoken statement, this period 

poses a daunting challenge for what I would say is the argument 

most consistently offered by those who oppose minimum wage increases. 

In fact, the research on this is solid enough that the consensus 

among economists has been shifting, particularly due to the work 

of David Card and Alan Krueger, including pseudo experimental 

empirical research, which is so rare in economics and provides 

some of the most convincing research to challenge the notion that 

moderate increases in the minimum wage reduce employment. 

14

There is no better example than the second half of the 1990s 

when the minimum wage was increased from $4.25 to $5.15. We 

heard the exact same arguments that you have heard down this 

line at this panel, and here we are again hearing the same arguments despite the fact that the employment rates of low-wage 

workers went up as quickly as they had at any prior point in their 

history, along with, as you mentioned, their wages and income. 

Now, this was not attributed exclusively to a minimum wage 

hike, and members of the panel and Committee should be aware 

of that. I am not claiming that you raise the minimum wage and 

the low-wage labor market begins to boom. What I am claiming is 

that that evidence is completely inconsistent with the notion that 

an increase in the minimum wage leads to job losses in the lowwage labor market. 

The macro economy, the strength of the macro economy, determines the employment and earnings opportunities of low-wage 

workers. The minimum wage determines what they get paid. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether he put his statement in 

the record, but I would like to because——

Chairman AKIN. Without objection. Yes. 

Mr. UDALL [CONTINUING] Yes. There are some very good charts 

here. One of them has the inflation adjusted value of the minimum 

wage from 1947 to 2004. 

Now, I am wondering in looking at this in terms of inflation and 

the minimum wage should the minimum wage try to keep up with 

inflation? We know that there is less purchasing power for the minimum wage today. If it should try to keep up, why is that, Mr. 

Bernstein? 

Mr. BERNSTEIN. I think there are lots of good reasons for the 

minimum wage to keep up with inflation. The obvious one is that 

the chart that you see on the inflation adjusted value of the minimum wage would no longer bip and bop around as Congress and 

folks like those on this panel had this argument year in and year 

out. 

The way the thing is structured we have to come back and have 

this battle, and low-wage workers are left behind because their 

buying power erodes every year. Numerous proposals have been set 

forth to index the minimum wage, and I think it makes sense in 

order to both establish a buying power that is not eroded by price 

decreases and essentially prevents the politization of the issue 

every few years. 

Mr. UDALL. We have seen in terms of wealth distribution a trend 

shifting towards the wealthy recently. Can you compare the effects 

of wealth distribution in this country, of tax cuts for higher income 

people versus an increase in the minimum wage? 

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Sure. I have a figure in my testimony. I believe 

it is Figure 6. This figure shows the distribution of benefits from 

a minimum wage increase and compares it to the distribution of income. 

If you look at families in the bottom decile, the bottom 10 percent 

of the income distribution, their average income is about $11,000 

per year. These are working families. Their average share of the 

benefits from a minimum wage increase are 30 percent. That is, 30 

15

percent of the gains from the minimum wage go to these low income families whose average income is $11,000. 

If you go up to the top end, you will find that in the top 10 percent those families’ average income is $181,000 per year compared 

to $11,000 in the bottom decile. Their share of the gains from the 

minimum wage increase is about three percent, so some of the 

gains do leak up to the top, but a very small amount. Meanwhile, 

you see how skewed the income distribution is. 

One of the problems we faced in our current recovery right now, 

and no less than Greenspan commented on this the other day, is 

that the growth that has occurred thus far has been concentrated 

almost exclusively among profits. Compensation has been flat, particularly for those at the low end, and for those earning the minimum wage their earnings fall with inflation year in and year out. 

One of the reasons that I stress in my testimony to increase the 

minimum wage is to essentially give a bit of bargaining power to 

those at the bottom end who lack that and ensure that some of the 

benefits of a relatively strong growing economy accrue to those who 

are helping to promote that growth. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you. 

Chairman AKIN. I appreciate the exchange here. I guess maybe 

I will kind of pick up where you left off. 

Mike, I appreciate your comment about when you see an apple 

fly up in the air you have to start wondering about the laws of 

gravity. It seems like that it a little bit what we are talking about. 

There were a couple of questions that you raised that I think 

make sense, and that is if a minimum wage of $7 or $8 is good, 

why is $100 not better? Obviously this is one of those things that 

apparently if you push it too far something bad is going to happen. 

I guess the question for anybody who would like to answer it is 

let us just say that you do push the minimum wage and say you 

kick it up to $20 or something. What would be the effect of doing 

something like that? Anybody want to take a shot at that? 

Mr. FREDRICH. I have my light on here, so I will take a swing 

at it. 

It does not have to go to $20. I mean, if it went up 15 percent 

or 10 percent, any incremental increase will have an inflationary 

effect on the cost of labor in this country. 

Chairman AKIN. First of all, if you raise the minimum wage the 

cost of labor is going to go up. That seems pretty straightforward. 

Mr. FREDRICH. Absolutely. Companies buy labor like you buy 

grapes or I buy grapes. I was in the supermarket yesterday, and 

grapes are $2.50 a pound. I am not buying grapes at $2.50 a 

pound. When they get to 99 cents, I am in the market. 

Labor is the same way. Labor gets too expensive. Companies 

seek alternatives. They will do something else. They will take an 

action. They have more potential actions to take than the employee 

does. Their action is to outsource. Their action is to eliminate people. Their action is to reduce their health care, which is what we 

are going to do. 

If you increase a rate to something like $15 or $20, and people 

talk about living wages, you have increased the cost of doing business in the United States. 

Chairman AKIN. Mike, I would just sort of like to break in there. 

16

We have been holding hearings around the country, and one of 

the things over the period of the last several years, we have been 

talking to people who have been moving their companies overseas 

at great cost to communities because the jobs are gone. 

The reason that somebody moves their business overseas is 

strictly money, and the reason they do it is because it is cheaper 

to make product overseas. One of the things that we have tried to 

focus on are what are the things that are costly which make us uncompetitive as a nation which make those jobs and businesses go 

overseas. 

If you increase one of the costs of doing business, which is labor, 

you are creating an incentive to send more jobs and to do the work 

somewhere where the labor is cheaper. Is that not correct? 

Mr. FREDRICH. That is absolutely right. You can look at study 

after study. You cannot do studies and control all the variables. I 

mean, it is in a vacuum. 

The speaker to my left here quoted a study, but it does not pass 

the logic test. Just think about it in your own lives. If you increase 

the price of something, you buy more or less of it. If you create a 

price for a product or a service that is above the market place, 

what have you done to the market? You have changed the market. 

Now, companies are going overseas and producing overseas because they cannot be competitive here. They still want to stay in 

business, and I think we still want to have a capitalistic system in 

the United States. 

We are creating overhead burden on our companies by actions 

just like we are talking about here today. There are many others. 

Chairman AKIN. In other words, following the logic that we are 

talking about, the answer to my original question, which was your 

question, why not shift the minimum wage to $100, the effect is as 

you raise it up you are going to get fewer jobs, but the people who 

do have jobs are going to be very happy because they are making 

a lot of money, so it is a tradeoff between the number of jobs and 

how much money people will make. 

That is the bottom line, is it not? 

Mr. FREDRICH. It is employment versus compensation. If you 

want to expand employment, my gosh, all the talk in Washington 

is all the jobs that we have lost. 

Our company has added 30 jobs in the last year due in part to 

the fine work that the Congress has done in lowering our tax burden. 

Chairman AKIN. My understanding is that the unemployment 

rate now is about 5.7, which is about a 50 year average, so while 

the unemployment is improving significantly month to month—we 

just had one of the best months ever in March with 308,000 new 

jobs—still we are looking for that to get even better in the months 

ahead. 

What you are going to do is it is going to cost you on the employment side. You raise minimum wage, you are going to have fewer 

jobs. It is a tradeoff. 

Mr. FREDRICH. Absolutely. It is supply and demand. It is not 

something we either like or do not like. It is just sort of like the 

law of gravity. It is what it is. 

Chairman AKIN. Did you want to comment on that as well? 

17

Mr. GARTHWAITE. As we talk about the employment rate, I think 

it is important that we do not just concentrate on the national employment level, which was 5.7 percent, but we start to look at some 

of the groups that are really going to be affected by minimum wage 

increases. 

You have teenage unemployment in the country right now at 

16.5 percent. You have minority teen employment for AfricanAmerican youth age 16 to 19 that is at 29.4 percent. 

There are a lot of things we can do to increase the opportunities 

for these people to get into the market. Clearly one thing we can 

do to make sure they do not get a job and that would increase 

those unemployment rates is to raise the minimum wage. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you very much. We are done with the 

comments I had. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Bernstein, on Figure No. 4 in your presentation here you 

compare proposed minimum wage increases to the 1996–1997 increase. What this chart apparently shows is that the proposed increases compared to these previous increases impact fewer workers. 

Could you explain this chart a little bit and what this is really 

saying and what the relevance to this hearing is? 

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Sure. It actually relates to the question that was 

posed by the Chair. 

The minimum wage increase in 1996–1997 reached about nine 

percent of the workforce. That is, about 10 million workers earned 

between $4.25 and $5.15 when that increase went into effect, so 

that is the number of folks who essentially were in the sweep. They 

were the ones who got a wage increase due to the increase in the 

minimum. 

Right now, because wages have grown over the past seven 

years—as we discussed earlier, we had a very strong wage growth 

at the low end—you would need a larger increase if you were going 

to get that same number of workers in that sweep. 

The proposals that are under discussion, they will reach about 

seven million workers—that is about six percent of the workforce—

if you go to $7 and about four million if you go to $6.25, so they 

will have considerably less reach in that regard. 

I think this is important regarding the Chair’s question. Nobody 

is advocating a minimum wage of $20 or $100 per hour of course, 

but it does raise the question of how high can you go and how high 

should you go. I think that is a good question. 

The economic research is very consistent on this because, as you 

mentioned in your introduction, we have had 19 minimum wage increases so we have a sense of what kind of impact they have. 

If you capture less than 10 percent of the workers in the sweep, 

and, by the way, historically we have never gone above that rate. 

If you capture 10 percent or less of the workers in the sweep when 

you increase the minimum wage, the job loss effects that have been 

so highly touted by other members of the panel turn out to be immeasurable. You just cannot find them in the data. 

The low-wage labor market, despite what we have heard today, 

clearly absorbs such an increase without disemployment effects, so 

that is a good guideline when Congress is considering how high to 

raise the minimum. 

18

You would not want to go above a level that is going to capture 

more than 10 percent of workers in the sweep, and the two increases that are under discussion pass that test quite easily. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you. Now, the issue seems to be raised that 

raising the minimum wage would push us to outsourcing overseas. 

Do you agree with that proposition, and do other countries not 

have a minimum wage, and how does that relate with minimum 

wages around the world? 

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Well, some countries do and some do not. Certainly I am not aware of a minimum wage in China, although minimum wages in Europe are consistent with ours, if not higher. 

I think the important thing to think about there is that I think 

it is an extremely dangerous road to go down if we are thinking 

we need to make sure we keep the minimum wage low enough so 

that we can compete with China and Mexico. That to me is a race 

to the bottom like you have never seen before. 

One of the critical aspects of the Fair Labor Standards Act introduced in the beginning of this hearing is that it sets a wage floor 

below which Congress deems we should not pay our lowest wage 

workers. 

In this sense, it is an expression of a social policy as much as 

an economic policy and one that says we as a country agree that 

the benefits of productivity growth, which have been prodigious in 

this recovery, should be at least partially shared with all the 

bakers of the growing pie, not just those at the top. 

The notion that we have to damp down the minimum wage so 

we can be competitive with workers in China strikes me as an extremely dangerous path to hoe. 

It is also notable, by the way, that the jobs that are currently 

being outsourced pay far more than the minimum wage if we are 

talking about IT and high tech jobs. The same thing for manufacturing. Those jobs in this country pay well over $20 an hour, so 

that is not really germane. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much, and let me thank the entire 

panel for their testimony today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKIN. Thank you. 

Just a couple miscellaneous thoughts here. First of all on the 

whole question of minimum wage. Does anybody know whether 

this has ever been viewed from a constitutionality point of view? 

I mean, just from the logic that if you, Mike, are a businessman 

and somebody is working for you, usually the way that freedom 

works is that you allow the employee and the employer to come to 

some agreement, and you make a deal. I will work for you if you 

pay me his much an hour. That is kind of the way freedom works. 

What we are doing here though is we are saying but, Mr. Employer, you cannot do that. Freedom is not going to work that way. 

We are going to tell you how much you have to pay, which, of 

course, then makes it completely uneconomic to hire somebody who 

is worth less than whatever the minimum wage is. Therefore, you 

lose the benefit of some employee that otherwise is unemployable. 

If you cannot hire him for a low wage, you are just not going to 

hire him at all. 

19

Does anybody question the constitutionality of the government 

weighing in and telling in the free market people what you have 

to pay for labor? Has that ever been viewed? 

Mr. KERSEY. I believe that question was taken up during the 

Great Depression. I forgot the name of the precise case, but that 

question did come up in a number of cases during the Great Depression, and it was decided that yes, government could regulate 

in this area. 

It is also worth noting that———. 

Chairman AKIN. I wonder what part of the Constitution they 

cited? 

Mr. KERSEY. It probably would have been the commerce clause. 

Generally there has been an expansion of the federal government’s 

ability to regulate interstate commerce to the point where it is no 

longer even necessary that the actual commerce be across state 

lines. 

For better of or worse, it appears that we are in a position where 

the federal government does have the power to regulate these 

areas. 

Chairman AKIN. Okay. I think that one other thing I might comment on if I was taken out of context. What we have seen is that 

across the board businesses have expenses in this country. One of 

the expenses is labor. Another one is health care. Another one is 

red tape. Another one is taxes. All of those things together make 

up a cost of doing business in America. 

The reason that jobs are going overseas is because we are not 

competitive quite simply, so from the objective of taking a look at 

labor costs we are not trying to compete with China on an hourto-hour, what-does-it-cost-for-labor. That is not the point. 

The point is we are trying to compete when you add all of our 

costs with all of their costs, so when you effectively talk about increasing minimum wage what you are doing is you are increasing 

our cost. Somebody who does not want to see our cost increase does 

not necessarily mean that you are trying to compete with China for 

the lowest wage. 

Another question I suppose would be it seems that if you have 

an automatic increase in minimum wage it is the equivalent of an 

automatic tax on businesses in a sense. 

I guess the other question I have is the overall not-so-easy to 

measure effect that when you drive the lower cost up, does that not 

drive every other wage up? I think some of you mentioned that. 

I guess our time here has pretty much expired. I appreciate you 

all coming in today. We will stick around for a minute or two if 

people have questions or answers or whatever, but thank you for 

the productive hearing. 

The Committee is closed. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

20


94112.001
21


94112.002
22


94112.003
23


94112.004
24


94112.005
25


94112.006
26


94112.007
27


94112.008
28


94112.009
29


94112.010
30


94112.011
31


94112.012
32


94112.013
33


94112.014
34


94112.015
35


94112.016
36


94112.017
37


94112.018
38


94112.019
39


94112.020
40


94112.021
41


94112.022
42


94112.023
43


94112.024
44


94112.025
45


94112.026
46


94112.027
47


94112.028
48


94112.029
49


94112.030
50


94112.031
51


94112.032
52


94112.033
53


94112.034
54


94112.035
55


94112.036
56

Æ