Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Why a ‘Living Wage’ Can Hurt the Poor
Why a ‘Living Wage’ Can Hurt the Poor
Mar 18, 2025 12:17 PM

Near the top of my long and ever-growing list of pet peeves is articles titled, “The Conservative Case for [Insert Proposal Usually Rejected by Conservatives Here].” It’s almost an iron-clad rule that before you even read the article you can be assured of that the case being made will use words that appeal to conservatives while being based on principles that are contrary to conservatism and/or reality.

Take, for example, a recent op-ed in the New Statesman by British Conservative Party politician Guy Opperman titled, “The Conservative case for a living wage.” In his opening paragraph he writes,

As a Conservative MP, I believe that lower taxes stimulate growth and jobs, that smaller government is invariably better government and that governments must “ensure that work always pays” by making sure those in work are better off than those on benefits. I also believe in hard work. Yet, for too many people in our society, a hard day’s work no longer means a fair day’s pay.

This sounds reasonable enough in theory. But when formulating public policy we have to have to use more precise terms. For instance, what do the phrases “hard work” and a “fair day’s pay” mean when es to determining a living wage? Does the difficulty of work automatically mean that the work is deserving of a set level of pay?

Opperman seems to believe that if a person is working a full-time job, that they are thereby entitled – regardless of the work they are doing – to receive a living wage:

Britain is a country in which some workers earn so little that the government has to step in and provide aid. That is the system of tax credits we have; a subsidy by any other name and a £4bn one at that. How and why did we let it e acceptable for a full-time job not to pay enough to live on? The living wage isn’t just a wonkish idea – it’s the political world catching up with many Britons’ reality.

When the national minimum wage was adopted in 1998, many were sceptical. The fear was that it might hit the number of jobs available. There is ample evidence to show this is not the case. For instance, in 2012 the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex studied the minimum wage and “found almost no evidence of significant adverse impacts on employment”. Today, the minimum wage is supported by all three mainstream parties and rightly so. Yet, for many, the minimum wage does not represent a fair wage.

Opperman claims there is no evidence that the minimum wage has any significant adverse effect on employment. I’m sure that e as quite a surprise to the 973,000 young people aged 16-24 in Great Britain that are unemployed. The unemployment rate for that age group in May 2013 was 21.4 percent. If Mr. Opperman is correct, than there are minimum wages jobs available to every young person that wants one and the only reason they remain unemployed is because they refuse to work for such low wages. Does anyone think that is actually the case? If not, then we can set aside the silly notion that minimum wage laws do not adversely affect employment.

And therein lies the rub for the “living wage.” If there are not enough jobs to be had at the minimum wage, there will be even fewer jobs to be had when the wage rate is artificially inflated to an even higher living wage standard. If an employer is not willing to pay $7 for labor that is only worth $4, why would they pay $11? By raising the minimum wage they won’t be incentivized to add more employees, but merely incentivized to eliminate all the jobs whose labor is not valued at $11 or more.

The effect of a government-imposed living wage would, like the effect of the current minimum wage, be to hurt the poor by reducing the number of jobs available for low-skilled, low productivity workers.

However, Opperman is right that a living wage is a worthy goal, and one that conservatives should seek to achieve. To do this effectively, though, requires more than forcing employers to pay a premium for labor. Instead, we should focus on faster economic growth and improving productivity of low-skilled workers. By increasing the value of a worker’s labor, we make it possible for them not only to feed their family but also to help fulfill the needs and desires of their neighbors.

Progressives propose government-mandated redistribution as the solution to almost every economic problem involving the poor. But such short-term fixes do not change the long-term challenges that are passed on from generation to generation. Low-skilled parents tend to raise low-skilled children, trapping them in a cycle of low wages. Only by increasing the real value of a worker’s labor – primarily through gains in productivity – can we truly help them gain financial security and increase social mobility.

The goal should not be to merely give people a living wage but to help them gain the ability to make a life for themselves based on the value of their labor. What the working poor need most is marketable skills and productive jobs, not more handouts disguised as “wages.”

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Missiles, threats and sanctions: How should the United States respond to North Korea?
The North Korean people are not the same as the North Korean regime. Photo: “Pyongyang, North Korea” by (stephan) (CC BY-SA 2.0) Today the United Nations Security Council will meet and vote on a resolution to impose new restrictions on North Korea. This resolution is a direct response to recent North Korean missile activity and threats from Kim Jong Un. On July 4, North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile and claimed it could hit any nation on Earth and...
A holistic view of Christian vocation
In a society where personal identity is conveyed by one’s job title, it is of little wonder that the nation’s youth are so anxious about career choice. But what if your identity is found in Christ? What if living vocationally has nothing to do with finding the “perfect” career? ...
The monopoly markup
Note: This is post #48 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. Ever wonder why pharmaceuticals are so expensive? In this video by Marginal Revolution University, Alex Tabarrok shows how low elasticity of demand results in monopoly markups. This is especially the case with goods that involve the “you can’t take it with you” effect (for example, people with serious medical conditions are relatively insensitive to the price of life-saving drugs) and the “other people’s money” effect (if third...
Upstream: A Conversation on Artist Renee Radell
On the Upstream segment of this week’s Radio Free Acton podcast, I discuss the visual art of Renee Radell with Gregory Wolfe. Radell’s work is the subject of Renee Radell: Web of Circumstance (Predmore Press, 2016, 220 pages, $80), a book presenting a career overview of her artistic efforts. In his review of Web of Circumstance for The University Bookman, Wolfe – founder and editor of Image magazine – determines the panying text by Eleanor Heartney superficial in contrast to...
The consuming self as tyrant
“Consumerism is, quite precisely, the consuming of life by the things consumed. It is living in a manner that is measured by having rather than being.” -Richard John Neuhaus In a free economy, we each serve distinct roles as both producers and consumers. As producers, we create and serve, leveraging the work of our hands to meet the needs of our neighbors. As consumers, however, we look to ourselves and our own needs. Consumption is good and necessary thing, but...
5 Facts about the 9/11 aftermath
Today marks the 16th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil. Here are five facts you should know about what happened in the aftermath of the events on September 11, 2001: 1. It took 99 days—until December 19, 2001—for thefires at Ground Zeroto be extinguished.Cleanup at Ground Zero wasn’t pleted until May 30, 2002. It took 3.1 million hours of labor to clean up 1.8 million tons of debris at a total cost of cleanup of $750...
Erasing the cross: Public vs. private sector
The European discount grocery chain Lidl stirred controversy by removing the cross from its products’ labels, so as not to give offense. Eagle-eyed consumers noticed that Eirdanous, its Greek food line, featured a picture of a blue-domed Greek Orthodox Church by the sea – but unlike every other such church, its cupola was not topped by a cross. pany Photoshopped the symbol of Christ’s victory over death and Hell off of the Anastasi(in Greek, literally, “resurrection”) Church inSantorini. Perhaps to...
Explainer: What you should know about single-payer healthcare
Today, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is unveiling his legislation for a single-payer healthcare system. Here is what you should know about single-payer systems and Sanders’s proposal: What is single-payer healthcare? In a single-payer healthcare system, the government pays for all medically necessary service for of all citizens, regardless of e or ability to pay. Does the U.S. have a single-payer system? In the U.S. most citizens over the age of 65 and people under 65 who have specific disabilities qualify...
The archbishop of Canterbury eyes a ‘broken’ economy
Defending the free market and advocating for ever-greater access to capital is of paramount importance during uneven economic patches. That is how Christians should ments from Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, who recently said that the economy is “broken.” The archbishop cited familiar economic data of unequal economic growth, youth hopelessness, and questions about wage stagnation. Many of these are part of a ing report from the IPPR’s Commission on Economic Justice, of which he is a member. But...
7 Figures: Income and poverty in the U.S.
The U.S. Census Bureau released its latest report on e and poverty in the United States today. Here are seven figures from the report you should know about: 1. Real median household e increased 3.2 percent between 2015 and 2016—from $ 57,230 to $59,039. (This figure surpasses the previous high reached in 1999.) 2. Real median es in 2016 for family households ($75,062) and nonfamily households ($35,761) increased 2.7 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, from their 2015 medians. (This is...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved