Maybe you know a family like the Williamsons. Despite two full-time incomes, Mary and Jeffrey Williamson cannot adequately provide for their family of five, which also includes their teenage daughter, Angelica, their middle child, Jake, and their toddler, Marcus. Looking back, they realize how good they had it just a couple years ago. Mary worked part-time and took care of the kids, and Jeffrey had a union construction job that paid him a wage they could live on. But the virtual collapse of the construction industry cost Jeffrey his job, and left him with little recourse but to settle for a minimum wage job as a cashier at a grocery store. Mary was fortunate that the diner where she worked part-time as a waitress was able to start giving her full-time hours, but she too makes only minimum wage, even with her tips.
If the Williamsons were members of your church, how would you expect your congregation to respond in their time of need? Presumably, you would walk with them and find creative ways to help get them back on their feet. After all, that’s what the community of the Church is all about. The pastor might offer temporary financial assistance, a few members might tap into their business networks to help find Jeffrey a decent job, and other members might volunteer to watch the Williamsons' kids after school while Mary took an extra shift at the diner a couple days a week.
If you open up a newspaper these days, you don’t have to look far to find a story on unemployment or underemployment. The deflating reality is that the Williamsons are not an outlier. They are just one of hundreds of families in your surrounding community who find themselves in a constant struggle to make ends meet. You wonder to yourself, “How is our church supposed to respond to all these families?” Your church doesn’t have the resources to help everyone. But more importantly, it’s clear that there is a much larger issue at hand. There’s no question that your church should continue to support the Williamsons however it can. But shouldn’t the church also be asking how it’s possible that a family with two full-time incomes has to choose between paying rent and having enough to eat this month?
If you take a closer look at the minimum wage, the federal poverty line, and real cost-of-living figures in Illinois, it wouldn’t take you long to realize that things don’t add up quite right. Since Mary and Jeffrey each work full-time at minimum wage ($8.25 in Illinois), they’re earning roughly $34,320 a year before taxes. According the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal poverty line for a family of five is $26,170. As a result, the Williamsons don’t qualify for public assistance programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). But wait a minute…we already know that their $34,000 a year isn’t enough to get by. Needless to say, the federal poverty line is no longer an accurate metric. So what does it really mean to be ‘in poverty?’ Or to put it another way, how much would Mary and Jeffrey actually have to earn to be self-sufficient in providing for their family of five? According to the Social IMPACT Research Center, Mary and Jeffrey would need to bring in over $60,000 together—nearly twice what they can earn at the current minimum wage. To put that into perspective, they would each need to work full-time at a rate of $14.25 an hour just to earn enough to pay for the basics for their family. And I do mean the basics. That means rent, groceries, health care, clothing, childcare, school books and supplies, and transportation. We’re not talking about vacations, after-school tutoring, savings for college, birthday gifts, summer camp, or even a family night out to the movies.
Some of the folks who oppose raising the minimum wage in Illinois have voiced concern that the added expense to businesses that employ minimum-wage workers would force them to cut jobs, which, at the end of the day, only further exacerbates the problem. This is a valid concern and a logical conclusion to draw. But, as it turns out, a recent national study comparing job growth in bordering counties with differing minimum wages has effectively proven that increases in minimum wage do not affect job growth. Additionally, several other studies have demonstrated that raising the minimum wage actually saves businesses money (by reducing employee turnover and thus the cost of training new employees), generates new revenue for businesses (by increasing worker productivity), and creates a better work environment (by significantly elevating employee morale).
From an economic standpoint, there is also strong evidence that suggests we should raise the minimum wage. It's been estimated that raising the minimum wage would generate over $1 billion in new consumer spending in Illinois over the next four years. Raising the minimum wage means putting more money in the pockets of families like the Williamsons who will turn around and spend that money every month, primarily on goods and services in their own local communities. And if that’s not convincing, I imagine most of us would agree that minimum wage should, at the very least, grow at the same rate as our economy. However, as our economy has expanded, minimum wage has lagged behind. If minimum wage had simply kept pace with inflation over the past forty years, it would be over $10 an hour today.
No doubt there are some convincing reasons to support a raise in minimum wage. It would ease the burden on financially vulnerable individuals and families, it would benefit businesses in a number of ways, and it would pump some much-needed new revenue into our flailing state economy. These are indispensible arguments we should bring to the public square to bolster our appeal. But if you consider yourself a person of faith, I really shouldn’t have to work so hard to convince you to support an increase in the minimum wage. When it comes down to it, we’re talking about standing with some of our most vulnerable neighbors, like the Williamsons, insisting that their stories be heard and their lives valued the same as yours and mine.
~ryan wallace
Go to Raise Illinois to learn more and take action.
If the Williamsons were members of your church, how would you expect your congregation to respond in their time of need? Presumably, you would walk with them and find creative ways to help get them back on their feet. After all, that’s what the community of the Church is all about. The pastor might offer temporary financial assistance, a few members might tap into their business networks to help find Jeffrey a decent job, and other members might volunteer to watch the Williamsons' kids after school while Mary took an extra shift at the diner a couple days a week.
If you open up a newspaper these days, you don’t have to look far to find a story on unemployment or underemployment. The deflating reality is that the Williamsons are not an outlier. They are just one of hundreds of families in your surrounding community who find themselves in a constant struggle to make ends meet. You wonder to yourself, “How is our church supposed to respond to all these families?” Your church doesn’t have the resources to help everyone. But more importantly, it’s clear that there is a much larger issue at hand. There’s no question that your church should continue to support the Williamsons however it can. But shouldn’t the church also be asking how it’s possible that a family with two full-time incomes has to choose between paying rent and having enough to eat this month?
If you take a closer look at the minimum wage, the federal poverty line, and real cost-of-living figures in Illinois, it wouldn’t take you long to realize that things don’t add up quite right. Since Mary and Jeffrey each work full-time at minimum wage ($8.25 in Illinois), they’re earning roughly $34,320 a year before taxes. According the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the federal poverty line for a family of five is $26,170. As a result, the Williamsons don’t qualify for public assistance programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). But wait a minute…we already know that their $34,000 a year isn’t enough to get by. Needless to say, the federal poverty line is no longer an accurate metric. So what does it really mean to be ‘in poverty?’ Or to put it another way, how much would Mary and Jeffrey actually have to earn to be self-sufficient in providing for their family of five? According to the Social IMPACT Research Center, Mary and Jeffrey would need to bring in over $60,000 together—nearly twice what they can earn at the current minimum wage. To put that into perspective, they would each need to work full-time at a rate of $14.25 an hour just to earn enough to pay for the basics for their family. And I do mean the basics. That means rent, groceries, health care, clothing, childcare, school books and supplies, and transportation. We’re not talking about vacations, after-school tutoring, savings for college, birthday gifts, summer camp, or even a family night out to the movies.
Some of the folks who oppose raising the minimum wage in Illinois have voiced concern that the added expense to businesses that employ minimum-wage workers would force them to cut jobs, which, at the end of the day, only further exacerbates the problem. This is a valid concern and a logical conclusion to draw. But, as it turns out, a recent national study comparing job growth in bordering counties with differing minimum wages has effectively proven that increases in minimum wage do not affect job growth. Additionally, several other studies have demonstrated that raising the minimum wage actually saves businesses money (by reducing employee turnover and thus the cost of training new employees), generates new revenue for businesses (by increasing worker productivity), and creates a better work environment (by significantly elevating employee morale).
From an economic standpoint, there is also strong evidence that suggests we should raise the minimum wage. It's been estimated that raising the minimum wage would generate over $1 billion in new consumer spending in Illinois over the next four years. Raising the minimum wage means putting more money in the pockets of families like the Williamsons who will turn around and spend that money every month, primarily on goods and services in their own local communities. And if that’s not convincing, I imagine most of us would agree that minimum wage should, at the very least, grow at the same rate as our economy. However, as our economy has expanded, minimum wage has lagged behind. If minimum wage had simply kept pace with inflation over the past forty years, it would be over $10 an hour today.
No doubt there are some convincing reasons to support a raise in minimum wage. It would ease the burden on financially vulnerable individuals and families, it would benefit businesses in a number of ways, and it would pump some much-needed new revenue into our flailing state economy. These are indispensible arguments we should bring to the public square to bolster our appeal. But if you consider yourself a person of faith, I really shouldn’t have to work so hard to convince you to support an increase in the minimum wage. When it comes down to it, we’re talking about standing with some of our most vulnerable neighbors, like the Williamsons, insisting that their stories be heard and their lives valued the same as yours and mine.
~ryan wallace
Go to Raise Illinois to learn more and take action.
