C alifornia’s new $20-an-hour minimum wage for fast-food workers has again sparked a familiar debate about upward mobility. In an election year, with more voters paying attention than usual, policy debates take on added weight. This offers free-market conservatives a unique opportunity to win over persuadable voters by articulating a compelling vision of opportunity that’s framed in moral, rather than purely economic, language.

While it’s important to recognize that minimum-wage hikes can indeed have unintended consequences, conservatives should emphasize the harmful impact of the hikes on workers, a point articulated well by the American Enterprise Institute’s Beth Akers.

“It’s precisely these most vulnerable workers in our economy who are probably the ones who need the most support and are most likely to lose from these sorts of policies,” Akers said during a recent episode of Sutherland Institute’s Defending Ideas podcast. “If what we care about are the people who are most economically vulnerable. . . . these sorts of policies are actually pushing in the wrong direction.”

There’s an opportunity to gain ground in this debate by anchoring arguments to this key principle: Prioritize making the moral case for people rather than the economic case against the intervention.

Few have articulated this idea as effectively as Arthur Brooks. “Stop laboring to explain inflation cycles, consumption patterns, and the laws of supply and demand,” Brooks wrote of the minimum wage debate in his 2015 book The Conservative Heart. “Lead with your heart and offer a statement of principle.”

Conservatives will more effectively persuade others by applying this to current debates in three steps.

First, start with a broad statement that articulates shared values: Far too many Americans — roughly 37.9 million according to 2022 data from the U.S. Census Bureau — live in poverty. In the United States of America, a person’s hard work, commitment, and willingness to take advantage of new opportunities should be the foundation for building a better life for herself and her family. Too many families are still financially struggling, and many of them are working minimum-wage jobs. The policy response should focus on the best ways to help them climb the economic ladder.

Second, it’s essential to express deep concern whenever a policy limits the ability of people in poverty to achieve true upward mobility. A sudden and significant minimum-wage hike can be a deeply flawed way to help many low-income workers. There are already reports of California restaurants laying off workers, reducing hours, or turning to automation to cope with the required minimum-wage hike. A policy that harms many of the very people it’s trying to help is not a success. And that leads to the third and most crucial message: Articulate better alternatives.

Conservatives can persuasively promote tools such as the earned-income tax credit and such workforce investments as retraining and upskilling. These are more targeted interventions that foster true upward mobility through skill and career advancement.

Broader policy approaches, such as Utah’s renowned model of locating safety net and workforce-development programs in the same state agency, can also more effectively yield widespread upward mobility. So can removing government disincentives to career growth, e.g., the benefits cliff effect — which happens when accepting a raise, working more hours, or taking a new job triggers a sudden and disproportionately large cut in government benefits that makes families worse off.

These policy alternatives are especially powerful when combined with a pro-growth economic approach, something Utah consistently receives high marks for.

Rather than using government coercion to force someone’s current employer to pay him more (which may result in lost work hours or the loss of the job), investments in the human capital of these workers can more effectively help them advance in their careers.

Voters are paying additional attention this year to the political and policy debates topping the news. That makes it all the more important to articulate a vision for upward mobility that can help America’s working poor enjoy the blessings of the nation’s free-enterprise system.

Conservatives who can successfully frame that vision through a moral, principled lens — backed by sound analysis — will be more effective at persuading Americans to embrace ideas that are both pro-worker and pro–free enterprise. And this year is the perfect time to do it.