Minimum or Living Wage? Framing Effects on Preferences and Expectations

Abstract

ABSTRACTLiving wage campaigns are widely studied, yet less is known about how the frame differs from the minimum wage regarding public opinion and preferences. Such framing effects hold policy implications, as in 2016, UK Government changed the name of the regulatory wage floor to a living wage, concurrent with calls for welfare benefits cuts. This study explores how using the frame of ‘living’ rather than ‘minimum’ wage changes public socioeconomic expectations and preferences, and examines how a proposed wage increase, ranging from 50p to £6, comparatively influences public support for welfare spending. Methodologically, a sample from the United Kingdom's general population was recruited to participate in a series of online survey experiments. Treatment frames were randomly administered, followed by questions regarding the regulatory wage floor, and socioeconomic and redistributive preferences. Findings suggest introducing the term ‘living wage’ results in (1) higher expected real wages and unemployment effects; (2) raises the preferred wage floor for the United Kingdom and London; (3) greater desire for separate regional wage floors and (4) modest evidence suggesting that a living wage frame increases support for welfare spending. Interestingly, a proposed monetary wage floor increase had a null effect on welfare preferences when calling for a low or modest increase. However, a substantial proposed increase of over 50% led to a sharp reduction in support for benefits spending.