Should we raise the minimum wage? Yes or no? Fast food workers are striking and demonstrating across the country. House Republicans were unanimous in there opposition yesterday. Many fear young people will be offered fewer “starter jobs” if those jobs payed “real” wages worthy of more experienced employees. Pundits are coming down loud and clear on both sides. Too bad this is a stupid debate. Too bad so many are wasting all this time and energy, increasing rancor, fueling divisive politics, and getting nowhere fast. As usual.

Why is this a stupid debate? There are three reasons and those same reasons explain why many of the debates in your company are also stupid. 

1. They are debating the solution to a problem without first agreeing that there is a problem. 

Is there widespread agreement that we have a problem? Do most of those weighing in on the state of the minimum wage agree that income disparity is a problem? Do most believe that it is a problem that some jobs pay so little? I don’t think so. That’s the first debate that needs to occur. The President’s speech this past week discussed income disparity, substantiated that disparity, and explained the government’s role in making equal opportunity more than just rhetoric. He also touched on why income disparity is a problem. Then he went on to solutions. And that’s where the debate always seems to reside.

Why is it that most people jump on the solutions debate? I think the answer is pretty simple. Those who believe we have a problem want a solution. They assume others do too and so they advocate for the best ideas they’ve heard. Those who don’t believe we have a problem argue vehemently against every solution proposed.  The volume increases along with the anger, indignation, and disrespect. The critical first debate – do we have a problem – is rarely discussed.

Advocating for a particular solution before others agree there is a problem is just foolish.

2. They are arguing about solution  to a problem without first identifying the cause of the problem.

You can’t solve a problem without eliminating its cause. And you certainly won’t agree on a proposed solution without agreeing on its cause.

Suppose a large contingent across both parties publicly agreed that our growing income disparity is a problem. The next question is why. Why do we have increasing income disparity? What is the cause? Is it true that profits tend to be privatized and losses tend to be socialized, as suggested by syndicated columnist Mark Shields? Are the failures of our educational system significant and contributory?  Have corporate leaders become greedier? What changes over the past few decades have contributed most to this problem? Until there is some agreement on the cause of the problem, debates about how to eliminate those causes are premature.

Once agreement is reached as to cause, it makes sense to debate solutions, one of which may be to raise the minimum wage. (In reality though, it is an unlikely solution. It is possibly a band aid. To be a solution, you’d have to believe that a low minimum wage  has caused this problem.)

3. They are engaged in a binary debate over a single issue while faced with a  multifaceted problem.

The cause of our income disparity is most likely a variety of factors involving our tax code, social welfare programs, education system, and our culture and tradition of individualism over community. Thus, the solution likely requires multiple changes. While a binary debate such as yes-raise-it / no-don’t is rarely effective, it ought to be glaringly obvious that it makes no sense for a problem as complex as this one.

So why isn’t it glaringly obvious? Because no one has agreed on what problem we are trying to solve! The advocates are passionate, if misguided and the opponents are equally passionate and misguided.

For better, faster results, create clarity by:

• Agreeing first on the problem that needs a solution
• Identifying and agreeing on the cause of the problem
• Brainstorming a variety of possible solutions and avoiding a simplistic yes/no debate

You’ll never agree on a solution until you agree you’ve got a problem and agree on its cause.