Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is getting a lot of attention for her argument that the federal minimum wage in the United States of America would be a whopping $22 per hour if the wage had kept up with worker productivity.
The concept here is that as technology and education has led our nation to have more productive workers, the wages they are paid has not kept up with the trend. As a matter of fact, Warren goes on to point out that if the upper 1% (you know, the really rich CEO’s) were considered in this equation, the minimum wage might even be more like $30/hour+.
Here’s our question. We at Common Sense Conspiracy know that there is absolutely no chance that Elizabeth Warren or anyone else convinces the federal government to raise the minimum wage to $22 per hour. This would result in huge, unparalleled raises for huge segments of the population, and would undoubtedly put plenty of businesses out of business. It would also deflate the pay structure, as the minimum wage would be so high that employers would insist on paying just that and nothing more, eliminating any incentive for doing a good job. The long-term effects: less productivity and by Warren’s own model, the minimum wage would then be up for a pay negotiation in the southerly direction. But what we want to know is that if we put Warren’s model into effect for Congress, how does their minimum wage come out?
If we measure the productivity of Congress (via getting work done, days missed, votes taken) over the last forty years, how would the minimum wage work out for them?
Is it possible for the minimum wage to result in the worker owing the employer money?