The case for the subminimum wage

Since we were old enough to drive, it has been customary to obtain small, part-time jobs in our communities. In doing this, we learn the American ideals of self-reliance, diligent work ethic and financial responsibility—ideals that have served our parents and grandparents well.

Today, the economic landscape of my high school and early college years, an environment that facilitated easy access to the labor market, has been laid barren. In the wake of the Great Recession, jobs are few and far between. Many acquaintances of mine have expressed frustration in trying to find a source of supplemental income. While college students are hurting and desperate, the two parties in Washington and Montgomery continue their usual dance.

Republicans blindly advocate tax cuts, and Democrats eagerly push irresponsible spending as a panacea. The result is inaction.

What is needed is not more economy orthodoxy or bombastic dogma from either side, but rather a different way to deal with teenage and collegiate unemployment through an old idea from the early 1990s: A two-tiered minimum wage.

The impact of an increased minimum wage on teen and twenty-something unemployment is not recently-found knowledge. In fact, David Neumark, professor of economics at UC Irvine, and economist William Wascher at the Federal Reserve found that every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage leads to a 1.5-2 percent decrease in teen and young adult employment. An overwhelming majority of academic literature supports their findings.

Their analysis was tested during the latest increases in the minimum wage, as a 28 percent increase in the minimum wage (from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour) correlated with the teen unemployment rate increasing from 16 to 25 percent, which, after removing the recession’s effects on unemployment, is remarkably accurate.

We the people have priced ourselves out of jobs, with those aged 16-25 suffering the market’s wrath.

Furthermore, the same authors found that states such as Texas, which had a student-learner wage program, a de facto two-tiered system, had on average 2 percent lower unemployment among the 16-25 demographic than their neighbors with a uniform wage schedule. Of course, this means a more experienced workforce, thus improving productivity and economic growth.

North of the border, Ontario has already adopted student subminimums, and Prince Edward Island is now considering subminimums in the form of training wages. Both provinces have lower youth unemployment rates than the US average.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once likened the states as policy laboratories where new ideas could be tested. The successes of the two-tiered system “experiments” in the past are now a fait accompli, and therefore it is the duty of the Alabama legislators and members of Congress to act on these results by establishing two-tiered systems.

They should also protect the 95,000 full-time minimum wage workers over age 25 by prohibiting layoffs using regulations already in place under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Will this be a straightforward process? Probably not. But the students in this state are not asking for more grants or student loans. They are asking for jobs and opportunities, and it is the duty of government to provide an environment for increased student employment.

It’s time for legislators to cease the dogmatic preaching, hear the youth’s cri de coeur, and get to work writing a responsible student minimum wage law that benefits both employer and employee.

Gregory Poole is a graduate student in metallurgical engineering.

  • Jeb

    Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see the point of the two-tier system. If we are going to reduce the minimum wage, why limit it to only people under 25? Isn’t that placing an unfair burden on a particular minority (which I believe may not even be constitutional, although I’m no expert)? I’m not slamming your article as much as I am wanting more details. I’d like to believe this is a good idea but I don’t believe you have made the case for paying young people less.

    I’m assuming your point is that younger people don’t have the skills that someone older might. While that may be true in some cases, lack of skills still means lack of skills. If you are 30 and haven’t done anything with your life, then why should you be rewarded with greater pay than a 20-something working his way through college? An employer will pay you for what he thinks your time is worth. If I work hard and increase my talents, then I may make more money as an employee with 5 years experience than somebody with 15 years experience that is slacking off and under performing.

    One last question regarding your statement….
    “They should also protect the 95,000 full-time minimum wage workers over age 25 by prohibiting layoffs using regulations already in place under the Fair Labor Standards Act.”

    Why in the world would you advocate the government prohibiting employers from laying people off in a recession? You think it is better to force a company to keep a subset of employees on the payroll that they would otherwise layoff, thereby potentially bankrupting the company and forcing ALL employees to become unemployed?

    Speaking as someone living in the real-world, with a real job, facing lay-offs every day… the under-performing workers are let go first. Sure, it would be nice if everybody could be employed forever and ever (even if they suck), but lets get real. Some people, not every one, deserves to be laid off. Don’t let the government intrude into the private sector. They have made a big enough mess already.

  • Anti-Jeb

    “Don’t let the government intrude into the private sector. They have made a big enough mess already.”

    Yes let us go back to when children worked in coal mines and 90% of the wealth was held by the top 1% of the country. Oh, wait, guess you’d just prefer everyone unionize…

  • Jeb

    Wow. Great counterpoint anti-jeb. I must have been saying that children should be working in cole mines when I said the government should quit interfering with the private sector. I couldn’t possibly have been referring to the hyper-regulation environment that we live in or the ridiculous tax structures the government has in place. I couldn’t possibly have been complaining about the effect this has on increasing prices to the consumer. Surely I’m another one of those racist, homophobic, anti-Islam tea-partiers that is only interested in stopping the first black president from having any success because I probably think he is a Muslim. While we are at it, lets see if we can punch some babies in the face and throw some puppies in a river. Stupid babies.

  • Jeb

    cole = coal

  • Jeb

    By the way, regarding your point about 90% of the wealth being held by the top 1%, do you think the current system is more fair?

    The wealthiest 1%of the population earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the income tax. The top 10% pay 68% of the tab.

    Meanwhile, the bottom 50%—those below the median income level—now earn 13% of the income but pay just 3% of the taxes.

    Those darn successful people! They are so evil! Lets tax them until they can’t afford to take initiative and start business and hire employees (don’t mind the fact that you and I would be the people they hire). This will probably lead to less innovation and entrepreneurship in America, which in turn will reduce the standard of living for everyone, but don’t worry about that. We will finally all be equal… equally poor!

Share this on Facebook