Fight for $15 is a movement aiming to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 across the board. The movement gained massive traction during the Sanders campaign, and has touted impressive victories at the local and state levels.

Source: Common Dreams.

Fight for 15 is proposed as a solution to the fact that a large portion of entry-level minimum wage workers are living below the poverty line. And no, the majority of minimum wage workers are not teenagers. Supplemental income and women-led households with children are the main share of these workers. Many people on the right argue that this arrangement is just because it motivates people to want to work harder, and get an education. However, that line of thinking couldn’t be any more short-sighted.

Firstly, even once workers’ wages are raised above $7.25, they may still be living below the poverty line. Someone working 40 hrs/week 52 weeks a year would be making $15, 080. According to the federal poverty line, a worker needs to be making $11, 770 to be living at the poverty threshold. This number is higher for a family of 2, at about $15, 930, for a family of 3 it’s $20, 090 and so on. Adjusting for inflation, these numbers would be a little higher today. But as mentioned previously, the minimum wage does not primarily affect teenagers, but breadwinners. Which means that raising the minimum wage would disproportionately benefit single parents, or 10.8 of the beneficiaries.

The argument still applies to those workers who are providing supplemental income. Stagnating wages have long been eating up the real income of working and middle class families, so raising wages would be an important step in addressing this.

Secondly, not everyone should be forced to go to college. Many people have different skill-sets to offer the economy that are different than those required by colleges and universities. Also, minimum wage workers, and similar earners are still necessary for the functioning of the economy – so we need people to fill those positions.

The argument of the right is also a bit of a paradox. On one hand, the right wants smaller gov’t, which more likely than not, requires gutting social safety nets. On the other, they are against workers organizing to raise their wages so that they can earn enough to be above the poverty line – thereby ensuring they aren’t in need of government assistance.

Source: Befrois.

In either case, Fight for $15 is representative of a broader socioeconomic problem. Wealth inequality is at a historic point. In fact, inequality levels are so great that the only other time it was so extreme was right before the Great Depression. Contrary to what trickle-down rightists will tell you, the rich have gotten richer, but everyone else has not. The productivity of the average worker has risen substantially within the past several decades, but pay has not proportionally risen along with that.

So, the left is correct in identifying the issue of stagnating wages, and fighting to fix the problem. And a bigger picture view might hold that the fight for higher wages should also include a renewed focus on the force of organized labor.

One valid criticism of Fight for $15 might be to point out why a high-school McDonald’s fry cook should be making a couple bucks less per hour than an experienced EMT. In contrast, studies point out there should be a spillover effect of rising wages from this that would benefit tens of millions, but there is a risk that without proper labor representation, these gains are too idealist.

A fundamental cause of stagnating wages has been the fall of unions. Is it a coincidence that the strongest growth in the middle class occurred in the mid 30s and into the 40s when 1 in 3 Americans were involved in unions? For the decades since then, wages have stagnated, and union membership and activity has fallen substantially. Of course, anti-labor policies by the government probably have something to do with this.

Historically, organized labor has been an absolutely crucial force in improving work conditions for all. Much of today’s worker protections and benefits are tied back to the efforts of unions.

The left is normally willing to point out the successes of European countries, particularly the Nordic countries, which have implemented a host of public programs that give the public greater social benefits, and have consistently ranked as the best in the world according to several metrics.

When it comes to the minimum wage, it isn’t mentioned very often that the Nordic countries or some countries in Europe do not actually have a federal minimum wage. But the right will, and they use it to support their argument of abolishing the minimum wage. The problem with the right’s argument however, is that they are simultaneously anti-union and anti-minimum wage. In other words, they espouse an unapologetically anti-worker agenda.

Source: Unbiased America.

Luckily, the facts are not on their side. Yes, it is true that Switzerland does not have a minimum wage, but the market isn’t exactly setting wages either. Switzerland’s organized labor negotiates fair wages across industries. The Swiss recently rejected a proposal that would have established a $25 federal minimum wage, but at the same time, most Swiss workers (90% of them) are already making more than the proposed $25. The need for a federal minimum wage is not necessary when labor negotiates directly with employers to set fair wages.

The same can be said for the Nordic countries. Take a look at McDonald’s workers in Norway.

An 18-20 year just starting out at McDonald’s in Norway will earn 126.98 Kroner/hr, which when converted to US currency is approximately $15.99. But this must be adjusted for what $15.99 buys you in Norway as compared to what the same amount would buy in the US on average, so that you can get a fair look at the comparison we are making. This adjustment is called purchasing power parity, or PPP.

The easiest way to adjust for PPP is to divide the consumer price index (CPI) plus rent of the US with the country you are trying to compare it to. In this case, we are comparing Norway and the US. The CPI plus rent in Norway is 107.93. In the US, it’s 57.93. Right off the bat, you can tell that the cost of living of living in Norway is nearly double that of the US. So, the calculation is as follows:

57.93/107.93 = 0.536488…

To be exact, the cost of living in Norway is approximately 46.35% (1-.536488) higher there than here.

So, you should multiply 0.536488… with $15.99, which gives you 8.57844… Which basically means that if an American 18-20-year-old just starting out at McDonald’s was earning at the Norwegian level, they’d be making $8.58/hr.

Sidenote: it’s actually very quick and easy to do these calculations on your own. I recommend you try it too. I’m a complete dumbass, and even I can do it. Remember:

1. convert currency amount to USD.

2. CPI+rent USA/CPI+rent X country = R [ratio].

3. and finish by multiplying R with converted USD amount.

After 4 months on the job, workers are promised a raise to 156.03 Kroner/hr, which when adjusted for PPP, equals about $10.54/hr. Even more, 18-20 year-olds are probably making more than $10.54/hr because they get paid extra for weekends and evenings.

If you notice the trend here, it is that even when adjusting for the cost of living in Norway, their youngest workers are making more than our youngest in the US, and even some who are working above minimum wage.

Fair wages? Check. Badassery? Double-check. Source: Cloudinary.

It’s no coincidence that in Norway, union membership is substantially higher than in the US. 52% of workers are union members, as compared to 10.7% over here. But among the Nordic countries, Norway is actually on the low end. In the other Nordic countries, union membership is 66.8% for Denmark, 67.3% for Sweden, 69% for Finland and an admirable 86.4% for Iceland.

It should be addressed that union membership in Switzerland is currently about 15.7%. The reason why workers there still do well, even with low union membership, is because they have had a historically active system of collective bargaining with their employers, and effective collective agreements guaranteed by the federal government. Switzerland also still has large union organizations, that have worker councils which engage in collective bargaining with industry leaders on an annual basis. Thus, Switzerland, and Norway, as well as Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland – are all prime examples of what the power of organized labor can accomplish and maintain.

It should go without saying, that unions negotiating fair wages has not resulted in mass unemployment nor other broad economic problems in these countries. They are all rich nations with strong middle classes, and low unemployment, that aren’t experiencing the stagnating wage crisis Americans are facing – as the social progress index would indicate.

In closing, yes, raising the minimum wage is the right general direction, but the best way to do it is to make the unions great again.