As more and more states commit themselves to higher minimum wages, it gives us a chance to reflect on their success. In the 2016 election alone Arizona, Colorado, Maine and Washington all passed measures setting a state minimum wage above the federal level. Though the federal minimum is supposed to rise with inflation the last significant change was in 2009, when it was set at $7.25 an hour. While the long-term effects of these state laws are still being debated, one thing is certain: as long as inflation continues rising at the rate it is right now, the current federal minimum wage will remain inadequate for the Americans that rely on it.

The problem with a set minimum wage is that it will always be outdated. Each individual dollar has been steadily meaning less and less thanks to inflation, and this poses a problem for lawmakers that want to set an equitable minimum wage. Often, this inflation ends up meaning that wage workers have less purchasing power than they used to. The inflation-adjusted “real” worth of the minimum wage has been in decline since the 60s.

The ultimate question is whether or not $7.25 an hour is enough to provide for those around the country that depend on it. The evidence increasingly points to the fact that current minimum wage values do not adequately allow many individuals to care for themselves and their families with what would be termed a “living wage.” As what “living wage” means is quite different for each city and certainly different today than it was in the 1960s, it can be a challenge to pin down what the right minimum wage should be. One estimation comes from the Living Wage Project, which attempts to identify the costs of living for individuals and families across the country. While such research leaves much to be desired, it is at least a step in the right direction when it comes to figuring out the needs of American families.

Of course, attempts to raise the minimum wage naturally run into opposition. The traditional counterpoint has been that minimum wage increases hurt jobs, especially among teens. The argument is that companies, burdened by the extra cost of hiring employees, might choose to lay off some. But research looking at the states that have increased their minimum wages so far has been calling this conclusion into question, showing minimal impacts on employment as a result of the increase. In addition, proponents of the increase argue that a higher minimum wage could help businesses by increasing their customer base.

Ultimately, however, these specific economic arguments should be overshadowed by the importance of a living wage. Though the effect of the minimum wage on employment remains a debate, most of the detractors point to a feared loss of teenage jobs, as opposed to jobs of those supporting families. Moreover, it is unacceptable to allow businesses to continue paying full-time workers salaries that do not support them and let those same companies dictate what we can or can’t do with minimum wage. We should be skeptical of job loss fears when many minimum wage Americans are unable to earn enough with the jobs they have.

We can’t expect an increase in the minimum wage to be cost-free. In fact, every measure we put in place to protect workers will somewhat negatively affect businesses and run at least some risk of job loss. These are risks we have to take to commit ourselves to an economy that can truly enable those within it to live and thrive. If it is true that the economy depends on healthy families and forward thinking, a living wage should be a no-brainer.