The Economic Consequences of Raising the Federal Minimum Wage

Kamala Harris has taken a bold stance in advocating for a federal minimum wage increase to $15 per hour, a policy intended to benefit low-income Americans by giving them a “living wage.” However, beneath the promise lies a series of economic implications—some predictable, others less so—that could leave Americans with unintended consequences like inflation, job cuts, and business closures. Rather than doubling wages for entry-level positions, why not consider solutions that build skill sets, enabling workers to move beyond minimum-wage jobs and pursue stable, well-paid careers?

How Many People Benefit from a Federal Minimum Wage Increase?

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that about 17 million workers would directly benefit if the federal minimum wage were raised to $15 per hour, with another 10 million potentially experiencing “ripple effect” increases as businesses adjust their wage structures to maintain pay equity. However, this benefit comes with underlying issues. Doubling wages may improve hourly income for these workers, but it may not enhance their long-term economic stability if price inflation erodes their increased purchasing power.

Moreover, most minimum-wage jobs were originally designed as stepping stones for young or inexperienced workers entering the workforce, not as positions to support families long-term. Today, rather than inflating wages for entry-level positions, wouldn’t it be more effective to equip workers with marketable skills through vocational training? This approach offers a sustainable solution that allows people to climb the career ladder, increasing their earning potential without risking economic strain.

Hidden Costs: Will Higher Wages Mean Higher Prices for Everyone?

When labor costs account for 50% to 70% of the cost of sales (COS), a federal minimum wage increase inevitably impacts the entire supply chain. This rise in expenses can drive up the cost of goods and services, affecting everyone’s budget—from groceries to home essentials to dining out. Businesses, particularly in sectors like retail, hospitality, and manufacturing, may not have the profit margins to absorb such a sharp increase in expenses, even if they’re large corporations. And for smaller businesses, absorbing these costs is hardly an option.

So, who ends up paying for the wage increase? Consumers. Price hikes follow as businesses adjust to cover their bottom line. Although a higher minimum wage sounds appealing on paper, it could ultimately lead to a reduction in purchasing power if the increased wages are offset by inflation—a situation where everyone loses.

Small Businesses Under Pressure: How Will They Survive?

Small businesses, which employ roughly 47% of the American workforce, face an uncertain future if a minimum wage hike is mandated. Unlike large corporations, which may have some leeway to absorb labor costs, small businesses often operate on slim margins and cannot afford to double their wage expenses. Proponents of a federal minimum wage increase argue that tax breaks and other concessions for small businesses can help ease the burden, but these temporary measures are not long-term solutions.

In practice, small businesses may have to resort to cutting hours, reducing hiring, or raising prices just to stay afloat. And if even these measures aren’t enough, some businesses might close altogether, particularly in rural or low-income communities that rely heavily on local commerce. This means fewer job opportunities, reduced economic mobility, and potentially an increase in small business closures—hardly the intended outcome of a policy meant to “help” workers.

Automation: The Unseen Consequence of Wage Increases

One of the most overlooked consequences of raising the minimum wage is that it encourages automation. As labor costs climb, many businesses will consider investing in technology to reduce dependence on human labor. In recent years, industries from fast food to retail to logistics have experimented with automation to manage operational costs. With rising labor costs, this trend is likely to accelerate.

Self-checkout kiosks, robotic food preparation, and automated warehouse systems are just a few examples of how technology could replace minimum-wage jobs. For workers whose positions are replaced by automation, the minimum wage increase is a moot point; they are left without a job. A 2021 report by the Brookings Institution predicted that automation would disproportionately impact workers in low-wage jobs, such as food service and retail. Raising the wage to $15 an hour could accelerate this shift, leaving millions unemployed and dependent on government support.

Inflation: An Economic Domino Effect

If minimum wage increases lead to price hikes, inflation is almost inevitable. The resulting higher cost of goods and services doesn’t just impact minimum-wage workers; it affects everyone. For middle- and lower-income families, the rising cost of living can be especially burdensome. And since inflation tends to rise faster than wages, the potential benefits of a wage increase could evaporate as expenses climb, leaving workers in the same financial position as before or even worse off.

Proponents of a federal minimum wage increase argue that low-income families need a living wage to thrive. However, if inflation climbs in response to higher wages, the benefit is likely to be short-lived. Instead of promoting economic growth, an inflated minimum wage risks eroding the purchasing power of wage earners across all income brackets.

Government Subsidies: Short-Term Fixes with Long-Term Consequences

To counteract inflation and ease the burden of rising living costs, Harris and other advocates propose increased government subsidies for essentials like housing, food, and healthcare. However, this approach is fraught with issues. Subsidies require funding, which could come from either tax increases or by printing more money—both options with significant economic implications.

Taxing businesses and high earners might sound reasonable, but it reduces funds available for business expansion, hiring, and wages. Alternatively, printing more money risks inflationary pressure, further raising the cost of living. These subsidies might help low-income families in the short term, but they create dependency rather than fostering independence. Instead, a long-term solution, like investing in skills development and vocational training, would create sustainable change without adding to the national debt or inflation.

Higher Interest Rates and the Risk of Recession

The Federal Reserve has already raised interest rates in response to recent inflation, and a federal minimum wage increase could lead to even higher rates. If inflation rises again due to wage increases, the Fed may continue to increase interest rates to stabilize prices. However, this strategy has a ripple effect: higher interest rates slow down spending, borrowing, and investment, which could tip the economy into recession.

Americans are still feeling the impact of recent rate hikes, which have made mortgages, credit cards, and car loans more expensive. A wage hike that triggers further rate increases could push the economy toward recession, affecting job growth and investment in all sectors.

Training Programs: A Practical Solution for Economic Mobility

So, if raising the minimum wage carries so many risks, what’s the alternative? One solution lies in vocational training and skills development. Programs that teach practical skills for well-paying fields, such as healthcare, construction, and technology, can offer long-term benefits for workers, equipping them for careers that pay well above minimum wage. This approach also supports economic mobility and growth, reducing reliance on entry-level jobs and creating more high-quality positions.

Investing in skill-building programs, rather than short-term wage increases, allows workers to develop expertise in fields with high demand and good pay. For example, fields like electrical work, plumbing, and coding all offer substantial wages without requiring a college degree. By empowering workers with skills, the economy grows without risking inflation, job cuts, or unsustainable government spending.

Conclusion: A Sustainable Path to Economic Growth

While raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour may appear to be a quick fix, it risks long-term harm to the economy. From price inflation and increased unemployment to the strain on small businesses, the policy comes with considerable trade-offs. Rather than relying on wage mandates and government subsidies, we should consider investing in skill-building programs that empower workers to transition out of entry-level jobs into meaningful, high-paying careers.

In the end, building a self-sufficient workforce is not just better for individual workers; it’s better for America’s economy. A federal minimum wage increase may benefit some in the short term, but a skilled, independent workforce offers a far more sustainable and prosperous future for all Americans.


References:

  1. Congressional Budget Office. (2021). The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56975
  2. U.S. Small Business Administration. Small Business GDP: 1998–2014. Retrieved from https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/small-business-gdp-1998-2014
  3. Brookings Institution. (2021). Automation and Artificial Intelligence: How machines are affecting people and places. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/automation-and-artificial-intelligence-how-machines-affect-people-and-places/

Why This Matters: The Consequences of One-Sided Education

An education system that only promotes one side of the political spectrum does a disservice to students and to society. Universities are supposed to be places where ideas are challenged and debated, not where students are spoon-fed one version of the truth. When students are only exposed to progressive ideologies, they become less equipped to critically evaluate opposing viewpoints, and democracy suffers.

Harvard University

Creating an Intellectual Echo Chamber

By stifling conservative thought, universities create intellectual echo chambers that limit true critical engagement. This lack of ideological diversity is not only unfair to conservative students but also detrimental to liberal ones. If students never encounter opposition to their ideas, how can they refine their arguments or understand the full complexity of an issue?


A Conservative Argument: Why Equal Representation is Essential

Conservatives believe that a balanced academic environment would better prepare students for the real world, where political diversity is a fact of life. Conservatives value individualism, free markets, and limited government—values that are often dismissed or even demonized in liberal-dominated academic settings. The conservative worldview has much to offer in fields like economics, history, and political science, yet it is rarely given a platform in today’s universities.

Freedom of Thought

One of the core tenets of conservatism is the belief in individual freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom from government overreach. A balanced faculty would ensure that students are not just taught what to think but how to think. When universities promote one ideology over another, they limit intellectual freedom, essentially indoctrinating students rather than educating them.


Is Private Schooling the Only Answer?

As public education at both the high school and university levels becomes increasingly dominated by liberal ideologies, many parents and conservative students are beginning to wonder if private education is the only option left for balanced, ideologically diverse schooling. Private schools, particularly religious institutions, tend to have more freedom in designing curricula and hiring faculty who align with their values, including conservative principles.

Homeschooling and Charter Schools

Another option that is growing in popularity among conservatives is homeschooling or charter schools, which often offer more control over the curriculum. Homeschooling allows parents to ensure that their children are not being subjected to progressive indoctrination and that they are being taught conservative values from a young age. Charter schools, while still part of the public system, often operate with more flexibility and can offer alternative viewpoints that are absent in traditional public schools.


What Can Be Done? Possible Solutions

While private schooling and homeschooling may offer some reprieve, we should not give up on public education altogether. There are several potential solutions to the current imbalance in academia that conservatives should advocate for:

1. Hiring More Conservative Faculty

One clear solution is to ensure that conservative professors are hired in equal numbers to their liberal counterparts. University hiring practices should aim for a balanced representation of political viewpoints to create a truly diverse academic environment.

2. Curriculum Reform

Another important step is to reform high school and college curricula to include a wider range of political and ideological perspectives. Textbooks and reading lists should reflect conservative thinkers as well as liberal ones. This would prevent the one-sided presentation of history, economics, and political science that currently dominates.

3. Free Speech Protections on Campus

Conservatives should push for stronger protections for free speech on campus. Students and faculty should not face repercussions for expressing conservative ideas. By ensuring that universities remain places of open debate, we can counteract the current trend of liberal indoctrination.

4. Parental Involvement

Parents must take an active role in their children’s education, particularly in high school where indoctrination often begins. By staying informed about what is being taught and encouraging critical thinking at home, parents can help offset the progressive bias in public education.


Conclusion: The Future of American Education

The dominance of liberal ideologies in academia is a serious issue that must be addressed if we are to preserve intellectual diversity and freedom of thought in our education system. Equal representation of conservative and liberal faculty members is essential for creating an environment where students can engage with a variety of ideas and develop their own informed opinions.

While private schools and homeschooling offer short-term solutions, the ultimate goal should be to reform public education so that it no longer serves as a vehicle for progressive indoctrination. Conservatives must demand that their ideas be represented fairly in the classroom, from high school to university, for the sake of both current and future generations.