The Penultimate Step of the War on Poverty: A Progressive Federal Minimum Wage' in the Huffington Post. In this essay, he says: By linking low wages to the rising concentration of wealth, we could finally establish a connection between economics and race... He proposes to link low wages with economic concentration and inequality as the final step in a movement that will take us from welfare state to something new: the Progressive Federal Minimum Wage. He cites a wide range of social science research. The main takeaway seems to be that low wages do have many negative consequences for society. Among them: lower tax revenue, higher rates of obesity, poor health, homelessness, unemployment, single parent families, substance abuse and dependency, child abuse, violence and mental illness. He believes a strong argument can be made for the progressive minimum wage along the lines of: 1) It is possible that raising minimum wages increases inequality because it pushes some people out of jobs. In that sense it is "elitist". 2) Minimum wages are a symptom of deep-seated issues in our society and economy. Those issues are of course economic concentration and wealth inequality, and also racial segregation and discrimination, among many others. And, 3) the main source of racial segregation in the U.S. is an abundance of low-wage jobs in inner-city areas. So by fighting this particular cause, we fight racial inequality as well. The idea is not that "you don't get a job because you're black". Instead, it is that low wages are the real cause of inequality, and that a progressive minimum wage will help to reduce the negative effects of low wages. We can fight poverty by attacking the problem at its roots. It is notable that the minimum wage is sometimes derisively referred to as "welfare". In the comments thread on Jacobin Magazine a reader suggests the following. Given that unemployment is often high during recessions and times of recession are periods of low demand, this seems like it would be a reason for high unemployment and wage depression to be concentrated in poorer communities. However, the research indicates that unemployment and low wages are actually more concentrated in low income communities, than in richer communities. Therefore, even if there is more of a concentration in unemployment and low wages in the low income communities, we can't really see an effect where the higher the unemployment, the higher the wages. So, low wages are not just a cause of poor communities, they actually create a self-perpetuating cycle. It is not just that higher unemployment lowers wages. Unemployment also causes people to lose savings and incur financial costs such as mortgage debt and other financial problems. So that in turn would not necessarily be good for employment in those areas. In addition, people in those areas would lose more than just the money that they would have had if they were working. They might lose skills and qualifications that they have obtained, that were tied to their work. So they are not just affected by higher unemployment in low-wage areas, but by a loss of savings, education, job skills, qualifications, networks, etc. The people who live in those low-wage areas may even have a tendency to invest in other areas rather than saving money, for example, by buying into a new business venture. We can see how that might lead to even more concentration of unemployment and low wages in low-income areas. I would say that such a situation would be better than what we have now. I say that there's nothing in any of that in defense of the low-wage phenomenon. My opinion is that these are just words in the wind. Nobody has any idea how we could raise wages without costing some jobs. Well... there are two ways. One is to have the government set the minimum wage and order employers to pay it. And to make it more difficult to fire employees. That is the approach that I support and that the research supports. Another approach, is to change the mindset of employers, to persuade them that it's really in their own interest, and will be much better for everyone. There are other things that government could do that would be more likely to accomplish this objective. Such as making employer training more accessible to employees so that people can improve their skills and advance in the workplace. There are probably also ways to make unemployment benefits more humane, and provide benefits to more unemployed people in a given time period than in the past. If you add all of this together, you can see that there are many approaches we could take, which have benefits that are both equitable and beneficial to employers as well as the unemployed. And there are many problems with this approach that would need to be solved as well. These are not simple matters. How do you explain to an average person why it is better to raise minimum wages, than just take that money away from them to help fund state budgets? My opinion is that the argument is very strong, and the counterarguments not so strong. I think it would be impossible to convince somebody like Obama, who would simply say "I see the benefits. It's a good thing", so I think it's impossible to change his mind on that. I also think it would be much easier to convince an average person. I don't think that there's much resistance to the idea of fighting inequality, and that it is good to support people who do it out of a sense of obligation. As for me, it doesn't matter if he gets any of my vote, but at least he will be able to have a rational discussion about it. The main obstacle to making any real progress on raising wages, is the idea that it would cause jobs to be lost. It seems like if you can find a way to raise wages without harming anybody, the benefits would make it a no-brainer to do it. For example, when there are no jobs available for a long time, then jobs start to be created in response to wage increases. The wage increases have increased the demand for products or services, which is the most immediate source of jobs. At that point it might be possible to have a discussion about a wage hike, with the understanding that a lot of people will lose jobs, and they have to accept the risk and maybe accept a decrease in the value of their home. I think people are reluctant to make this leap because they fear that any increase will make it more expensive for people to buy the products they are producing. There is already fear in the market about this. The idea is that if someone has money to buy things, then there will be enough customers that it would be possible to make enough sales to continue making a profit. Some people see the wage hike as a threat. They fear that they could lose their job and that is an unacceptable risk. So this could be a reason that wages are stagnating, because people are worried about the possibility of a pay hike. Another thing is the idea that if wages go up, then the value of their home goes up too. This is a similar problem, because there is already a connection between wages and the value of a home. And, if the value of the home goes up too much, then that might cause a mortgage foreclosure. From a macro perspective, if wages are higher, then consumption will go up, which will make the economy grow more slowly. There are many other concerns about an increase in wages. I think people need to see a better solution. To those people who argue that higher wages will cause problems and force people out of jobs, it's easy to show that is not true, because as soon as the rise in wages creates more demand for goods and services, companies will hire more people. For example, when the minimum wage increases by 10%, businesses might hire a few people. Those few people will sell their products or services. It may seem strange to some people that it would cost anything to do this, but there are costs that must be paid in order to employ someone. We do this to the extent that we offer people enough money for a living wage, which is more than just the minimum wage. The thing is that the demand for goods and services is the reason why people have a job. They are paid to produce something that others need or want. For example, if someone owns a business, they have more customers that they can pay for the things they make. As for people having to accept an increase in the value of their homes, it doesn't really matter. First, when wages increase, so does demand for goods and services. For example, more people are able to afford homes. Also, I think it's good to remember that the housing market is a large part of the economy. It is a big industry and contributes a lot of money to the economy. There is big money to be made in all of this. If I may be so bold, my idea is that more and more people will be able to afford higher wages, because more and more people will need to work. In this way, the economy will just grow naturally. We don't need to worry about an inequality problem. The people who do well will be the people who do the best work and have the most ideas. As I say, it is a natural result of the natural process of innovation, which keeps inventing new things that people can afford and want to buy. For me, it is easy to envision a world in which there are many workers and many employers who come together to