Guest opinion: The unseen effects of Colorado’s minimum wage measure
The classical economist Frédéric Bastiat warns us to look for the unseen or hidden results of laws, not just the obvious effects.
Let’s try to take his advice regarding the proposal to increase Colorado’s minimum wage, which voters will decide in November.
A bit of background: Colorado already has a minimum wage higher than the federal one, and it is automatically increased for inflation. In 2006, voters approved Initiative 42 to put this in place. Since 2007, the minimum wage has gone up from $6.85 to $8.31 (less for tipped employees). We can expect this will be somewhere over $9 by 2020, depending on inflation.
This year’s Initiative 101 would increase the minimum wage to $12 by then.
It is easy to see what happens to those who both keep their jobs and get a pay hike. They have more money to spend on housing, food, education and so on. Other things equal, it is always good for an individual to get paid more. So it’s understandable why many people at a gut level think a minimum wage hike is a good idea.
But, in something as complex as our economy, other things are rarely equal. Fiddling with one part of the economy usually results in changes elsewhere — changes we may not expect and that may cause harm.
When evaluating the measure, remember Bastiat’s warning.
One unintended result would be that some people would lose their jobs and employers would create fewer such jobs than they otherwise would.
You’re going to hear a lot of back-and-forth claims about how much minimum wage hikes affect employment, and under what conditions. The free-market Common Sense Policy Roundtable claims the proposed measure would cost 90,000 jobs by 2022. The vast majority of economists think that modest increases in minimum wages have modest job-loss effects, and more dramatic increases have more dramatic effects.
Even nonspecialists can agree on this: It is a fantasy to think that a substantial minimum wage hike will cause no job loss.
Try an example. Let’s say you own a business. You pay yourself $40,000 per year, and you pay 10 employees each $9 per hour (we’ll round). So that’s about $18,000 per employee each year, or $180,000 in total wages.
Now, under the new law, you have to pay $12 per hour. That’s about $24,000 per employee, or $240,000 total. Now you’re spending another $60,000 a year in wages. So instead of paying yourself a salary, you’re taking a $20,000 loss. As many business owners learn, they’re not required to pay themselves minimum wage.
What are you going to do? You might: 1) Close your business and put all 10 employees out of work. 2) Let some of your employees go and try to get more output from the rest. 3) Outsource the jobs to somewhere like China.
Another problem with minimum wage hikes is that they are terrible at addressing the needs of poor families. As economist David Neumark points out, “57 percent of poor families with heads of household ages 18-64 have no workers, based on 2014 data from the Current Population Survey.” Minimum wage laws do nothing for them except make a job harder to find.
And many minimum wage workers, such as teens living at home, contribute to their family’s income — they may be relatively well-off.
Neumark reports that “if wages were simply raised to $10.10 with no changes to the number of jobs or hours, only 18 percent of the total increase in incomes would go to poor families, based on 2010-2014 data.”
Meanwhile, about a third of benefits “would go to families with incomes at least three times the poverty line.”
If you really want to help struggling families, do something like donate to a local charity, offer career-advancement classes or start your own business and pay whatever salaries you can afford. Don’t support a badly targeted, job-threatening ballot measure as your feel-good deed.
There’s no such thing as a free minimum wage. The effects include throwing some people out of work, who will then get the real minimum wage of zero.
Before you vote, remember both the seen and the unseen.
Ari Armstrong writes at ariarmstrong.com. He is a frequent guest-author for the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User
Cleaning up isn’t cheap — that much is clear following estimates it would take $200,000 to clean up all of the roughly 80 homeless encampments in Glenwood Springs.