During a segment this morning on the prospects of the economy the topic of whether or not we should raise the minimum wage began to be debated. Now I know this is a tricky subject... How high should it be? If we go to $10 why not $15? I know I'm not smart enough to peg a number or ideal level for the minimum wage. I'm pretty certain there isn't such a thing but that's a debate for another time. What does strike me however is the certainty with which the traditional capitalists, like the reporters on CNBC, analyze the effect of such moves on the economy like economics was a science like physics or something!
The prevailing discussion was that any increase in the minimum wage, which would be aimed at increasing the buying power of the middle and lower classes in society and thereby continuing to bolster the economy, must necessarily be met with the requisite loss of jobs. This is stated so matter-of-factly as to be akin to the physical properties of a natural system.
To paraphrase the conversation:
"Well what would you rather have, more people making less money or fewer people with a higher minimum wage"
"And with the 29ers and 49ers, do we really want to add an increase in the minimum wage onto that?" (By the way, 29ers and 49ers refers to employers keeping employee hours under 29 / week or hiring less than 50 people respectively in order to avoid being subject to Obamacare).
What amazes me is the answers or retorts to these are so obvious as to be pedestrian: There is no physical law that states that if you pay your employees a livable wage as a large business that you then MUST hire less of these employees. This my friends is not a law, it is a choice! A choice based on a short term mentality that places the shareholder at the intellectual and operational center of the organization.
There needs to be a voice that makes people understand that this isn't the only choice that could be made. Instead, an executive could choose to pay a living wage, accept Obamacare as the law of the land and simply do it because it's the right thing to do, and then use these both to their competitive advantage. It's simply amazing to me that no one is saying: "Look, I'm going to pay people what they're worth and what they need to support their families. I'm going to provide everyone health insurance, period! And then I'm going to let my customers know that we do the things we do because we care about our employees, their health, their families and our communities just as much as we care about making a profit!" What do you suppose would accrue to the executive who took this stand? Do you think she'd have really happy and highly engaged employees? (Yes I'm assuming she'll do the other things necessary, like training and monitoring of culture, enlightened hiring and firing etc...) Do you think those employees, who now feel like they matter more than just a line item on the balance sheet, are going to be better employees and offer discretionary effort? Do you think that effort will endear that company to its' customers and communities where it operates? And if all of that happens do you think those customers will show loyalty in the form of increased patronage and less sensitivity to price changes..which is the only thing (CUSTOMERS) that drives revenue and shareholder value?
I don't need to tell you the answer do I?
