http://www.wsj.com/articles/better-than-raising-the-minimum-wage-1432249927
By
Warren Buffett
May 21, 2015 7:12 p.m. ET
1028 COMMENTS
The American Dream promises that a combination of education, hard work and
good behavior can move any citizen from humble beginnings to at least
reasonable success. And for many, that promise has been fulfilled. At the
extreme, we have the Forbes 400, most of whom did not come from privileged
backgrounds.
Recently, however, the economic rewards flowing to people with specialized
talents have grown dramatically faster than those going to equally decent men
and women possessing more commonplace skills. In 1982, the first year the
Forbes 400 was compiled, those listed had a combined net worth of $93
billion. Today, the 400 possess $2.3 trillion, up 2,400% in slightly more
than three decades, a period in which the median household income rose only
about 180%.
Meanwhile, a huge number of their fellow citizens have been living the
American Nightmare—behaving well and working hard but barely getting by. In
1982, 15% of Americans were living below the poverty level; in 2013 the
proportion was nearly the same, a dismaying 14.5%. In recent decades, our
country’s rising tide has not lifted the boats of the poor.
No conspiracy lies behind this depressing fact: The poor are most definitely
not poor because the rich are rich. Nor are the rich undeserving. Most of
them have contributed brilliant innovations or managerial expertise to America
’s well-being. We all live far better because of Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Sam
Walton and the like.
Instead, this widening gap is an inevitable consequence of an advanced
market-based economy. Think back to the agrarian America of only 200 years
ago. Most jobs could then be ably performed by most people. In a world where
only primitive machinery and animals were available to aid farmers, the
difference in productivity between the most talented among them and those
with ordinary skills was modest.
Many other jobs of that time could also be carried out by almost any willing
worker. True, some laborers would outdo others in intelligence or hustle, but
the market value of their output would not differ much from that of the less
talented.
Visualize an overlay graphic that positioned the job requirements of that day
atop the skills of the early American labor force. Those two elements of
employment would have lined up reasonably well. Not today. A comparable
overlay would leave much of the labor force unmatched to the universe of
attractive jobs.
That mismatch is neither the fault of the market system nor the fault of the
disadvantaged individuals. It is simply a consequence of an economic engine
that constantly requires more high-order talents while reducing the need for
commodity-like tasks.
The remedy usually proposed for this mismatch is education. Indeed, a
top-notch school system available to all is hugely important. But even with
the finest educational system in the world, a significant portion of the
population will continue, in a nation of great abundance, to earn no more
than a bare subsistence.
To see why that is true, imagine we lived in a sports-based economy. In such
a marketplace, I would be a flop. You could supply me with the world’s best
instruction, and I could endlessly strive to improve my skills. But, alas, on
the gridiron or basketball court I would never command even a minimum wage.
The brutal truth is that an advanced economic system, whether it be geared to
physical or mental skills, will leave a great many people behind.
In my mind, the country’s economic policies should have two main objectives.
First, we should wish, in our rich society, for every person who is willing
to work to receive income that will provide him or her a decent lifestyle.
Second, any plan to do that should not distort our market system, the key
element required for growth and prosperity.
That second goal crumbles in the face of any plan to sizably increase the
minimum wage. I may wish to have all jobs pay at least $15 an hour. But that
minimum would almost certainly reduce employment in a major way, crushing
many workers possessing only basic skills. Smaller increases, though
obviously welcome, will still leave many hardworking Americans mired in
poverty.
The better answer is a major and carefully crafted expansion of the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC), which currently goes to millions of low-income
workers. Payments to eligible workers diminish as their earnings increase.
But there is no disincentive effect: A gain in wages always produces a gain
in overall income. The process is simple: You file a tax return, and the
government sends you a check.
In essence, the EITC rewards work and provides an incentive for workers to
improve their skills. Equally important, it does not distort market forces,
thereby maximizing employment.
The existing EITC needs much improvement. Fraud is a big problem; penalties
for it should be stiffened. There should be widespread publicity that workers
can receive free and convenient filing help. An annual payment is now the
rule; monthly installments would make more sense, since they would discourage
people from taking out loans while waiting for their refunds to come through.
Dollar amounts should be increased, particularly for those earning the least.
There is no perfect system, and some people, of course, are unable or
unwilling to work. But the goal of the EITC—a livable income for everyone
who works—is both appropriate and achievable for a great and prosperous
nation. Let’s replace the American Nightmare with an American Promise:
America will deliver a decent life for anyone willing to work.
Mr. Buffett is chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.