By Isabel Sawhill
FORTUNE -- Over the years, economists have produced countless studies either supporting or disputing the wisdom of raising the minimum wage. And last week's report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office added to the growing body of research: An increase from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour, phased over three years, would cost the nation 500,000 jobs, according to the CBO. However, it would also lift almost 1 million people out of poverty and increase earnings for 16.5 million people.
The trade-offs are clear. There is no free lunch, but this lunch is pretty cheap. The ratio of winners to losers is high; whatever the effects on jobs, they are likely to be small. Studies of retailers don't find adverse effects on employment for those operating in states with higher minimum wages.
Most people learned this lesson when they took Economics 101. If you raise the price of labor, demand will drop. But the real world is a bit more complex than that: For one, employers may respond not by laying off, or failing to hire lower-skilled workers, but instead alter the way they do business, such as raise prices on whatever goods and services they provide or change the mix of higher to lower paid workers or automate tasks.
Raising the minimum wage could also encourage workers to work harder and stay on the job longer. Businesses with a reputation for treating their workers well tend to attract good employees and retain them longer. That's why some retailers, such as Costco (COST), already pay more than the minimum and why even Wal-Mart (WMT) is considering supporting a higher minimum wage. If any one firm raises its wages, and passes this along to consumers in the form of higher prices, it may lose business to its competitors. But if all businesses are required to meet a new standard, this can't happen -- although competition from abroad can still be an issue.
Although a modestly higher minimum wage will help a lot of people at very low costs, it's only a temporary solution to our problems at best. We also need to focus on how low-skilled workers cope in today's labor force. At the current minimum wage, a single mother with two kids working full-time earns less than $15,000 a year. With wages this low, she may choose not to work at all, getting by instead on public benefits or help from friends and relatives. That costs taxpayers for such things as welfare, Food Stamps, and housing assistance -- not to mention a loss of payroll taxes on her earnings.
Over the longer-term, there are two possible solutions: One is to slash the safety net, thereby forcing people to work more. The other is to improve their productivity so that they are "worth," say, $10 an hour.
Reforming the vast array of existing anti-poverty programs is a challenge. I am somewhat attracted to Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio's proposals to transfer money used to fund existing programs to a "flex fund" for the states, and replace the earned income tax credit with a wage subsidy. He has added that he would maintain spending for such programs at current levels initially and then increase spending if needed to keep up with inflation or the growth of the poverty population. Wage subsidy programs, like the earned income tax credit, have increased employment, and sending money to the states would enable them to experiment with policies that are tailored to local needs.
More importantly, the fact that there are people who are not worth even $10 an hour to an employer is an indictment of our education and training system and a reflection that there are a lot of people in America who have serious employment problems from low levels of literacy to mental health issues or prison records. Employers may not want to hire them at any wage and are unlikely to be influenced very much by a modest change in the minimum wage. An affluent society should, in my view, provide them with a temporary safety net or other kinds of help while working harder to improve their competencies and self-sufficiency over time. We have to choose between being a society of low-productivity, low-wage workers or a society of high-productivity, high-wage workers.
A higher minimum wage might just nudge us in the latter direction, but it would be a pyrrhic victory if it allowed us to ignore the essentials: the need for a better educated and trained workforce capable of adding real value to the economy's output.
Isabel Sawhill is a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at The Brookings Institution.
The government insurer, which may or may not be in need of a bailout, plans to generate $10 billion by locking middle class borrowers into high fees for decades.
FORTUNE -- This is what you call kicking 'em when they're down.
Consumers who don't have a lot of cash to put down when buying a house usually have to pay a higher rate than typical borrowers for the first few years of MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - May 2, 2013 1:16 PM ET
Two new charges may not affect middle-class taxpayers now, but left unchecked, they will.
FORTUNE -- Okay, middle-class taxpayers: Listen up. Our national government in Washington is screwing you again. This time the screwing involves the way that two new income tax surcharges, supposedly designed to affect only the "rich," will reach deeper and deeper into the middle class unless something is done now to rein them in.
I'm talking about the MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Feb 27, 2013 5:00 AM ET
The president didn't offer much comfort to the manager and owners of American businesses who complain that high tax rates, strangling regulation, and health care reform are thwarting investment in American jobs.Feb 13, 2013 10:25 AM ET
President Obama's pick for SEC chair has a lot of experience prosecuting Wall Street crime. We could have used that four years ago.
FORTUNE -- Mary Jo White, President Obama's nominee to be the next head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is certainly a great choice for the SEC. The question is whether she is the right pick for the rest of us.
There clearly remains a perception issue that the MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jan 24, 2013 3:42 PM ET
Some companies say the threat of a disaster brought on by a standoff in Washington actually boosted business in the fourth quarter.
FORTUNE -- It's conventional wisdom these days that Washington gridlock is the main thing holding back the economy. But the fiscal standoffs may not be as much of a headwind as people think. In fact, they might be good for the economy.
On Friday, Wells Fargo's CFO Tim Sloan said MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jan 15, 2013 8:00 AM ET
President Obama's pick for Treasury Secretary may not be a Wall Streeter's dream, but he's not their worst nightmare either.
FORTUNE -- On the day reports surfaced that Tim Geithner would be nominated for Treasury Secretary back in November 2008, the Dow Jones industrial average surged 494 points. On Wednesday, Obama indicated that he would nominate Jack Lew to replace Geithner. The market shrugged, with most of its modest gains coming MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jan 10, 2013 8:02 AM ET
Goldman's head of asset management says investors are starting to think that Europe is doing a better job dealing with debt than U.S.
FORTUNE -- Jim O'Neill, the chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, says President Obama and Republicans have another three weeks to make a budget deal. He says if there isn't a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff by inauguration day, which is officially January 20th, the market will MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Dec 28, 2012 5:00 AM ET
If uncertainty were the issue it would already be slowing hiring. It's not.
FORTUNE -- Earlier this year, economists seemed convinced that even the very threat of the fiscal cliff would send the U.S. plunging into recession. Less than a month away, the economy still appears to be climbing.
The best piece of evidence yet that the fiscal cliff - the massive mix of tax increase and spending cuts that are set MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Dec 7, 2012 1:43 PM ET
Low interest rates and a slow recovery are here to stay.
FORTUNE - If Wall Street hates the fact that President Obama will get four more years in the White House, someone forgot to tell the bond market.
The yield on 10-year Treasuries fell to 1.64% from 1.75%. Bond prices, which move in the opposite direction of yields, were up. That's a big one-day move for the bond market, though Treasury prices MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Nov 7, 2012 11:52 AM ET
|Delinquent IRS employees paid bonuses by the agency|
|Court quizzes Aereo: Do TV streams break the law?|
|How women can narrow the 'confidence gap'|
|Gun silencer sales are booming|
|China factories extend slump|