Not all anniversaries commemorate something to be celebrated. Yesterday, was one such anniversary. August 20th 1996, 10 years ago, was the last time we gave hard-working Americans a raise.
Fuel efficiency of our cars is not the only thing at an all time low (lowest in 22 years, if you're curious). Our federal minimum wage (adjusted for inflation, of course) is the lowest in 51 years. More than eight million Americans live on $5.15 an hour--not a living wage! Is it that the number of Americans living in poverty has declined significantly, so raising the minimum wage is unnecessary? Sorry, this is not upside-down world.
Katrina opened the eyes of a nation to the abject poverty that exists within our borders. If the visuals were not powerful enough for you, here are the numbers: Since President Bush has taken office 5.4 million more Americans live in poverty. When the minimum wage was increased 10 years ago, poverty and unemployment rates fell.
Congress gave themselves a raise yet again this year, $3,300 in extra cash to be exact, bringing the grand total to $168,500 annually. Where is ours?!
Politicians in Washington might be out of touch when it comes to many things, but self preservation is not one of them. Politicians know that 83% of Americans feel the minimum wage should be raised from its current $5.15 to $7.15 an hour, with half of the respondents saying they "strongly support" the idea. They know the numbers show the issue cutting across party and economic lines, with all groups showing widespread support. They know that when it comes up for a vote it must get bipartisan support or they might be out of a job.
After years of Democrats pushing to raise the minimum wage and Republicans blocking it every time, the public had had enough. Thanks to our readers and Citizen Hunters around the country jamming up their phone lines, and Democrats in Congress saying they would block the $3,300 pay increase the Congress voted themselves until they addressed the critical issue, it finally came to a vote.
When the House Appropriations Committee voted to raise the minimum wage in increments to $7.25 an hour by January 1, 2009, seven Republicans on the committee supported the Democratic amendment.
But, predictably, Republicans decided to opt for politics instead of progress. In a cynical political ploy, they tied the wage increase to a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates. The Senate was forced to vote it down.
Citizen Hunters know that this is more than a political or economic issue for me, it is a moral one. It is a "family values" issue if there ever was one. What could be more moral, more life-sustaining, than ensuring that a working family will be paid the wages that can keep its members functioning?
Please take action and let your Representatives know that you think we deserve a raise.
State Watch
19 States got tired of waiting for D.C. to figure it out and raised the minimum wage above the federal level on their own. I am proud to say that my home state of Pennsylvania is joining their ranks.
Thanks to Governor Ed Rendell's strong leadership, along with Senator Tartaglione, my friend and Representative Daylin Leach, and many of our readers and Citizen Hunters and grassroots activists across the state, Pennsylvania is getting a raise. Governor Granholm (D) of Michigan (my adopted state where I lived for 10 years) showed great leadership as well, in getting Michigan workers a raise. And unless Governor Mitt Romney vetoes the bill, so will Massachusetts. If you are a Citizen Hunter inArizona, California, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma or Ohio, look to a ballot box near you as you will get to vote to join this fabulous club.
Also, if you are in Ohio, Colorado, or Wisconsin lend a hand to the Democrats working hard to get workers a raise there. Support Ted Strickland for Governor in Ohio. Support Bill Ritter for Governor in Colorado and Governor Doyle in Wisconsin.
UPDATE: Myth Busting Check out previous posts (here, here, here) so you are armed with the knowledge to combat Republican canards that minimum wage is only for young folks etc.. You've heard them before, you will hear them again, get the facts.
when the price of sugar goes up, pepsi buys corn syrup, when the price of cherries goes up, shoppers buy strawberries, when the price of cable goes up, people buy sattelite dishes, when the price of flying goes up, people travel less, when the price of labor goes up....
is this really THAT difficult?
Posted by: rox_publius at August 21, 2006 04:56 PMFederalism should apply here for basic economic reasons. Congress should tread cautiously on increasing the federal minimum wage, since states can set their own bar. Expensive cost of living states like California and New York can ratchet their minimum wages up accordingly, but if the feds matched those highest rates across the board, then the cost of doing business would become much too burdensome in rural states like West Virginia.
Posted by: JSM at August 21, 2006 08:00 PMMinimum Wage now is pretty minimal! $5.15/hr x 2080 hrs/yr (52 wks x 40 hrs/wk) = $10,712/yr or $893/mo. JSM makes a good point about the variances of cost of living across the country, but can ANYONE live on $893/month, even in the lowest cost-of-living area? Rent, utilities, food? Car expense or commuting cost? Seems to me you would have to have two jobs if working at minimum wage.
Posted by: Eric at August 21, 2006 09:22 PMYou can live on 893 a month quite comfortably if you are a student or you are a second wage earner contributing to the household. Thats who minimum wage jobs are intended for. Not a career path. Even if with a bump to 7 dollars an hour or whatever, its not like a person can now afford that shiny new car or down payment on a home. Additionally, Dems could have compromised with the Republicans and voted for the wage increase that was linked with a decrease in the death tax. They stubbornly chose not to, thus it is up for individual states to act.
Posted by: Justin at August 22, 2006 09:29 AMJustin,
Your have to be kidding me. The dems are stuborn for not letting the greedy, and I meen greeeeeeeeeedy republicans get there death tax that will ultimately destroy the countries income. Seriously man, how many tax breaks do rich white people need so that low wage middle class workers can get a break? This should be about what America needs to do. Bill Clinton wrote a article in the New yor times today, say what you want about his personal lifestyle but if you read that article you will read how a real leader moved america forward. Has Bush or the republican controlled anything ever, ever tried to move this country forward? No. And with your thoguht process its no wonder.
Flavia,
You did a good job last night on Tucker. Way to hold your own. I thoguht it was funny to see how the way the right leaning guest and host spoke about Hilary. Yeah she may not be best for the country and I know you dont support her for pres, and I am not sure I do either, but I owuld have loved it if you said "do you think she could possibly any worse than this guy running things now? I thought not!"
A bunch of high school kids are getting minimum wage. Whoppee do. Now if they raised min wage again, the people benifitting are Union workers who automatically will go from say $40 per hour to whatever the raised min wage goes up. That causes inflation which makes us all poorer. Plus lots of kids and grandmothers will be layed off by small businesss. How does that help?
The minimum wage is a sacred cow of the Communist Workers Party.
Posted by: R A Rubin at August 22, 2006 11:43 AMSo you think the same people working for minimum wages 10 years ago are still in the same low end job? That's bunk. Open your eyes. All this hand wringing is for nothing. If Congress or any state legislature really cared about "the working man" they would have mandated a minimum wage of $10, $20, or $30? I mean, why not? The reason? It's economic suicide. Let the market decide who is paid for what job, not an act of a public body.
Posted by: Jerry at August 22, 2006 12:17 PMIt's more than just helping a mother of three buy enough milk and bread for her family. Raising the minimum wage must be an integral part of our Homeland's economic security strategy. While our trade deficit is sky-rocketing out of control, and foreign workers are being hired by American companies at an alarming rate, the American working family is being squeezed out by the "Profit's First America Second" business crowd. We have to remember that the backbone of our country, the American Middle Class of today, was the stuggling working class of yesterday. Increasing wages and productivity within our own shores is a sign of economic vitality. To cut a tax for one segment does nothing for our economy but instead sends a clear message to America's working class families - "We Do Not Need You." It is the wrong message. We can do better, and we will.
Posted by: Joe at August 22, 2006 12:51 PMI can't believe anyone with a college education and 1 course in economics can think that raising the minimum wage will cause any small business to go out of business. Anyone EVER hear of a McDonalds closing? What a castrophe it would be to give someone a living wage. What a CEO will lose his corporate jet? I think not. But then again why help some poor uneducated worker make a little more. How will that help me.
Posted by: Steve at August 22, 2006 01:28 PMEric,
I fail to see how a repeal, or at least a cut back, in the estate/death tax is "greedy." It is more about equity. That money has already been taxed once, when it was earned. It is wrong to penalize someone, even in if they are rich, who want to put this taxed money aside to benefit their children. The IRS should not get "another bite at the apple" simply because a person is of considerable means. It's simply unfair.
This notion of class conflict and rich v. poor is tired marxian drivle that the Democrat politicians, who themselves are well-off, trot out year after year simply to garner votes. America is not about dragging the most succesful down to the ranks of the middle, America is about aspiring to reach such heights. Though clearly Republicans do not have all the answers, especially currently, at least they understand what our nation is fundamentally about.
Look, why don't we propose this. Let's just make the minimum "wage" a minimum "salary" and just pay everyone who works, no matter what the job or skill level, $50,000 a year? Why don't you Liberals..oops..I mean "progressives" wake up! The minimum wage is not and never was intended to be a living wage. The unfortunate, harsh economic reality is that those who have to depend on it will not be able to change their circumstance by just putting a band-aid of a few extra dollars on the minimum wage, which most employers pay a higher wage anyway. Let me ask you this. Why don't you ask your employer tomorrow to pay the guy in your mail room your salary, and you take his but do the same work. Yeah...that's what I thought.
Posted by: Black Donald Trump at August 22, 2006 03:16 PMI would disagree that this crop of "Republicans" understand anything of what our country is about. Is it about selling off of our jobs, port security, and airlines to the highest bidder? Is it about doubling the size of our federal government at a rate unheard of since the New Deal? Is it about being a rubber stamp to who is now the lamest of all ducks? Because if it is, they have failed this country, they will fail working families, and they will fail to live up to the Conservatism that even Barry Goldwater would understand. This new group is as liberal as any wild eyed hippy ever could hope to dream. So don't talk about fair or unfair. Its about competence or incompetence. It's about failing the public interest, and if taxing an estate twice is a drop in the bucket, the message it will send is that we are in this together. So while South Boston to South San Antonio citizens are taxed at a higher rate and their sons and daughters volunteer for military service at a higher rate, they do not complain that they are "giving twice" or saying life is "unfair". If the Paris Hilton's of America won't fight, then they least they can do is help pay for the armor worn for those who do fight. It may or may not take a village to raise a family, but it takes an entire country to wage a war and it's way past time the top 1% stepped up to the plate. To adapt Marian Wright Edelman's quote - It's the price they will pay for being American.
Posted by: Mitchell at August 22, 2006 03:19 PMFederal minimum wage laws that define a dollar amount are pretty dumb, given the differences in the cost of living from city to city, state to state. Paying folks more than their labor's worth will lead to automation in the extreme case, but more likely just piling work onto existing workers.
For example, your budget for pay for a particular store is $800/hr. So if the minimum wage is $8/hr, you can hire 10 people and have them do 10 hours worth of work per hour. If the minimum wage is raised to $10/hr, you fire 2 people and spread the work out, or you fire 2 people and do less work (which can spiral down if less work = less business). Or, you raise your pay budget, report lower earnings, and your investors fire you. Or, your expenses are higher, and your competitors are more rational actors, therefore they grow faster and are more successful, and eventually buy you out and fire the idiot who didn't keep labor costs in line. Unskilled laborers are not precious snowflakes.
Depending on your industry, you could also automate some of that work: Before it was less expensive to hire a human than spend capital on equipment, but after it may be worth it to fire a bunch of folks and replace them with machines.
Or, you may be able to pay pennies per hour for Asian labor.
You can force people to pay employees more, but you can't force them to keep those overpaid people. They do that in Europe, and guess what, there's 10+% unemployment all over the place because if you can't fire people, you're very reluctant to hire them unless they're overqualified or you know them personally. The Louvre can't staff/secure all its exhibition halls because of 'lack of personnel'. With 10+% unemployment???
Posted by: Adam Smith at August 22, 2006 04:42 PMI wish I knew more about this issue. I have no idea how many people are presently being paid $5.15/hour. In the Philadelphia area, there can't be many. McDonalds pays $7-8 and still has jobs they can't fill. Unskilled warehouse jobs in my business start at $10.
Regardless of how many or how few workers may be affected, the symbolism looms large. Congress has not acted to increase the minimum wage in 10 years, and when the House finally did agree to a boost, they tied it to a decrease in the estate tax, thereby dooming the bill from passage.
We are a nation of great wealth and good fortune. A measure of our greatness must always be how well we treat the less fortunate, especially OUR OWN. We are quick to send aid to the victims of a tsunami halfway around the world (makes for good PR), but slow to come to the aid of the mostly poor and uninfluential victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Posted by: Eric at August 22, 2006 08:11 PMThe minimum wage is an entry-level wage, not a living wage, and, as such, should be maintained as low as possible. Raising it will harm, not help, entry-level workers. Some people have less-than-minimum skills. They can be trained as long as the minimum wage is cost-effective for businesses. If it's too high, these people will fall through the cracks.
The minimum wage is a red herring and a non-issue that sounds oh-so-good to people who want to feel as if they're sensitive. But it's detrimental to those who need to learn how to become worth more than the minimum. You can't spend yourself into prosperity.
Posted by: Ken at August 23, 2006 04:41 PMThe minimum wage is an entry-level wage, not a living wage, and, as such, should be maintained as low as possible. Raising it will harm, not help, entry-level workers. Some people have less-than-minimum skills. They can be trained as long as the minimum wage is cost-effective for businesses. If it's too high, these people will fall through the cracks.
The minimum wage is a red herring and a non-issue that sounds oh-so-good to people who want to feel as if they're sensitive. But it's detrimental to those who need to learn how to become worth more than the minimum. You can't spend yourself into prosperity.
Posted by: Ken at August 23, 2006 04:42 PMThe minimum wage is an entry-level wage, not a living wage, and, as such, should be maintained as low as possible. Raising it will harm, not help, entry-level workers. Some people have less-than-minimum skills. They can be trained as long as the minimum wage is cost-effective for businesses. If it's too high, these people will fall through the cracks.
The minimum wage is a red herring and a non-issue that sounds oh-so-good to people who want to feel as if they're sensitive. But it's detrimental to those who need to learn how to become worth more than the minimum. You can't spend yourself into prosperity.
Posted by: Ken at August 23, 2006 04:42 PMWhy don't we just pay them enough to barely survive but enough to still produce, while companies make record profits? Then when we've exhausted that and the companies need more money, they can just lay them off and hire overseas workers or illegal aliens for pennies on the dollar? Then their bottom line will grow and they can get tax breaks for expanding their operations overseas, leaving the workers here to burden the welfare system? Oh, sorry, we're doing that already. So tell me again Ken, what's the problem. I couldn't hear you over that sucking sound, you know the one, the sound of our jobs g o i n g a w a y.
Posted by: BW at August 23, 2006 05:08 PMwait wait wait wait wait...
those three posts in the "Update" are the way to "arm yourself with knowledge"? in none of those posts is any of the supply-demand argument (ECON 101 for those of you still picking out fall classes) addressed. The closest you get is a link in June to someone reposting a person namecalling John Stossel that is presented as a resounding win for the state interference side. but this guy yells over stossel's (very valid) point that if it works so well, we should just set the wage at $20-40. and his big closer is to extol the tremendous success of the job opportunities created by Oregon's wage increase in 1998. so, how's that been working out for them.
state unemployment - June 2006
by rank
43 OREGON 5.4
data here: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/state_unemployment/index.html
Posted by: rox_publius at August 24, 2006 12:27 AMSo if we raise the minimum wage a dollar, roxy, what will it do to you? It'll make you mad that mama can buy another ham, some rice, maybe another gallon of milk, thereby bringing down the stock market, making your 401 K worthless, and buying the Buick instead of the Caddy after your retirement? What's God going to say when you get to heaven? Do you care? So we fight for an extra buck an hour for folks to help them out. Or is this just against the principles of good government? So people will say, then YOU pay more taxes, or give at church. I say, its funny how they've got us arguing at the trough about who gets the leftovers while the fatcats pay less and less. What the hell happened to our priorites and values? What the hell happened to helping out your fellow man? Does anyone read the beatitudes anymore? Government has no problem forcing morality on us concerning gay marriage, the morning after pill, and Teri Schiavo, but why does it always stop at the hungry children?
Posted by: BW at August 25, 2006 10:59 AMfirst of all, i resent the implication that because i argue against raising the minimum wage, i don't care about people. i don't question your motives - it's unreasonable of you to assume the worst in me. i would posit that we both want what is best for everyone, and disagree about what gets us there.
my position is that this is not a simply a decision that the same group of folks making one dollar more per hour. if it were that simple, you bet your behind i'd be 100% behind it. but it isn't. my position is that if you raise the minimum wage, that say, 80% of the folks making minimum wage get the $ more. and that's awesome. we agree that for those 80% this is a fantastic thing.
it's the 20% who don't get hired because the price of labor went up. the folks who are displaced by combining job tasks among others, are replaced by automation (you like those self-checkouts? raise the minimum wage and watch them multiply like rabbits), or simply have their hours cut back... these are the people who are hurt. to pretend this won't occur is to live in a fantasy land.
Posted by: rox_publius at August 26, 2006 11:00 AM20%, 80%, 1,000,000,000%, 1/2%!!! The only percent I care about is the 1% milk people like my mother will have a harder time buying. See the problem is not with you but with people who are against the min wage but agasint the mi wage but for things like, the war. They had no problem saying yes to something that kills people, wastes money, screws up the economy, and leaping blindly without regards to the future. "Bowling in the dark" would be the best term. Yet the same folks want to slow walk, citing their old and tired line of "well it wouldn't be prudent at this juncture...lets look at all the ramifications....lets study this more..."
Give me a break.
BW,
i appreciate your frustration. believe me. i share your view on a whole lot of the other stuff you are talking about here. try to separate the issue from the folks espousing it. i know that can be hard when you are busy throwing tomatoes at your television. trust me. i know.
Posted by: rox_publius at August 28, 2006 10:28 AMNot frustration dear. First a thought, then a word, then an action. Trust me, I do more than spout here. We're going to win on the minimum wage issue because it is the right thing to do. We can do better and we will.
Posted by: BW at August 28, 2006 10:32 AMfair enough. just know that the people on the other side of the issue aren't fat cats looking to screw the common man for another nickel. we actually believe that this is not the best course to take for the least off among us. simply insinuating that we are evil, selfish monsters does not constitute a rebuttal of our position.
Posted by: rox_publius at August 28, 2006 12:18 PM"ECON 101 for those of you still picking out fall classes"
Insinuation may be contagious then. We may not be a John K. Galbraith, but I doubt William Buckley would've made that comment nor do I believe that they thought of each other as evil. I don't think evil has a corner on any one economic theory or income class. Just so you know.
Posted by: BW at August 28, 2006 04:30 PM