Minimum wage has not tracked productivity. People who must rely on these paltry wages are living at near-poverty level and with high unemployment and weak worker rights, it is difficult to demand fair compensation from employers.
>In 1968, the real value of the minimum wage was $10.65, so that, in fact, an increase today to a $10.50 federal minimum would not even bring the minimum wage fully back to the 1968 standard. Moreover, since 1968, average U.S. labor productivity has risen by 135 percent. Thus, if, since 1968, the U.S. minimum wage had only just kept up with inflation and average labor productivity growth, the minimum wage today would be $25.00.
Workforce is not responsible for productivity increases... technology is.
Also, minimum wage is a terrible measure to use here. Look at median wages, or even look at the upper end of the bottom quintile. Less than 3% of the country's workforce earns at or below minimum wage. [http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012.htm]
Yep, this is why I'm against min wage. When I used to pick Mexican guys up as a landscraper in college, they wouldn't even get in the truck for less than $14 per hour.
People think that employers would take advantage of workers without min wage, and it's just not true (most of the time). In fact, the min wage enables them to do just that now since real market wages are above min wage laws.
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/resources/Minimum_Wa...
>In 1968, the real value of the minimum wage was $10.65, so that, in fact, an increase today to a $10.50 federal minimum would not even bring the minimum wage fully back to the 1968 standard. Moreover, since 1968, average U.S. labor productivity has risen by 135 percent. Thus, if, since 1968, the U.S. minimum wage had only just kept up with inflation and average labor productivity growth, the minimum wage today would be $25.00.