Implications

Both the arguments for and against lowering the minimum are logical and correct in their own right. One can hold the position that the minimum wage should be lowered for the utilitarian benefit of unskilled laborers as a whole and the economy just as as one can hold the position that such an action would be unethical because of the population that is negatively affected. Given the current state of the economy, lowering the minimum wage could help our standing as a country by curtailing the growing unemployment rate, and increasing consumption and overall income. These benefits seem too good to pass up. To address the ethical argument, I would propose a policy to hedge the losses of those employees who are making the minimum wage and would be negatively affected by a decrease. Essentially, government would subsidize the cut in wages for those employees negatively affected by the decrease in the minimum wage. The government would subsidize the cut in wages via either a tax break or a welfare program for those employees negatively affected. So if the current minimum of eight dollars per hour in California were to be decreased to seven dollars an hour the government would redeem the hourly-lost dollar to the negatively affected employee. Enacting such a policy where the minimum wage is decreased coupled with a policy to redeem negative changes in income, retains the utilitarian benefits in decreasing the minimum wage while avoiding the ethical issues that accompany such a decrease. This government spending to subsidize lost wages would end up being a stimulative policy because those dollars given to unskilled laborers would translate into increased consumption. Ultimately, this plan seems to be the right solution to the minimum wage debates as it addresses both the pragmatic and ethical sides of the argument, and results in an action that will stimulate the economy.