Peter Baker’s long read (13 April) on the minimum wage and US living wage misses two important points. First, during Barak Obama’s presidency, the US national wage was increased only twice and this actually triggered a wave of living-wage campaigns and galvanised the campaign for $15 an hour. This rate was not costed, or calculated but used as a rallying call for various campaigns during 2013-16. By 2017, more than 40 cities and US states had set their own local wages, ranging from $8.50 to $16 per hour. In most cases, the higher wage was phased in over several years.

As Stephanie Luce, a long-term commentator on the US living wage, commented: “The fight for $15 has blurred the line between the ‘living wage’ campaigns and the minimum wage. Now, the standard wage demand is for $15 per hour, which is higher than the federal poverty line for a worker with a family (about $11.70 per hour in 2016). While $15 is still not a ‘living wage’ for workers in many cities, it is a major jump from what it had been.”

Second, regarding debates about loss of jobs in the US (and the UK), we have to remember that predictions that the national minimum wage would decimate employment have not materialised. If anything, the NMW is arguably more likely to stimulate demand for jobs by giving the low-paid more spending power, and has other positive impacts like lower turnover and higher productivity.

Peter Prowse

Professor in human resource management and employment relations, Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University

Tony Dobbins

Professor of HR management and employment relations, University of Birmingham

• Your Long read considers the pros and cons of a minimum wage. In the real world, a minimum wage is pointless without a corresponding maximum income – and the recognition that, in a civilised society, we all have to live in a cooperative culture. We have to accept that it is not the size of our wage packets that matters: it’s producing the consumables we want and need. It is not size of one’s income that matters; it’s the fact that someone with more money can buy up everything before anyone else is aware there is a sale. The answer is not equality. The answer is agreeing the dimensions of inequality.

Martin London

Henllan, Denbighshire



• The first letter was amended on 18 April to add a second signature



• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters