'Do you want to reduce poverty?'

Special to the Daily Mail

A Washington Post headline says, "Economists agree: Raising the minimum wage reduces poverty."

A favorite quote, remembered more than 60 years, was from an economist. He entertained listeners with bits of humor. The subject, normally sleep inducing, kept us awake. One of his comments was, "If you placed all the economists in the world end to end, they would still reach no conclusion."

These economists approach the subject of the "Minimum Wage" discussion from a different direction. Normally, the argument is whether increasing the minimum wage level raises or lowers the unemployment level. Some say yes, some say no. The author of the article and headline is Mike Konozal.

He reports, "raising the minimum wage 10 percent (from $7.25 to near $8) would reduce the number of people living in poverty 2.4 percent." With this estimate, the proposed increase to $10.10 an hour "would reduce the number of people living in poverty by 4.6 million -- also boost the incomes of those at the 10th percentile (lowest 10 percent by $1,700.)

"That's a significant increase in the quality of life for our worst off that doesn't require the government to tax and spend a single additional dollar."

A stronger statement summarizes, "a higher minimum wage will lead to a significant boost in incomes for the worst off in the bottom 30th percent of income, while having no impact on the median household.

Inequality of income, opportunity, and tax subsidies enter into attitudes about this issue. Productivity is up and wages remained almost stagnant in terms of buying power while "minimum" wage standards have lost purchasing power.

One study reports, "Companies that pay their chief executives the most see the worst results for their shareholders -- with an average annual shareholder loss of $1.4 billion at the companies with the highest CEO pay."

"Fifty six percent of total tax subsidies go to just four industries: financial, utilities, telecommunications, and oil, gas and pipelines." "Government hands more than $1 trillion to the wealthy while the deficit is $642 billion."

From1968 to 2012, labor productivity increased 124 percent, the minimum wage fell 31 percent in value and total wages have barely increased.

With automation, preassembly, and technology, today's worker must have more training and responsibility, yet does the work of several employees, who worked just as hard but produced less. Wait a minute! Productivity is up, wages have remained almost stagnant in terms of buying power while "minimum" wage standards have lost purchasing power, but the top incomes, and profits have increased markedly. Isn't something wrong here?

Is it fair that all gains from technology and advances in many fields go to profits and salaries for the top one percent of taxpayers (including some who pay little or no tax)?

Our middle class is rapidly disappearing and economists and others are concerned that our "way of life" is included. Wealth is being redistributed upward, not down to workers.

Many economists, political leaders, citizens, religious leaders, and educators point out the very top of our 1 percent are receiving an unfair share of subsidies and tax advantages.

An estimate of the effect of this proposal is that it would raise wages of 28 million workers by $35 billion and reduce income inequality without significantly raising prices.

Some 3.5 million individuals would be removed from food stamp rolls, including some veterans and many part-time employees of large companies whose employees depend on food stamps.

Our economy would grow and more taxes would be collected. If we invested in the education of children, training citizens for jobs that exist and are unfilled, building infrastructure, repairing that which is presently neglected, our economy would grow.

A simple answer with great potential is before us. If you are one who has more than median (half above, half below) income per household for Vernon County in 2009, $30,021, up to $35,794 in 2012, you might consider helping those less fortunate than you.

If you are on the lower side, take a look at how those who represent you do so as they vote.