Minimum Wage Debate

The Facts

The federal minimum wage in the United States has been $7.25 per hour since 2009 — the longest period without an increase since the minimum wage was established in 1938. Meanwhile, the cost of living has increased significantly over this period.

Current State

As of 2026, 30 states and D.C. have minimum wages above the federal level. Several cities have set their minimum wages at $15 or higher, including Seattle, San Francisco, and New York City.

Economic Context

Federal minimum wage: $7.25/hour ($15,080/year for full-time)
Raising to $15 would affect approximately 27 million workers
Minimum wage has lost about 17% of its purchasing power since 2009
Productivity has increased by over 60% since 1970 while minimum wage has not kept pace

Perspective 1

Who Holds This View

Labor unions, progressive Democrats, and advocacy groups argue that a $15 minimum wage is necessary to ensure a living wage. This view is particularly popular among low-income workers, young workers, and those in service industries.

Proponents argue that the minimum wage was originally designed to be a living wage — enough to cover basic needs like housing, food, and healthcare. They contend that $7.25 is simply not enough to survive in any major American city.

"A full-time worker earning $7.25 an hour earns just $15,080 a year — below the federal poverty line for a family of two."

Key Arguments

Living Wage: $15 would bring the minimum wage back in line with its original purpose as a living wage
Economic Boost: Low-wage workers would spend additional income, stimulating the economy
Reduced Inequality: Helps address growing wealth inequality
Business Benefits: Reduces turnover, increases productivity, and improves worker morale

Perspective 2

Who Holds This View

Business owners, conservative economists, and Republicans express concerns about the economic impact of a $15 minimum wage. This view is often held by small business owners, particularly in lower-cost regions.

Critics worry that a sudden jump to $15 per hour would have significant negative consequences for businesses, particularly small enterprises, and could potentially lead to job losses or reduced hiring.

"A 100% increase in labor costs would force businesses to cut jobs, raise prices, or close entirely."

Key Arguments

Job Losses: Businesses may automate or reduce headcount to offset higher labor costs
Price Increases: Businesses would pass costs to consumers, potentially hurting the very people minimum wage is meant to help
Regional Differences: A national $15 minimum wage doesn't account for cost-of-living differences between states
Training Barriers: Higher wages could reduce opportunities for entry-level workers and youth

The Nuance

Tensions and Trade-offs

The minimum wage debate reveals genuine tensions that don't have easy answers. There's legitimate concern for workers struggling to survive on low wages, but also real concerns about economic disruption from rapid changes.

Questions We're Missing

What role should automation play in this debate? (McDonald's has already replaced cashiers with kiosks)
Should there be a regional cost-of-living adjustment instead of a flat national rate?
What about non-wage benefits that many low-wage jobs offer, like health insurance?
Is the issue really the minimum wage, or should we focus on education and training?

Common Ground

Interestingly, both sides agree that $7.25 is too low. Even critics often support gradual increases or regional approaches. The debate is really about the speed and scope of change, not whether any change is needed.

Reflection

Questions for Readers

What experiences have shaped your view on minimum wage? Have you or someone you know worked for minimum wage?
How do you weigh the potential job losses against the benefits of higher wages for those who keep their jobs?
Should the federal government set a single minimum wage, or should states have more flexibility?
What alternatives to minimum wage increases might address poverty without potential job losses?

Consider: When you hear arguments from the other side, do you try to understand the genuine concerns behind them — or dismiss them as bad-faith arguments?