It's Time To RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE...

It's Time To RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE

forward January 7 of this year, the of recent origin York Times ran a story in its just discovereds pages, headlined: "Now, Maximum Interest in the Minimum Wage."

single in kind week later, the New York Times ran an editorial, titled: "The Right Minimum Wage: $000"

This dramatic juxtaposition of of the present days and opinion strongly suggests that the question of the federal minimum wage will be high forward the legislative agenda this year and that the matter will be hotly contested

That has been the fate of the minimum wage since its inception almost a half-century ago in 1938

Those oppos to a minimum argued that at elevating the wage to 25 cent an hour, the legislation would be pricing many workers on the outside of the market. They would be too expensive for their employer Hence, unemployment would increase, especially among the lowest paid.

Those favoring a floor to wages and a ceiling to hours argued that the law would set more people to work and would elevate their living standards. The higher wage would increase buying power and would therefore stimulate the economy. The shorter work week would distribute the work with equal reason that unemployed could now find do job-works Increased supply would help enrich the lives of single and all.

Between 1938 and the not absent the minimum wage law has been changed several times--to raise the of the same height and to extend coverage. (Not all employee were hideed by the law then and not all are shrouded today.) Inevitably, with each rouse to lift the floor and to widen its benefits to more the public the debate broke out all through again--with the same old arguments. The antagonistics said that to lift the floor would bring upon unemployment and hurt most those who were suppos to be helped most; the proponent said that a higher wage would be of direct benefit to the lowest paid and that added buying power would add more jobs

Living Wage

for what purpose has the minimum wage been changed--raised--repeatedly athwart the last half-century? Fundamentally, to stay abreast of the times. The original idea was to plant a minimum that would somewhat bear likeness [i]or[/i] resemblance to a living wage. The control of thumb was a wage that was slightly more than half the going wage in the private sector. As the general wage on a level rose, it was expected that the minimum was to go on foot up accordingly. In addition, if the "living wage" was to be maintained, there had to be adjustments for the charge of living; otherwise the livable would become unlivable.

Unfortunately, this universal was never written into law. The minimum was changed at the whim of Congress--and, of course, the President. When enough fuss was made about in what manner the floor was collapsing into the cellar, the control would bestir itself. Where there was no agitation, there was no action. And since the direct beneficiaries of the minimum wage are, as might be awaited usually unorganized and politically unpowerful, the fight had to be made forward their behalf by unions.

They added buying power implicit in a higher minimum means greater demand and more work for wage and salaried workers in general. In addition, a living wage makes it les likely that the wage earner's family will close up on the welfare rolls--as millions do when the minimum begins to lag behind the rising preciousness of living.

gradation Increases

The idea that the minimum should not be frozen at a certain fixed sum was clearly in the mind of those who wrote the original law. It provided that the minimum would be 25 cent an hour for the first year; 30 cent for the secondary and was to become 40 cent in 1944 What happened after that date hanged on the mood of Congres and the White House. Sporadically, the minimum was raised in a sort of "collective bargaining" among congressional factions and between Capitol Hill and the White House. The last big change took place in the Carter Administration when, as in the original bill, the legislation provided for a series of ascending paces that ended in January 1981 at the at hand $3.35 per hour. There the minimum has been frozen always since.

Now it is propos that the minimum one time more be adjusted to withhold up with the times. And again the advanced in years debate is renewed as if we were back in 1937--a half-century ago--and as if there were no dead body of historical experience from which to draw conclusions.

still the experience is there. In 1950 when the minimum rose from 40 cent to 75 cent an hour, the strange York Times, informed by the rebukes of more than a decade, concluded: "None of the dire proceeds predicted have materialized from the 1938 Act, and the at hand legislation merely brings the latter into line with the wage and living-cost realities of today. thus long as the principle is confined to its original social objectives of protecting the worker from exploitation and assuring him a living wage there is no reason to doubt that it will continue to justify itself in the events to come as it has in the past." (Jan. 26 1950)

To hinder exploitation and to provide a living wage, however, requires constant review and revision of the minimum--with several objectives in mind. First, to hold fast the minimum abreast of changes in the outlay of living so that anyone at the legal minimum does not find himself or herself in a declining state of living as prices rise. next to the first to keep the minimum slightly above 50 percent of the average wage in the private sector. Third, now that the rule has, since 1959, officially been defining "poverty" to descry to it that the minimum allows a part to maintain a family of three above the penury line. In all these values the present minimum wage is not working.