While surfing the web last weekend, I came across a story on a new push to boost the federally-mandated minimum wage up from $5.15 an hour. While the issue is not likely to come before Congress any time soon, some states and municipalities are taking their own steps to boost the minimum wage.

Baltimore and Los Angeles have mandated minimum wages far above the federal regulations in the neighborhood of $7 an hour. By 2000, Boston will require hundreds of companies that contract with the city to have a minimum wage rate of $8.23 an hour. The trend for boosting the minimum wage is not surprising when you consider that the number of four-person families making less than $16,000 per year exceeded six million last year.

The newly mandated wages have been labeled “living wages,” with the belief that such a rise in the base pay will allow families that are scraping by to actually enjoy the benefits of capitalism. I’m not sure what to make of this new push, especially when you consider that the national unemployment rate fell to a 29-year low of less than 4 percent. Most of Western Europe has an unemployment rate in the 10 percent range; you might think all is well in the land of the free.

But hold on, say the supporters of the new living wage. Figures show that if the 1960 minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, high-school kids working as lifeguards in Boone would be making between $12 and $14 an hour.

As compelling as that may be, I would like to point out that 1960 was an aberration; the US was on the crest of an economic miracle only because half the industrialized world was in tatters.

None of the nations which endured World War II had rebuilt themselves to prewar levels of production. Clearly, that time frame is a poor point of reference because it ignored a rebuilding of Europe and Japan.

But ignoring that, I doubt anyone will disagree that raising a family on minimum wage is a difficult task, if not impossible.

Nevertheless, I don’t believe a federally mandated living wage is the way to go. This country was founded on the principles of capitalism, and Adam Smith would point out that people will be paid what the market can bear.

After all, the American dream is that anyone can start as a janitor scrubbing toilets and someday work up to being a wealthy industrialist.

Though far-fetched, the idea is one that most Americans still cling to. It is a faith of sorts, rooted in the mythology of our nation.

Even if you are a cynic and believe the best way to life’s rewards is through crime or inheritance, how many people do you honestly know that make minimum wage?

When I was in high school I had some fun jobs that paid barely more than the minimum, but they were still decent jobs, and I was a kid without a diploma.

Last summer, I worked in a warehouse filling boxes with cute little stuffed animals, and it still paid $7 an hour. So I guess my question is: who exactly is working for minimum wage?

If I can go through the paper and find a job paying one and a half times the minimum wage, why can’t everyone else? Are people’s reading skills so poor that no one can look through the classifieds, or am I just a lucky SOB?

I tend to hold the view that if you keep your eye open and look hard, a job will present itself. Though there are those who occupy the very bottom rung of the economic ladder, I think the market is slowly hoisting the ladder upwards. The only people I know who make minimum wage are those whose job is physically easy or who receive some sort of perk, like half-off on shampoo while being a receptionist at the hair salon. They accept the reduced wages for other reasons and don’t mind, or at least keep the gripes to a minimum.

I still find the idea of a mandated minimum wage anathema to the principles this nation was founded on and believe market forces will balance everything out. But before I stick my foot in my mouth, I will concede that the living wage has a certain attractiveness and an air of benevolence. People and families will be better off financially, and the poverty gap would probably narrow.

Though you and I would undoubtedly pay for the rise in wages, market forces mean people would balk at paying $5 for a Big Mac. The only recourse for companies would be to cut overhead, most likely by getting rid of part-time employees and keeping a smaller staff of full-time employees around. This would reduce the transitory nature of many jobs and solidify a career underclass, as well as having other benefits.

Instead of being served by high-school kids who don’t give a damn whether they get fired or not, you’d have career employees making sure they didn’t lose their $14 an hour job. Their economic prosperity would depend on their abilities, as I am sure the competition would be fierce to make the customer happy. Come to think of it, maybe this living wage idea has some merit.

---

Aaron Woell is a senior in political science from Bolingbrook, Ill. He bets his living wage on everyone having ulterior motives.