Those who defend the minimum wage do not seem to do well when asked to respond to the question of why the minimum wage shouldn't be $100 an hour. The usual response is to laugh and call the question ridiculous. I don't think it is a ridiculous question at all. If $15 is reasonable (as was recently imposed in a Washington town), why not $20? Or $25? I believe minimum wage defenders do a poor job answering this question because, deep down, they know that the demand curve slopes down. As the price of labor goes up, those who purchase labor will adjust their purchasing decisions. This fact is more easily escapable when the effects are smaller. At a minimum wage of $100, it isn't so escapable. So, if a higher minimum wage could hurt some, how is it justified?
I have also heard (a few) minimum wage proponents admit that a higher minimum wage could hurt the employment prospects of some, but those who keep their jobs will earn more, and this gain offsets the cost to the person who is not employed, or underemployed, or is worked harder. I think that this position is easier to hold when one doesn't think of a specific individual who might suffer. (I do think it is immoral to make such a decision for someone else, but I'll leave that aside.)
This past weekend I encountered someone who could suffer from an increase in the minimum wage. I was grocery shopping at a large supermarket. Normally I use the self-checkout line, but I was purchasing a lot more than normal, so I opted for a lane with a checker and bagger. As always, I had a few canvas grocery bags with me. As my items were being scanned I noticed that the bagger was not being very careful about the bagging process. Delicate produce was underneath boxes and cans. Fresh greens were pressed up against a pint of ice cream. (I once walked a few blocks home with a head of lettuce in January. Turns out greens don't handle cold very well.) Of the three bags I brought, one was packed quite full, one mostly full, and one contained only a single item. Perhaps I am more discerning when it comes to grocery bagging - my first job was bagging and stocking shelves, and I am generally a fairly particular person - but I think it is safe to assume that any customer would be upset if their produce was crushed, their greens frozen, and/or they had to repack their bags so that the items were somewhat evenly distributed for carrying. Upset customers take away from productivity. Additionally, while my groceries were being scanned, the bagger was lamenting only being on the schedule from 2:45 - 4:30 that day. The checker looked at the schedule and corrected the bagger, "The schedule says you're in from 12:45 - 6:30. Did you come in at 12:45 or 2:45?" Being late also takes away from productivity. I was leaving at this point, so I do not know the outcome of the schedule confusion. It seems, though, that the bagger had difficulties reading a work schedule or had difficulties sticking to a schedule, and also needed work on bagging technique.
This bagger seemed to lack some important work skills: attention to detail, customer service, and punctuality. I have no idea what this individual's productivity is but, based on the skills this person might need to develop, it would seem a safe bet that it isn't $15 per hour. I am glad that the supermarket is able to employ this person in a productive role, and I hope that this role provides the opportunity for the bagger to enhance their skills. I fear that the supermarket, if it were forced to pay $15 an hour, would not be able to employ this bagger.
I am very thankful for the opportunities I had to improve my skills. I did not always make the best choices, and sometimes made costly mistakes. Luckily, I have had opportunities to improve my decision making and enhance my professional skills. An increase in the minimum wage could take such an opportunity away from the bagger, and others.
No comments:
Post a Comment