# A Different Way of Looking at the Minimum Wage

A couple of days ago I wrote about the minimum wage, and how it’s gone down over the years. How much has it gone down? Well, that depends on what measure of inflation you use.

But there’s another way of looking at it that doesn’t rely on a computed inflation rate at all: just compare it to the median wage. Via the OECD, here’s how we compare to other rich countries:

In countries like France, Australia, and Britain, the minimum wage is equivalent to about half or more of the median wage. In the US, it’s equivalent to only 37 percent of the median wage. That’s the lowest in the OECD dataset.

But it hasn’t always been this way. Here’s what the minimum wage in the US looks like over the past half century:

I had to massage the data a bit to get a wage series back to 1960, so this might be off slightly. But not by more than a couple of percentage points or so. The basic story is simple: Up until the Reagan era, the federal minimum wage was around 50 percent of the median full-time wage—or higher. Then it dropped for eight years running and has never recovered.

So what does this say about where the minimum wage ought to be? If we raised it to \$10.50, we’d be back to 50 percent of the median wage. That would put us in the middle of the international pack, which seems perfectly reasonable. If we raised it to \$15, we’d be at 72 percent of the median wage, far higher than any of our peer countries.

Obviously you can decide for yourself where we ought to be. But looked at this way, I’d be pretty happy with a minimum wage of \$10-11, but pretty skeptical of \$15. There’s really not much precedent for a minimum wage that high, and I’m not thrilled with experimenting that far away from international norms.1 What’s more, although I think the minimum wage serves a purpose, my preference is to combine a moderate but reasonable minimum wage with, say, a moderate but reasonable increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit.2 They serve different purposes and benefit different groups of people, and the combination would almost certainly benefit the working poor more than just one or the other.

1As we liberals point out endlessly, the bulk of the evidence suggests that moderate increases in the minimum wage don’t have much effect on employment. And that’s true. But the flip side is also true: large increases in the minimum wage probably do have an effect on employment. My guess is that a \$15 minimum wage would have fairly significant disemployment effects.

2And an expansion of Medicaid. One thing that makes it hard to compare our minimum wage with other countries is that other countries have safety net features that we don’t have. For example, universal health care, which reduces medical costs for the working poor to nearly zero. I would much rather have a \$10-11 minimum wage + EITC increase + Medicaid expansion than a \$15 minimum wage.

### WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise \$253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut \$1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally \$253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the \$253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

### WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise \$253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut \$1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally \$253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the \$253,000 we need in less than three weeks.