A trending topic in America, the minimum wage debate is sparking many movements from each side across the nation. Although at first glance the question is simply put as whether we raise the federal minimum wage or keep it the same, there is more depth, as the question is why do we need a raised minimum wage. Both parties make arguments to solidify their stance, however never touch the root of the problem, and no matter who is right, there is no solution. Much of the public is not properly informed on the issue and believe the minimum wage debate is whether or not Congress should impose a bill to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. There is a stark majority of lower class citizens and Democrats that are in favor of this outcome because they believe it will help the impoverished class get out of poverty. These individuals believe in the economics principle that increased spending will increase gross domestic product, thus benefiting our economy instead of hurting it. However, opponents, comprised of mainly Republicans argue that it will disrupt our economy as it sets a very high artificial price floor, which will increase inflation to an abnormally high rate and will hurt businesses severely due to much higher payroll costs. Both parties are correct with their respective ideologies, however neither offers a solution to the real problem concerning the minimum wage: the lack of personal growth in society. With the divide amongst the nation on this topic, nothing has been done on a federal level and it is up to the state legislature to determine to raise the minimum wage in their cities and states or keep it as is. However, both liberals and conservatives should look at other possible solutions besides a raised minimum wage that actually solves the problem, as I offer in my article. 

The minimum wage debate is a timely issue as there is a presidential election approaching fast in November and primaries undergoing now. This is an issue that Democratic candidates are including in their agendas and many people are concerned about the measures that will be taken by both parties regarding plans for the minimum wage in the future. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders plans to incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020, while Hilary Clinton supports a raise to $12 and hour. With a Republican majority in the House, if either is elected, one will have much resistance passing such a bill. Both of their campaign platforms, especially Sanders's relies heavily on raising the minimum wage, but it will be impossible for them to pass it if Congress doesn't agree to his terms. On the contrary, Republican candidates fully support states rights, thus leaving things to how they are now: states can increase the wage if they deem it fit. However the issues revolving around the minimum wage debate are important and should be tackled by all candidates. If a Republican who has a solution, such as mine that is supported by fellow conservatives, it would easily make its way into legislature. It is important that every individual to be familiarized with the topic in order to cast a properly informed vote for who they will want to be president, representing and leading our country, for the next four years. Although raising the minimum wage is a possible solution, it is very risky and Democrats and Republicans must find a middle ground in order to help the impoverished class get a healthier, more stable life and improve living situations for future generations.

Republicans are against increasing the minimum wage because such a sharp increase will have unpredictable outcomes to the economy. Even though the intent to raise wages to help the poor become less poor, the one certain outcome predicted by many economists is a higher minimum wage will create job losses and higher unemployment rates. If the government sets a minimum wage above the equilibrium price point for the economy, thus creating an artificial price floor, there will be a much larger demand for the wage than actual supply by the businesses. Conservatives value industry and the current working class and do not find the risk of raising unemployment worth it. In Seattle, the city implemented a $15 an hour minimum wage. Mark Perry's studies show that the city's restaurant industry saw 700 job losses since January 2015. On the contrary, food services jobs outside of Seattle, where a higher minimum wage has not been implemented, have increased by 5,800 (Worstall). Fewer jobs available in the city resulted in workers looking elsewhere for employment where there was no forced increase in wages. Now consider this at a bigger scale, if the entire state of Washington was to implement the higher minimum wage. The 5,800 job increase outside the city of Seattle would not have occurred and the unemployment rate would resemble of that which had occurred in Seattle. However this minimum wage debate is being discussed on a national level; every job, in every city, in every state would have a minimum wage set at $15 an hour, just as Seattle does currently. The job loss would not be 700; instead hundreds of thousands of Americans would be out of jobs. In Saul D. Hoffman's "Are the Effects of Minimum Wage Increases Always Small? A Reanalysis of Sabia, Burkhauser, and Hansen", he discusses how the increase in New York state minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.75 an hour caused a 20% decrease in employment of unskilled workers under the age of thirty (Hoffman). When presented with this information, we must evaluate: is it worth risking other citizens' livelihoods for the sake of a fraction of our economy? Our intentions of helping the poor to be less poor is good will, however putting strain on business leading to even more people out of jobs, essentially puts more people in poverty when the goal is to get them out of it.

Businesses are savvy and they will find ways to cope with a higher minimum wage in order to keep their costs low and their profits high. A Wal-Mart store shutdown in Chinatown, LA due to the pay increase enforced upon them. This mega store that had enormously cheaper prices for everyday household items compared to its small shop competitors shut down, leaving the residents in this poor, low income-earning area clueless on how they will put food on the table to feed their families. Although Wal-Mart was only forced to pay their employees $10/hour starting January 1st and the $15/hour was only proposed and still pending approval, the fact that they had to increase workers wages and possibly double their wages in the future would cost the company so much that it would be better to shut down, even though this store was recently built in September 2013. If this occurred on a national scale the 15% unemployment rate amongst people with a high school diploma or less is estimated to drastically increase, putting low income families in more of a conundrum: "The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office ...  estimated ...  wage increase from $7.25 to $10 an hour would raise wages for 16 to 24 million people, but would also kill 500,000 existing jobs."(Street) Raising the minimum wage solves a problem by creating another problem, however we cannot value unskilled jobs over degree specific ones. If we follow this course of action we are also creating burden on our government spending as unemployment welfare costs will increase. Although liberals say it is a "reasonable" tradeoff worth embracing, many Americans believe we need to minimize our deficit and debt not increase it. 

The biggest threat to uneducated, unskilled workers is the switch to technology: man-made machines. Already seen by Amazon, robots are being used in production and shipping of inventory and have much lower costs and are more efficient than humans. However in New York, a simpler, milder approach is seen in fast food joints, such as McDonalds in which self-service ordering kiosks are being placed so that fewer cashiers are hired. One franchise justified the switch, sharing, "With minimum wage for fast food workers potentially increasing to incredibly high levels, we are facing a crisis situation." (Peterson) Businesses are run by profit, and when forced to pay higher wages for an unskilled position, their profits decrease and they must look to make cuts. We as a people need to adapt to technological innovations in the workplace. The lack of education in unskilled jobs is no longer an issue we can set aside. Since machines are being incorporated and taking over simple jobs they offer new opportunities for skilled jobs as these machines need to be created and maintained. A simple ordering kiosk at a fast food joint requires programmers and technicians to create the software and maintain the machinery for the company. These jobs require a two-to-four year college education, as a high school degree will not suffice. 

Those working at minimum wage are not what advocates portray them as. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that only 3.9 percent of hourly workers earned the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, with almost half of that working population being under the age of 25 and almost 75% being under the age of 35 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1-2; Citizen Tools). This shows that those working the minimum wage are mostly young people, unlike how the media portrays the topic of minimum wage affecting older individuals. 72% of the minimum wage working class does not have kids, which also contradicts the debate that many are not able to support their children. Only about 3 percent of the working population over 25 is receiving minimum wage (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 1-2). However, something must be done about not only poverty, but also the future of these young workers. Rebecca Cornick worked for Wendy's for 9 years, starting at minimum wage, and recently received a raise to $9 an hour (Villareal). This is unacceptable; to work nine years and only get raises that accumulate to less than two dollars. Big business is proving its greediness and is not compensating its hard working individuals for working full time. There is a requirement for government to stand up and protect its citizens from this cruel unjustness brought upon by businesses. There is no reason why a full time worker should not be able to pay bills and sustain himself. 

The minimum wage had been designed by FDR to keep the workingman able to survive the harsh economic conditions. It was created to allow him to be able to house himself, feed himself, warm himself, clean himself ...  the basic necessities in life. However, "In the past 30 years, wage inequality has increased steeply while real minimum wages have fallen." (Barany) Prices have gone up, but minimum wage has remained the same and there are workers that are not getting adequate raises to survive because mega corporations are profit driven. These workers are older adults, not kids trying to earn weekend pocket money. These workers are unskilled yet determined and inclined to earn an honest dollar. These workers compose the impoverished low class of our social structure in America today. These workers cannot get themselves out of this never-ending bondage of poverty and grow to become stable. The push for a $15 and hour minimum wage is not so these individuals become well off, it is so that they do not have to worry if they cannot feed themselves the next day, or even make rent next month. John T. Harvey puts it best, "The goal of the minimum wage law is not to raise or lower unemployment ... Its purpose is social. It is meant ...  to protect those who might not have the power or resources be able to protect themselves." (Harvey)

However, if it is the government's obligation to protect the impoverished class, is it the business's responsibility to pay them a higher wage even though the job description does not resemble that of a high paying salary? There are teachers and paramedics that do not make $15 an hour, an uneducated cashier for a fast food joint surely should not be making more than they are. Even though an increase in wages will mean more pocket money in consumers' wallets, increasing spending which will boost our economy, it is unjust for one to go get a higher education and be paid equal than one who dropped out. 

The solution to the problem of poverty is not by raising wages, but instead creating a gateway to get out of it by making higher education more available to them. Education is crucial in this day in age in America; getting a college education will help an impoverished person be able to escape from poverty; education equals bigger bucks, bigger bucks equals more spending, more spending equals a better economy. However, a college education is not easy to get as it is so expensive and not many poor individuals can afford such large tuition amounts, even for an associate's degree. Some say that the government should make college free; that is a debate entirely its own. However another solution, one without much government intervention and making those that really strive to create a better life to get that life is business paying for college. Many think that will cost the company a fortune, however each employee that works forty hours a week at $15 an hour will approximately cost the company $32,000 a year, and each employee working the minimum wage will cost $15,000. The $17,000 increase in salary can be put towards the worker going off to study at a community college, or even a university. Whether they choose to be full time or part time students is up to their choosing, however this method allows for the individual to develop into a better being and casts away the issue of disinclined workers as only the motivated individuals' educations will be taken care of, through grade requirements that should be set. 

Several companies have already implemented such program, but it needs to be more widespread. Community colleges offer factory-specific training programs with a number of automotive manufacturers. By the time the student graduates, they will have a job waiting for them as they replace a retired worker at the plant. Mercedes-Benz partnered with Shelton State Community College and Volkswagen with Chattanooga State Community College in order to place students on a clear pathway from college to employment at the partner's factory (Kelly 11). Kelly's research shows that the initial investment to create these programs cost $1.6 million and $16 million for Mercedes and Volkswagen respectively. Although Mercedes did not disclose their job placement, Volkswagen hired all 13 of the students that took the job-specific course. 

The problem revolving around businesses paying for worker's education is disinclined workers because they have no drive and fluctuate between jobs because there is no signed contract that obligates them to stay. Disinclined workers are comprised mostly of teenagers and individuals with a high school diploma or less because they either need a temporary job for spending money, or if they are older individuals they are working for who pays the most. I have been a disinclined worker for my past two jobs that I have held as I just needed them for spending money with no intention staying with the company. While working for PopCulture LLC, I started at minimum wage as a salesperson, however within 6 months, I had raises that accumulated to $10 an hour. Now the company planned for me to stay with them long term and the raises were meant to entice me to stay with them, however I left because I came to study in Columbia. Although this may sound as a reasonable excuse to leave, the company paid me to stay, but I still left. No business would want to pay for a workers education and not hire them because their investment would have been a failure. A loyal skilled worker is an asset for a company, meaning that they want to use them as efficiently as possible until they cannot any more.

To solve the issue of disinclined workers is to place GPA requirements on the student workers and also create a contract binding them to work for the company for a certain number of years. There were some requirements that the students had to abide to in order to receive funding for their education. Kelly shares, "At Shelton State, the amount of a student's tuition paid by Mercedes-Benz varies each semester. In a student's first term, Mercedes-Benz pays 65 percent of tuition. By terms four through seven, a student with a GPA above 3.0 receives 100 percent tuition assistance, while a student with a GPA below 3.0 receives only 50 percent tuition assistance." (Kelly) These workers in training were not allowed to goof off if they wanted to stay in college for free and get the job they set out to get. The same principle should be seen in all companies that will implement this form of creating better workers by making education free. 

In order to make education be easily accessible for all, the government should offer tax breaks to companies that pay tuition costs for developing workers. The tax cut should not be meant to incentivize the business to follow the course of action, but instead compensate for it. When more individuals are sent to college to get a better education and get better jobs, they positively influence the economy. They not only increase consumer spending, but they increase the intelligence of the community, and increase the socio-economic conditions of that community as well. The government has used tax breaks to incentivize companies to do things before and business did not follow through as planned, however just as the student must meet the requirements to get college funding, the business must provide that funding in order to get the tax break. 

The American dream is not worrying everyday about the struggle to provide for yourself or your family. It is not worrying about having enough money for food, for housing, for bills. It is not watching your child grow up and face the same conditions that you faced every step in your life. There is a class of people that are struggling to make ends meet and the government and business need to work together to protect these individuals. It is the government's responsibility to protect those that cannot protect themselves from harsh economic conditions, and it is the business' obligation to hire and properly pay workers. Businesses should pay employees' tuitions in order to create better workers and government should compensate the businesses for bettering the economy by offering tax breaks to those that do pay for higher education.

