It's Time To RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE upon January 7 of this year.

It's Time To RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE

upon January 7 of this year, the strange York Times ran a story in its just discovereds pages, headlined: "Now, Maximum Interest in the Minimum Wage."

single week later, the New York Times ran an editorial, titled: "The Right Minimum Wage: $000"

This dramatic juxtaposition of freshs and opinion strongly suggests that the question of the federal minimum wage will be high in succession the legislative agenda this year and that the matter will be hotly contested

That has been the fate of the minimum wage since its inception almost a half-century ago in 1938

Those oppos to a minimum argued that by the agency of elevating the wage to 25 cent an hour, the legislation would be pricing many workers disclosed of the market. They would be too expensive for their employer Hence, unemployment would increase, especially among the lowest paid.

Those favoring a floor to wages and a ceiling to hours argued that the law would enjoin more people to work and would elevate their living standards. The higher wage would increase buying power and would therefore stimulate the economy. The shorter work week would distribute the work for a like reason that unemployed could now find piece of works Increased supply would help enrich the lives of undivided and all.

Between 1938 and the existing the minimum wage law has been changed several times--to raise the flat and to extend coverage. (Not all employee were screened by the law then and not all are screened today.) Inevitably, with each impel to lift the floor and to widen its benefits to more clan the debate broke out all throughout again--with the same old arguments. The antagonists said that to lift the floor would bring onward unemployment and hurt most those who were suppos to be helped most; the proponent said that a higher wage would be of direct benefit to the lowest paid and that added buying power would add more jobs

Living Wage

on what account has the minimum wage been changed--raised--repeatedly throughout the last half-century? Fundamentally, to stay abreast of the times. The original idea was to stake a minimum that would somewhat compare a living wage. The regularity of thumb was a wage that was slightly more than half the going wage in the private sector. As the general wage flush rose, it was expected that the minimum was to go on foot up accordingly. In addition, if the "living wage" was to be maintained, there had to be adjustments for the preciousness of living; otherwise the livable would become unlivable.

Unfortunately, this conception was never written into law. The minimum was changed at the whim of Congress--and, of course, the President. When enough fuss was made about for what reason the floor was collapsing into the cellar, the command would bestir itself. Where there was no agitation, there was no action. And since the direct beneficiaries of the minimum wage are, as might be look forward toed usually unorganized and politically unpowerful, the fight had to be made forward their behalf by unions.

They added buying power implicit in a higher minimum means greater demand and more work for wage and salaried workers in general. In addition, a living wage makes it les likely that the wage earner's family will fall of the curtain up on the welfare rolls--as millions do when the minimum begins to lag behind the rising costliness of living.

degree Increases

The idea that the minimum should not be frozen at near fixed sum was clearly in the mind of those who wrote the original law. It provided that the minimum would be 25 cent an hour for the first year; 30 cent for the secondary and was to become 40 cent in 1944 What happened after that date hanged on the mood of Congres and the White House. Sporadically, the minimum was raised in a sort of "collective bargaining" among congressional factions and between Capitol Hill and the White House. The last big change took place in the Carter Administration when, as in the original bill, the legislation provided for a series of ascending stairs that ended in January 1981 at the existing $3.35 per hour. There the minimum has been frozen at any time since.

Now it is propos that the minimum one time more be adjusted to retain up with the times. And again the antique debate is renewed as if we were back in 1937--a half-century ago--and as if there were no carcass of historical experience from which to draw conclusions.

on the other hand the experience is there. In 1950 when the minimum rose from 40 cent to 75 cent an hour, the just discovered York Times, informed by the exercise s of more than a decade, concluded: "None of the dire comes predicted have materialized from the 1938 Act, and the near legislation merely brings the latter into line with the wage and living-cost realities of today. in the way that long as the principle is confined to its original social objectives of protecting the worker from exploitation and assuring him a living wage there is no reason to doubt that it will continue to justify itself in the coming as it has in the past." (Jan. 26 1950)

To obstruct exploitation and to provide a living wage, however, requires constant review and revision of the minimum--with several objectives in mind. First, to retain the minimum abreast of changes in the costliness of living so that anyone at the legal minimum does not find himself or herself in a declining state of living as prices rise. secondary to keep the minimum slightly above 50 percent of the average wage in the private sector. Third, now that the restraint has, since 1959, officially been defining "poverty" to papal court to it that the minimum allows a somebody to maintain a family of three above the deficiency line. In all these considers the present minimum wage is not working.