Minimum wage? Minimum sense!

Statement in opposition to Question 6, on the November 2004 ballot:

This constitutional amendment would actually increase poverty in Nevada, rather than fight it.

Suffering the most would be single mothers with little education, and other unskilled workers who are just entering the job market.

Today, such entry-level employees are paid not just with wages, but also the chance to learn new job skills. With those new skills—and the work habits they learn—they are able to climb the job ladder and make better lives for themselves and their families.

But if government forces entry-level wages artificially higher, fewer businesses will be able to hire these unskilled workers. That’s because their total cost to the company—their pay, plus their training costs—will often be greater than these workers contribute to the company. So some workers will be let go, and others will never be hired.

Nevada has long been known as a state where businesses enjoy economic opportunities they cannot find elsewhere. But this constitutional amendment would end all that.

It would suddenly place Nevada at a big economic disadvantage to many other states—states without these high wage requirements. Under this amendment, wages paid in Nevada must, from now on, exceed the federal minimum wage by about $1 an hour. This would seriously damage Nevada businesses—especially small mom and pop businesses, which usually have fewer resources to work with.

This proposal also would discriminate against non-union companies—which means against the great majority of small businesses in Nevada. It would give labor union officials the power, under the law, to permit union companies to hire new employees at rates below the new minimum wage. This is unfair to both companies and union members. It is also a virtual invitation to union corruption.

The key to fighting poverty—and to achieving higher wages for all workers—is long-term economic growth. Artificially higher wages imposed by government will only obstruct such growth.

This proposed constitutional amendment should be rejected.