home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- NATION, Page 36A Pay Hike for the Poor
-
-
- But the minimum-wage increase may not help low-paid workers
-
-
- In the 1980s the minimum wage has really lived up to its
- name. Since it was last raised to $3.35 an hour in 1981,
- inflation has eroded its purchasing power by 27%. Meanwhile, the
- Reagan era became famous for skyrocketing maximum wages as greed
- became fashionable throughout the land. Frustrated by Congress's
- repeated failures to improve the national standard for the
- lowest-paid employees, eleven states set higher minimums of
- their own. Even fast-food chains often find themselves bidding
- $6 an hour and up for workers who scoff at the minimum wage as
- "chump change."
-
- Last week the White House joined with congressional
- Democrats to give a raise to those at the bottom of the scale.
- Starting next April, the lowest-paid workers will receive $3.80
- an hour, to be followed by a raise to $4.25 a year later. That
- represents a concession by the President, who wanted the
- increase phased in over three years. But congressional Democrats
- also gave ground by agreeing to an idea they had fiercely
- resisted in the past, a so-called training wage for teenage
- workers. The training wage, which can be paid to a worker only
- during his first six months on the job, will be $3.23, rising
- to $3.61 in 1991.
-
- Congressional Democrats and their labor allies had
- repeatedly been thwarted in their attempts to legislate a higher
- minimum. Just last June, Bush vetoed an increase to $4.55 an
- hour. He was responding to arguments from business that a higher
- minimum would force 200,000 workers to lose their jobs. The
- logjam broke two weeks ago, however, when AFL-CIO President Lane
- Kirkland suggested a compromise plan to the White House.
-
- House Republicans suggested that Bush take Kirkland's
- proposals seriously. Fighting the hike had become embarrassing
- for Republican lawmakers since they had energetically backed a
- cut in the capital gains tax that would mainly benefit wealthy
- investors. They warned that another veto might be overridden.
- "We don't need to be known as the party that squeezed the last
- penny out of the minimum wage," said Senate Majority Leader
- Robert Dole. After the Administration signaled its agreement,
- the measure passed the House by a vote of 382 to 37. Quick
- approval is expected in the Senate, and the President could sign
- the bill by Thanksgiving.
-
- But what will the higher minimum wage really mean to the
- working poor? Though economists are skeptical about business's
- claims that the increase will lead to large numbers of lost
- jobs, they also question whether it will do much to improve the
- lot of low-wage workers. Only about 4 million of the nation's
- 60 million hourly workers make the minimum wage or less, about
- 40% of them teenagers. The $6,968 earned annually by a full-time
- minimum-wage employee is $2,467 less than the federal poverty
- line for a family of three. Even when the new raise goes fully
- into effect, such employees will earn only $8,840 a year. But
- only a handful of minimum-wage earners are the sole supports of
- their families. Moreover, many live in households that receive
- such Government assistance as food stamps, rent subsidies and
- Medicaid.
-
- To a Congress hemmed in by the budget deficit, a higher
- minimum wage is appealing because it appears to bolster the
- take-home pay of poor workers while simultaneously allowing a
- reduction in Government assistance payments, which decrease as
- the incomes of recipients rise. Unfortunately, there is a catch:
- precisely because they may earn just enough more to lose their
- Government benefits, the lowest-paid workers could actually
- suffer a setback in their standard of living. "What worries me
- is that people will say, `Well, we've done our thing for the
- poor this year,'" says University of Michigan Economics
- Professor Charles Brown, a specialist on the minimum wage. "The
- minimum wage shouldn't displace other serious work on poverty."
-
- Such misgivings have convinced many experts that other
- measures are needed to uplift the working poor. Both the House
- and Senate are considering an expansion of the earned-income tax
- credit, under which the Government provides a sliding scale of
- rebates to low-paid workers with children. Expanding the credit
- would allow such employees not only to pocket more of what they
- earn but also to retain their Government benefits. Though larger
- credits would cost the Government up to $5.9 billion annually,
- it seems a price worth paying.
-
-