Skip to main content

A Minimum Wage Hike is Bad for Oklahomans - Especially Those at or Near Minimum Wage



Proposed minimum wage hikes have sprung up across the country, and Oklahoma is not immune. Here is why a minimum wage hike will hurt Oklahomans. 

What happens when the price of something goes up? Take oil, for instance. As of this writing, the price of oil is just above $59 a barrel. Imagine the Oklahoma legislature set a minimum price for oil, and that number doubled. If gas went from $2.50 a gallon to $5 or more would it change your behavior? Would you drive less? I know I would. This is a basic illustration of the laws of supply and demand. As the price goes up, demand goes down. This is true for oil. People would still have to get to work, but they might rethink that summer road trip. Those who live near the border might drive farther to buy gas from a neighboring state. These same principles hold true for all commodities. 

Why wouldn’t it apply just as much to labor? If you have to pay more for each employee-hour worked, wouldn’t you start to cut back on the number of hours you asked someone to work? Imagine you own a small business that makes widgets. You sell the widgets for $1 more than cost of materials. You have no overhead expenses. Your goal is to make enough money to feed your family. If the minimum wage is $7.50 per hour, you are not likely to hire a widget-maker who produces less than 8 widgets every hour. A widget-maker who produces only 7 widgets an hour is costing you money. 

Now if the minimum wage suddenly jumps to $10.50 per hour, you will have to lay off not only your novice widget-makers who produce 8 widgets an hour, but also your journeyman widget-makers who produce 9 widgets an hour, and even your master widget-maker who produces 10 widgets an hour. Now all those widget makers who were making some money are making none.  Instead of being helped by the minimum wage, they are hurt by it. In addition, your business may be unable to stay afloat, now that there is a shortage of qualified widget-makers cheap enough to produce widgets people will be willing to buy. 

Perhaps you can raise prices enough to keep your master widget-maker, and your best journeyman. But now everyone who buys widgets from you has to make some adjustment to cover the increased expense. They may lay off their own less productive workers (if they haven’t already done so as a result of the initial minimum wage increase). More likely they will raise their prices. That will force their consumers to compensate somehow. Eventually everyone raises their prices, causing inflation. 

If the minimum wage is left alone, eventually inflation rises to the point where it becomes profitable to employ those lower-skilled workers at $10.50 hour. The workers have gotten a nominal pay increase, but their actual buying power is exactly what it was before. The difference is the wages they lost while they were unemployed. They may have racked up credit card debt, which must now be paid back out of the same buying power they once had. They may have moved back in with their parents, sacrificing independence and self-esteem. They may have turned to crime, making society as a whole worse off. They may have lived on the streets, hurting their long term health. In any event, it is unlikely that the time out of the work force has improved their situation. 

While this is obviously an oversimplified example, it illustrates the dollar value companies assign their employees. A company overpaying its workers (that is, paying them more than the value they produce for the company) is unlikely to survive long in a competitive marketplace. And while the value most employees bring to their company is more difficult to estimate than the number of widgets they make, there are ways of estimating any employee’s worth.

The government has not yet found a way to force companies to hire employees who cost the company money than their productivity is worth (though unemployment insurance premiums to force them to retain employees who are only slightly less productive than their cost). So if the government tells businesses they cannot pay their workers less than $10.50 an hour, than any employee who cannot provide at least $10.51 an hour’s worth of value to an employer will find themselves unemployed. 

Redistributing Wealth: from Low Income Pockets to Union Coffers
One of the loudest voices for raising the minimum wage is often unions. This isn’t because they are on the side of the American working class, union or not. They are - properly - watching out for the interests of their members. So why does a union that represents workers who are paid $18 an hour care if the minimum wage goes up to $10.50? It isn’t altruism. It’s because it helps their members - at the expense of lower wage workers. Imagine the same widget business as before, except now the average non-union widget-maker can produce 10 widgets an hour, and the average union widget-maker can produce 20, but the union worker will not work for less than $18 per hour. If the minimum wage is $7.50, it makes sense for a business to hire two non-union workers, pay them a total of $15 an hour, and get 20 widgets. But if the minimum wage rockets up to $10.50, suddenly that $18 an hour union worker looks like a bargain, producing the same 20 widgets for $18 instead of $21. The minimum wage increase means more employment for higher skill union workers and unemployment for less skilled workers.

Unintended Consequences 
Many teenagers work at or slightly above minimum wage. They don’t need a living wage, since they are still dependents. What they need is work experience, and enough incentive to come to work every day. Minimum wage laws make it harder for those with no experience to get that critical first job. We should not be surprised when some turn to illegal activities as the only way to better themselves.

Common Misconceptions
My father is a small business owner. In 2007, one of his employees mentioned offhandedly that the minimum wage was going up, and he was looking forward to the raise. The employee was a skilled tradesman and already made well above the new minimum wage. My father asked him why he expected a raise, and the employee said, essentially that when the minimum wage goes up, every hourly employee got a corresponding raise by function of law. My father informed him that there would be no such corresponding raise - that the minimum wage had nothing to do with a worker making $15 an hour - until rising inflation and unemployment crippled the economy. His employee’s enthusiasm for the increase diminished significantly. A rising tide may raise all ships, but a minimum wage increase - especially a 40% increase - is a tsunami that will wreck all but the largest and most seaworthy boats. 


Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org

Popular posts from this blog

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v

Undo 802

Why is it that when conservatives suffer a major loss, they give up, accept the new status quo, and fall back to the next retreat position? When progressives suffer a major loss, they regroup and try again. And again. Until they finally wheedle the American public into giving in. I propose a change in strategy. The Oklahoma Legislature should make undoing State Question 802 its top legislative priority for 2021. This will not be an easy task (legislators seem to prefer avoiding difficult tasks) but it is a critical one. The normal legislative process, with all its pitfalls and traps for the unwary, will only bring the topic to another vote of the people. So why spend so much political capital and effort if the same result is possible? Three reasons.   First is the disastrous consequences of the policy. Forget that it enriches already-rich hospital and pharmaceutical executives. Forget that it gives the state incentives to prioritize the nearly-poor covered by expansion over the des

Liability In the Time of Covid: When Should Businesses Be Sued for the Spread of Infectious Disease?

When businesses reopen, what liability should they face related to the spread of Covid? Can businesses who remained open during the pandemic, or those who were open before the lockdowns began, be held liable if their customers caught the virus within the businesses’ walls? If so, what would a customer-plaintiff need to prove?   Defending even a meritless lawsuit can be prohibitively expensive. For this reason, it is important to define ahead of time what harms can lead to successful lawsuits. Limitations on causes of action can reduce unwarranted suits by kicking them out of the legal system earlier in the process. So what should businesses be liable for? There are two distinct categories of business liability that might arise from Covid. The first is products liability. The second is liability for infection spread within a business.   Products Liability First, any willful fraud perpetrated in relation to Covid should be severely punished. This would include selling f

How Biden/Harris and Well-educated Sophisticates Are Wrong in the Age of COVID-19

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris often declared during the campaign that “We believe in science.” And judging by the tendency of the college-educated , especially among the sophisticates living on the coasts, to agree with Harris’s positions on everything from climate change to proper precautions amid COVID-19, belief in “science” seems to many a mark of knowledge and wisdom. But is it? The modern belief in “science” increasingly appears to be a religion wherein the words of certain recognized experts are received with the reverence once reserved for the Pope. A college diploma almost serves as a permission slip to suspend one’s own judgment and reason in favor of taking the word of certain experts to heart, especially if they work in government, certain universities, or gain media credence.   This tendency to turn experts and the media into high priests of all knowledge is nothing new. In 1986, 60 Minutes ran a story about a phenomenon people experienced in cars with automatic tra