Indecency in the Minimum Wage

The prevailing minimum wage is six years out of date, and its adjustment is long overdue. The Democrats in Congress are now making that their business--an appropriate and constructive move. Unfortunately, President Reagan, with broad support from the Republicans in Congress, is seeking to block the adjustment.

There is no way for someone working at the present $3.35-an-hour minimum wage to provide decent support for a family. That level of compensation works out to an annual wage of less than $7,000--only 77% of the poverty level for a family of one working parent and two children. As has been pointed out by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), “There is distressing new evidence that we are creating an economy in which people can work but cannot live because their wages are too low.”

The President is basing his opposition on the argument that a higher minimum wage would exclude more teen-agers from the job market. Many Republicans continue to champion a sub-minimum wage for teen-agers. We do not agree. Less than 7% of the American work force is at or below the minimum-wage level. The majority of workers earning the minimum wage are part-time hourly employees and women. A reasonable minimum applied to all workers, teen-agers included, would provide an absolute floor for compensation, a basic protection against exploitation and abuse.

Some in the business community have sought to reinforce the President’s opposition by citing high unemployment figures--including joblessness among teen-agers, particularly minority teenagers. They argue that a higher minimum wage would cost jobs. That case has yet to be proved. In any event, it is not a valid defense of pay that prolongs poverty in the world’s largest, richest economy. The economic growth, development and sharpened competitiveness of the United States cannot depend on exploitative compensation.