Minimum Wage

In his article (May 15), “Minimum Wage Hike’s Real Payoff,” David M. Gordon enumerates various benefits that he thinks would follow an increase in the minimum wage to $4.45 from the current $3.35. Gordon dismisses arguments against the increase as “ ‘tough-minded’ preference for economic efficiency over economic decency.”

According to Gordon’s scenario, rising wages would force firms to modernize, increase productivity, increase our competitive position, then our net export, and finally total U.S. employment. Instead of forcing low-skilled workers out of the market, according to Gordon, the higher wages would stimulate employment by making more money available for consumption, which would boost aggregate demand.

If the minimum wage can be set by legislation, then it is hard to see how Gordon’s proposal demonstrates economic decency. A $25 per hour wage would certainly be a more decent wage than he is proposing. But why stop there? Why not set it at $100 an hour and make everybody really well off?

Perhaps Gordon has some doubts about the validity of his analysis, or perhaps he suspects that the consequences would be so obvious that anybody could see what most economists have always known and what Times Staff Writer Oswald Johnston’s article (May 12) demonstrates: “Base-Pay Hike Will Hurt Poor, More Experts Saying.”

ERNST F. GHERMANN

Canoga Park