By Doug Bennett
Arizona Daily Wildcat
October 30, 1997

Minimum wage debate unending

Editor:

I wanted to comment on Jeff Imig's editorial, even though Tynan did a great job already. The only thing that I wish she would have said is that Imig's claim that "Raising the minimum wage ... leaves employment constant" has to be wrong at some higher minimum wage. If $7/hr doesn't do it, wouldn't $7.40/hr increase unemployment by a little bit? If not $7.40, then wouln't $8.40, $18.40, or $42?

More interesting to think about is why this debate keeps happening: Why do Liberals keep advocating economic regulation when there are powerful arguments that is its harmful? And why do conservatives not care more for the disadvantaged groups helped by the proposed regulation. Is it because conservatives are (As Imig suggests) "rich and powerful", racist and sexist?

George Stigler, in an essay titled "The unjoined debate" had this answer:

"The conservative's preference for low prices...and similar attributes of efficiency... has indeed a substantial advantage over the liberal's plan of assisting particular needy groups.

There are many, many needy groups in a society, and some take a generation or two or even three before they catch the eve of the liberal, be he reformer or politician. The liberal started to care for the poorly housed in American cicites a few years ago. In the preceeding 300 years the private enterprise economcy had sole responsibility for improving their housing... The conservative's programs are designed to help everyone, even groups too poor to have a press agent.

.... It is fair to say the conservative is compassionate for the greate mass of the population which is moderately affected by each public policy, whereas the liberal is compassionate for the special, identifiable group which is most benefited or injured by the policy in question."

George J. Stigler, The Citizen and the State, page 7.

Doug Bennett
Economics Graduate Student