Updated: 49 a few minutes ago Published: 49 a few minutes ago

You may have voted for Ballot Measure 1to raise Alaska’s minimum wage and establish the first sick leave requirement in the state, because you believe every person should be able to earn a living wage. You may have voted against it because you don’t want to burden already struggling small businesses. These are two good reasons. In finding the right balance between the two, there is one aspect that I don’t see much discussion about.

I think everyone can agree that all Alaskans would ideally earn a living wage. No one is against the concept of not starving, right? Furthermore, I don’t think most of us worry much about the impact of ballot measures on international mega-corporations. The choice depends on the burden on Alaska little businesses.

When small businesses pay money, they want and need to benefit. On its face, Ballot Measure 1 represents a cost with no benefit. Employers receive less, employees receive more. Why on earth would a small business vote for this, let alone support it?

Suppose a person is paid $20 for an hour of work. She spends it at a nearby cafe for a drink and a snack. The cafe owner spends it on beans from a local roaster. The roaster spends it on a restaurant dinner, and the restaurant owner puts it aside to buy more salmon the next morning. That $20 generated $100 of local economic value in 24 hours.

This is an economic concept called “money speed.” It’s a quick $20 bill, and it’s very good for the local economy.

(Alaskans supported a measure to raise the minimum wage and establish sick leave. Today, employers are trying to make it work.)

Compare that to Alaskans for whom all income goes to necessities. People who are simply struggling to survive also don’t contribute much to the local economy. Then compare it to the other end of the spectrum, with millionaires who will use that $20 to increase their self-worth, literally. deletion that of the economy.

There is a tangible benefit. As Ballot Measure 1 takes effect, wages will increase for our friends and neighbors, the people we see every day. Many of those who previously struggled will have a few extra dollars to spend on things like coffee, restaurants and locally sourced pet supplies.

Sales revenue will increase for most of these same small businesses, including mine. I will use it to increase salaries further to retain the best people and the cycle will start again.

Twelve years ago, The Americans were asked how much more should a CEO be paid than their average worker. Their responses were on average 6.7 times higher. They believed that in a perfect world, the highest-paid employee would earn about seven times what the average worker earns. Not the lowest, the average. When asked what they really think about the pay ratio was Twelve years ago, they estimated it was a 30-to-1 ratio.

Ask yourself this question. How much do you think it should be?

In the 1950s and 1960s, America saw the rise of the largest middle class the world had ever seen. At the time, the pay ratio of the CEO to the average employee was about 20 to 1. In 1990, it was 56 to 1. In 2022, this number was on average 350 to 1.

Jeff Bezos does not shop at my store. But my friend at the café comes by my house after her shift. I voted according to my conscience, but also according to my wallet. I really think it will be good for all of us.

Mark Robokoff lives in Anchorage and owns AK Bark, a pet supply store focused on Alaska-made products.

• • •

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a wide range of views. To submit a part for review, send an email comment(at)adn.com. Send submissions under 200 words to [email protected] Or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and comments here.