The Civil War on Raising Wages

Tayla Conroy
POL-115
November 22, 2015
 A dual has unleashed between Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have

different ideas of solving poverty, whether that is a raise in federal minimum wage or

employing a wage subsidy. Democrats are actively pushing congress to support a raise in

minimum wage, whereas Republicans believe this legislative action would be detrimental

to the economy and predict the bill will hurt the very population it is intended to help. All

in all, poverty in America is a significant problem acknowledged by both parties. The

disagreement lays in which legislative strategy would serve best for the working poor, but

what the parties do not realize is that the solution resides in an ancient system:

federalism.

Congress recognizes the prevalence of poverty as more than just a social problem

and is seeking political action. Poverty is not only found amongst the unemployed, but

also the employed. The Economic Policy institute claims over 29% of working

families in the U.S. with one to three children under age 12 are under the poverty line.

These families cannot earn enough income to afford basic necessities like food, housing,

health care and childcare regardless of the excessive hours of work they may perform. A

gross amount of the public is suffering and the government is pursuing potential options

of combatting this issue.

The dispute regarding minimum wage can be traced back to the economy

subsequent to the Great Depression. To rebuild the railing economy, President Franklin

D. Roosevelt issued a series of economic stimulators identified as the New Deal. Within
the New Deal statutes was the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. Congress found

that the competition of low prices in the market place resulted in miniscule wages and a

malnourished labor pool. To counteract this problem, FLSA enforced a nationwide

standard on minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor. It has been up to the states’

discretion to locally heighten these standards, but they are prohibited to fall under these

regulations. The states’ abilities to independently enforce wages for their district resulted

in a nation of various regulations. Currently twenty nine states have enforced their own

minimum wages that exceed the federal requirements.

The evolving American economy comes with alterations to the Fair Standards Act.

The initial federal minimum wage of $0.25 an hour has transitioned to the current

regulation of $7.25 an hour. The latest federal minimum wage adjustment went into

effect in January of 2009. President Barack Obama supported Democratic proposals of

gradually increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 over the span of two years. By the

year 2020, Democrats wish to see a federal minimum wage of $12 instated. Senate

Republicans blocked the Democratic bill, therefore the president’s plan to redeem the

working poor crumbled.

Republicans wish to assist the poor by means they find will be more affective. The

general opinion of the party supports the incorporation of wage subsidies to eliminate

poverty. In their opinion, raising the federal minimum wage would be detrimental to the

very population it is intentioned to help. To best aid those who are financially struggling,

Republicans contend that the issue can be solved through the introduction of an earned
income tax credit. The article, “Wage Watch” by Joseph J. Dunn has similar fears as

Republicans. Research in the article suggests, “Raising the minimum wage does result in

fewer jobs available for the lowest-skilled workers as employers adjust”. Some

employers may initially struggle to afford a significant increase in wages, thus hire less,

and higher skilled people. With a tighter regulated financial budget, the potential of

employers wiggling around the Affordable Care Act by employing more part time

employees than full time workers increases. Less full time opportunities implies less

benefits to the working public.

Evidence in the article, “Raising Floor for Wages Pushes the Economy into the

Unknown” by Noam Scheiber, suggests an opposing view to the Republican argument.

Analyzing New Jersey’s employment before and after a raise in the state wage, an

employer in the article claimed that he did not see local jobs diminish in response.

Personal anecdotes in the article suggested that the rise in their local wages reduces

turnover and motivates employees to produce higher quality service. A major aspect to

the Republican argument is that a higher minimum wage will significantly put people out

of work. Further evidence in the article refutes these claims and asserts, “A number of

researchers have found that modestly higher minimum wages can raise incomes for low-

wage workers without reducing the number of jobs in the area”. This evidence contradicts

the statement in which economic opportunities would decline with the induction of a new

federal minimum wage. Both the Republican and Democratic supplied evidence is valid.

The question comes down to federalism.

 Mediation is needed between the two parties and employing federalism can be the

solution. The claims of Republicans are correct, in which many employers may not have

the capability of affording wages, thus cutting down the amount of staff. Although this

argument is correct, it only sings true in specific regions. Seattle is a city that is currently

debunking this concept. Applying the experimentation that federalism allows, Seattle

recently employed its reserved powers and executed a raise in local minimum wages.

Along with employee wages increasing, further regulations were imposed on large

franchise companies. The city of Seattle plans to gradually increase large franchise

employee wages to $15 by January of 2015, and smaller company wages to $15 by 2017.

The author of “Wage War” expands on this detail and explains, “Local governments are

better able to set a new minimum wage that reflects the cost of living in their area”.

Democrats pushing for new minimum wage can be the most affective legislative option,

yet it may not be affective in every location like Republican argument is claiming.

If the issue of minimum wage was less centered on the polarization of the party

system, and mediated with one another by means of federalism, the economy and social

mobility could witness something very affective. But this is not the case, and both parties

are stubborn in determining legislative action. They want all of their views to be upheld

and nothing in between. Often their behavior can be compared to stubborn children

resisting to share their toys with one another, but there is reason in their behavior other

than selfish motives. The representatives in congress are performing their duties and

reflecting the desires of their districts. If their districts are supporting or disliking the bill
imposing a new minimum wage, representatives must reflect those feelings in legislation.

It is the districts of America that cause the polarization in Congress. Although this

polarization slows legislative action, it ensures that the bills being ratified are the best

options for America. The book, The Basics of American Politics by Gary Wasserman,

defends this perspective. Reflecting on the slow nature of congress, he states, “[It] acts

best not when it acts least but when it reflects the public on which America’s government

rests”. The ultimate purpose of our democracy is the public in which it caters to.

Our government employs this ideology through their actions of proposing bills on

minimum wage. The entire purpose of the bill was to help those “on which America’s

government rests”. The legislative and executive branch are disputing in an effort to help

those suffering below the poverty line. American government recognizes a problem in the

social system, which is essential to our democracy’s progress. The acknowledgment of

the problem and the representation of Americans in Congress are the most imperative

qualities in our democracy.

Although the matter of minimum wage has been less regarded in the 2016

presidential campaigns, there is potential that the bill may reappear. In 2006 Senator

Hillary Clinton, a current 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, introduced a bill to

raise federal minimum wage from $5.15 to our current minimum, $7.25. Her beliefs

considered there should be a correlation between congressional pay and federal minimum

wage. To uphold these beliefs, she proposed a bill. Senator Clinton argued that minimum

wage was unaligned with total congressional pay. The contemporary ratio between the
two wages indicates misalignment once again. It is very possible that Clinton will

readdress this matter in the 2016 Presidential election. Seeing that the bill to heighten

minimum wage in 2014 was rejected, it is possible Clinton can gain more support for the

issue in her campaigns and pave the way for legislative initiative.

A fellow forefront Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders, confirms his plans of

introducing the issue in the nearing presidential election. Senator Sanders asserts his

stance on the question of raising minimum wage, and argues,

“It is a national disgrace that millions of full-time workers are living in poverty
and millions more are forced to work two or three jobs just to pay their bills. In the
year 2015, a job must lift workers out of poverty, not keep them in it. The current
federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised to
a living wage.”

Sanders considers the solution to be in the conduct of federal minimum wage. He titles

current wages as “starvation” wages, indicating that anyone surviving on such wages is

suffering. Targeting the problem, he identifies the current minimum wage to be the

reason for the suffering of millions of Americans. The likelihood of the issue being

incorporated into the approaching election is very possible, considering the reigning

Democratic candidates both acknowledge similar solutions.

The Democratic candidates may desire a raise in wages, yet one can assume they

will not gain the support of congressional Republicans. The bill to raise the minimum

wage died in the Senate as recently as 2014. Senator Clinton and Senator Sanders will

receive little support from the republicans of the House and Senate. Their support is
imperative to ratifying the bill because of America’s system of checks and balances. If

Sanders desires of raising wages are as vehement as his claims, he will have to sacrifice

some of his desires if he is to make legislative progress. To gain the needed support, the

solution resides in federalism. If Democrats were to specify the locations in which a

minimum wage should be employed and to what degree, Republicans may have a more

amiable connotation of the bill. Previous refutes to the bill consisted of assumptions

suggesting that the economy would falter with such national legislation. Specifying the

employment of federal actions may comfort Republicans’ anxiety and significantly help a

suffering population.

Pursuing agreement requires sacrifices by both parties. Congress needs to

comprehend that prior strategy by both parties has made for an idle government. The

government shutdown of 2013 was a result of the government’s poor cooperation with

one another. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 was denied by Republicans, implying

Democrats must attempt a different strategy. The incorporation of federalism to the bill,

the federal government disputing with the states the most appropriate wage, may be the

aspect that can assure success. Specifications need to be incorporated into the bill for its

ratification and to help a suffering population.

Congress recognizes a problem in the economy. Anyone working several hours a

week should not starve, freeze, or hurt due to his or her bank account. The occasion of

this should not be existent. We are aware that a raise in federal minimum wage can be a

cure, but Congress, listening to the voices of their districts, has already denied such
strategies. A new strategy must be introduced, and that strategy is national reevaluation.

The federal government and the states must cooperate with one another and discuss what

minimum wages are appropriate for their districts. Incorporating both Republican and

Democratic ideas with federalism in such a strategy makes ratification and social

mobility much more likely.

 Works Cited

“Bernie Sanders on the Minimum Wage.” FeelTheBern.org. n,d. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
Dunn, Joseph J. “Wage Watch.” America Press 212.6 (2015): p19-21. Database. Web. 23
February 2015.
“Hillary Watch.” Human Event Inc. 62.15 (2006): p14-14. Database. Web. 1 May 2006.
“Minimum Wage Overview.” Congressional Digest. 79.3 (2000): p72. Database. Web.
March 2000.
"Raise the Wage." TheWhiteHouse.gov. The White House, n.d. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.
Scheiber, Noam. “Raising Floor for Wages Pushes Economy into the Unknown.” New
York Times. 164.56940 (2015): A1-B6. Database. Web. 27 July 2015.
Wasserman, Gary. The Basics of American Politics. Pearson, 2015. Print.