MINIMUM WAGERING

The minimum wage has become a lively topic in Washington again. This time the motivation is an attempt to turn the minimum wage into a political football. To kick off the latest game, the Democrats are calling for a 90-cent-an-hour increase. This would raise the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour from the current $4.25.

Democrats, including President Clinton, are saying all the familiar words: The minimum wage must be raised to keep abreast of rising costs. The minimum wage hasn't been raised in a long time. The minimum wage needs to be increased to provide a livable wage.

All of the arguments are laughable. The current $4.25 an hour minimum wage produces an annual income of $8,840 a year based on a 40-hour work week. This is scarcely above the federal poverty level of $7,360. And the proposed increase would raise the yearly income of a minimum-wage worker to $10,712.

Does President Clinton really believe $10,712 is enough to live on?

That's the point.

The minimum wage was never intended to be a "living" wage. Rather, it is -- as its name implies -- the lowest wage most employers are permitted to pay hourly workers. As a result, only a small percentage of American workers actually receive the minimum wage. And most who start at the minimum wage don't stay there very long. They are either promoted and given raises, or they lose their jobs because they can't fulfill their work responsibilities.

In tight job markets, even the lowest-paying jobs pay more than minimum wage to attract employees. Some employers who traditionally pay low wages are offering as much as a dollar and hour above the minimum wage -- and a bonus as well -- just to get applicants to walk in the door. This supply-and-demand situation is appropriate for setting pay levels.

What would happen if the minimum wage were to be raised? Fewer workers would be expected to perform more tasks in order to keep overall wage levels at or near the current levels. In effect, fewer workers would benefit from the increase, while many entry-level workers would be denied job opportunities. Or, employers force to pay more and maintain current levels of employment would have to pass along the increased costs to their customers.

The president raised a typically silly scenario this week in arguing for the minimum-wage increase. He said that the pay of U.S. senators has increased by a third over the past five years, while the pay of minimum-wage workers has been stuck at $4.25 an hour. The facts are correct, but the assumptions are wacky. In the first place, how many minimum-wage workers have stayed in the lowest-paying jobs for as long as most U.S. senators have been in the Senate? And how many minimum-wage workers have the job responsibilities of those serving in the U.S. Senate?

The minimum-wage issue is phony to the core. Democrats want to be able to say that those nasty Republicans refused to give measly raises to America's lowest-paid workers. In fact, labor statistics show that the country's lowest-paid workers have generally enjoy regular income boosts, thanks to promotions and added responsibilities. There is, after all, a way for each worker to increase his own minimum wage.

And one last point. Even with the increase being pushed by the Democrats, minimum-wage workers would still be making less than they could receive in welfare or unemployment benefits. Do the Democrats want to stop bickering and tackle this issue as well?