1. How will each choice (to raise the MW or to keep it the same) serve the higher order principles of our society?
2. Which option will be the best result for the most people?
3. Is there a way in which we can have more than one right answer to appease various perspectives and still serve those that depend on the minimum wage for survival?
It is vitally important that policy makers consider the Ethical Principles Screen as they create social policy at the macro level that stands to affect and influence millions of lives. It is crucial to examine how each choice, raising or maintaining the minimum wage, will affect the lives of constituents in all of the ways outlined in the Ethical Principles Screen. With that information and detailed, bipartisan discussion, lawmakers can hopefully come to an agreement about what will serve the people in the most holistic manner possible, rather than serve their own political interests.
This brings me to my next question, sparked by Rawls's Distributive Justice Theory. Policy makers must figure out which choice will yield the best result for the most people. One way of figuring this out is to answer question one honestly, and another way of doing this is looking at hard data, so there is no emotion or politics involved.
My third question is asked as a compromise of sorts. Can there be more than one right answer? Of course you must draw a line in the sand and say decide to raise or maintain the minimum wage, however policy makers could also choose to do so in a certain time frame, like at the beginning of the next fiscal year. Or perhaps there could be an amendment to this bill that states that for all people working at a job for over 90 days, the minimum wages increases. There are options, and policy makers should always consider everything so as to serve their constituents in the most holistic manner possible.
