Michelle Kennedy's Without a Net Captures a Life Most Don't Think About

The minimum wage seems to always be a topic of major debate for a long time. Many people see the minimum wage as too little to support a family or even the person. Some say raising the minimum wage would have no affect on the economy and those who are below the poverty line; it would only costs companies more money to provide the same work. Is the minimum wage an acceptable amount for someone to survive on? The answer to this question has been researched, debated and protested for and against and it is clear to see that the minimum wage needs to be raised to an acceptable amount for someone to survive.

In the book Without a Net, Michelle Kennedy writes about trying to survive life through many hardships, including raising three young children, with a waitress job at a local pub. Though being a waitress is not considered a minimum wage job because most of the money made is through tips. Although, one begins to think when reading this true story, what if Kennedy did not rake in tips and only had a minimum wage job busing the tables? Could she have supported not just herself, but the rest of her family? She spends most of the story living out of her car and searching for a place to live while struggling to find a decent meal sometimes and constantly second guessing her previous decisions.

The minimum wage required by the federal government today is a dismal $5.15 per hour, but all states are independent on what they choose minimum wage to be as long as it is over or equal to the federal regulation. For the United States, the minimum wage has not increased since 1998 and 17 states (and Washington D.C.) have rates that are above what is required. It is quite obvious that even the most diligent and dedicated workers can not survive on such petty pay and something must be done about this atrocity. Most of these workers are not living a healthy life and most of them, like Kennedy was, are homeless. Protests and complaints occur each year in state capitals and in Washington too raise the minimum wage. The federal government needs to recognize the wants of its citizens and give them what they want, in order to form a more perfect nation.

People today working on minimum wage find themselves in Kennedy's situation, and sometimes a lot worse when they find themselves going to bed hungry and without shelter. In an article titled "A Living Wage is Born" written by Charles Brook of the New York Amsterdam News, he quotes Joseph Wilson of CUNY Graduate Center for Working Education, when Wilson refers to the Living Wage Bill (a bill set into motion by New York to raise the minimum wage to support those who earn that salary) New York City Mayor Bloomberg: "With higher wages for low income workers, it will stimulate the economy and create jobs." Now why wouldn't a government who is supposed to cater to the needs of its people want higher wages for low-income workers and more jobs so that the economy would grow and in turn would gain that party more popularity amongst its citizens?

The article "A Blunt Instrument" published in the Economist has many arguments against the minimum wage, including why hiking the federal minimum would not affect the people in poverty anyway. It states that raising the minimum wage is a bad idea for reasons such as "more high school drop-outs inspired by fatter pay-checks, less training of the employees", and most importantly it would "not do much to relieve poverty." The reasons behind these statements is in studies showing that most of the people below the poverty line do not hold a minimum wage job, but rather do not work and will not work.

Other reasons seem to be that business' when raising the minimum wage would spend less on everything else. Therefore the quality of workers and their experience would decline. Most of the minimum wage jobs are held by middle class high school teenagers and college students looking to make some extra cash. Raising the minimum wage would not affect poverty; it would just give teenagers more money to spend on sometimes ridiculous endeavors.

Mr. Neumark, a strong advocate against raising the minimum wage also disagrees and says that a minimum wage hike is just what our economy needs. Neumark claims that "increased minimum wages actually increased slightly the number of families in poverty (presumably because these workers disproportionately lost their jobs while well-off teenagers got higher wages)." Economists, those who study the economy and its effects, find this to be very true. Other advocates for raising the minimum wage argue that "once you include the "spillover" effects on workers who earn just above the minimumwage (but whose wages would rise as a result), the income gains from a hike are concentrated among poor families."

Though it is more widely agreed upon "that the higher minimumwage does not do much to relieve poverty for a plethora of more reasons than Neumark can claim. That is partly because many poor people would not gain (since they do not work); partly because some of the costs of higher minimum wages are shifted onto poor consumers; but mainly because many minimum-wage workers are not poor. Only 5% of the workforce--some 6.6m people--will gain directly from a rise in the minimumwage, and 30% of those are teenagers, many from families that are not poor."

In looking at both arguments one can conclude that it is true that most minimum wage jobs are held by students looking for a little extra dough and those who actually need a job (any job) would simply not apply themselves to get one or do not have the skills and credentials too. If the minimum wage is raised, it is very probable that the economy would not be affected. Since it would not be affected positively or negatively, there is no need to keep the minimum wage as is. Raising the minimum wage would make a profound effect on the minority who are working those jobs out of necessity and it would help them lead a better life. In Kennedy's case, if a higher minimum wage was initiated, she would have benefited from the pay-raise. She would make had more money to save after all the expenses she had, and would have been able to keep her kids at an apartment instead of sleeping in her car (a more desirable situation for them all).

Kennedy's situation was voluntary but necessary poverty. She choose the life she began to live due to the incompetence of her ex-husband Tom, and she must survive on what she knows and what she is able to do. For the time that she worked on minimum wage though, she did survive and was able to support her three children, maybe not up to the standards considered acceptable in today's world but just well enough until she attained a well-paying job and a husband that would help support her and her children. She claims that "I was really only a passing visitor to the vast land that is homelessness. I never lived in a cardboard box. Or a homeless shelter. I never had to deal with real danger, like drugs being around the children or drive-by shootings or some of the things that make homelessness a terrifying existence for many people (Kennedy 2006)." It is true, but what also is true is that if the minimum wage was higher she would have been better off, and that is a non-debatable. The minimum wage should be raised and soon, so people like Michelle Kennedy can support herself and the people she loves, her children.