Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nader to Occupy: Help Raise the Minimum Wage
The Occupy movement may be able to forge a powerful alliance with millions of working men and women around a national call to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. The drive to establish new encampments, while important, is going to be long and difficult. The ongoing efforts to stand up to the foreclosure and mortgage crisis, the marches to hold Wall Street accountable, the protests against stop-and-frisk policies in New York City or police brutality in Oakland, while vital, do not draw the numbers into the streets across the country needed to loosen the grip of the corporate state.
Occupy Albany protester Bradley Russell holds a sign during the People’s State-of-the-State at Academy Park in Albany, N.Y. on Jan. 3. The rally focused on the need to address hunger in New York and to raise the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour. (AP / Mike Groll)
Some 70 percent of the public supports raising the minimum wage. This is an issue that resonates across political, ethnic, religious and cultural lines. It exposes the vast disparities in wealth and the gross inequalities imposed by our corporate oligarchy. The political elite during this election year, which needs to toss a few scraps to the voting public, might be pressured to respond. The two leading Republican candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, say they support the minimum wage (although only Romney has called for indexing the minimum wage). Barack Obama promised during his 2008 election campaign to press to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011, a promise that, like many others, he has ignored. But the ground is fertile.
“The 24-hour encampments, largely on public property, broke through,” Ralph Nader told me when we spoke of the Occupy movement a few days ago. “These encampments jolted the consciousness of the nation. But people began asking after a number of weeks what’s next. Once the movement lost the encampments it did not have a second-strike readiness, which should be the raising of the minimum wage to $10 an hour.”
The federal minimum wage of $7.25, adjusted for inflation, is $2.75 lower than it was in 1968 when worker productivity was about half of what it is today. There has been a steady decline in real wages for low-income workers. Meanwhile, corporations such as Walmart and McDonald’s, whose workforce earns the minimum wage or slightly above it, have enjoyed massive profits. Executive salaries, along with prices, have soared even as worker salaries have stagnated or declined. But the call to raise the minimum wage is not only a matter of economic justice. The infusion of tens of billions of dollars into the hands of the working class would increase tax revenue, open up new jobs and lift consumer spending.
There are numerous groups, including the AFL-CIO, whose leaders dutifully pay lip service to raising the minimum wage but have refused to mobilize to fight for it. Rank-and-file workers, once they had a place and a movement willing to agitate on their behalf, would shame union bosses into joining them. There are 535 congressional offices scattered throughout the country. These congressional offices, Nader suggests, could provide the focal point for sustained local protests.
“You could get leading think tanks, like the Economic Policy Institute, the AFL-CIO, member unions, especially unions like the California Nurses Association, which has been very aggressive on this, and a bevy of academics such as Dean Baker and professor Robert Pollin, along with groups such as the NAACP and La Raza, to back this,” Nader said. “There is potential for huge synergy. But it needs the jolt that can only come from the Occupy movement.”
“The Occupy movement arose by embracing a rejectionist attitude toward politics, but in the end that is lethal,” Nader said. “It is a form of ideological immolation. If they won’t turn on politics, politics will continue to turn on them. Politics means the power of government—local, state and national—and the ability of corporations to control departments and agencies and turn government against its own people. Not engaging in politics might have been a good preliminary tactic to gain credibility so they could avoid being tagged with some ‘-ism’ or some party, but it has worn out its purpose. The movement needs to become a champion for millions of low-income workers. This does not mean the Occupy movement should support a political party. It means it should go after both parties. It is only by going after the two main political parties that raising the minimum wage will get through Congress.”
Nader believes that the call to raise the minimum wage has the potential to divide the Republican Party, which has not been split on any major issue in Congress since Obama took office. He says that the economic suffering of low-income Americans is so severe that some Republican candidates running for office would be loath to ignore a groundswell in their districts calling for an increase in the minimum wage. But the pressure has to be exerted between now and the November elections. Once the elections are concluded, nothing will be passed that is not orchestrated, funded and authored by corporate lobbyists.
Past campaigns to raise the minimum wage have proved very popular. ACORN, in 2004, organized a statewide referendum in Florida to raise the minimum wage by a dollar. Once the proposal was on the ballot, corporate forces launched a lavishly funded assault against the initiative. The battle to defeat the measure was spearheaded by fast food corporations such as McDonald’s and Burger King as well as chain stores such as Walmart and Kmart. There was no money to fund ads to counter the corporate propaganda or support the proposal. The initiative, despite the public relations onslaught, won by 71 percent. To placate his corporate backers, the Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry, refused to support the ballot initiative although he desperately needed Florida to win the election.
“How much political courage does it take to stand up for guys making $7.25 an hour while the head of Walmart is making $11,000 an hour?” Nader asked. “What medieval period had that kind of wealth disparity?”
“This campaign, if successful, would make the Occupy movement the chief movement in the country,” Nader said. “It would be a movement that got something done. It could build on this.”
“The end of the encampments could be an unintended blessing,” Nader went on. “The movement no longer has to deal with daily housekeeping, sanitation, the occasional fights and bickering and the poor and homeless who were urged to go there by police. It can develop a laser-beam focus on the first stage of the recovery of the American worker.”
“To be able to spearhead a coalition that includes the AFL-CIO, minority groups and local community groups will show that the movement can leverage power,” Nader said. “It has not shown this so far. The most accessible bastion of corporate power, the most sensitive of the three branches of government, is the legislature, and not just Congress, but state legislatures. This is a winnable issue. It fulfills the 99 percent motto. And the movement can be very effective because it has developed a unique ability to carry out daily demonstrations. If the movement can get the minimum wage raised it will gain enormous power. Who has gotten anything on the progressive agenda through Congress in the last few years? A victory would permit the Occupy movement to fill this power vacuum. Once you win a battle in Congress you produce a penumbra of power. This penumbra stops bad things from happening. It curtails the arrogance of the Republican Party. It empowers new and fresh leadership.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
117 Comments so far
Show AllI don't know what to say. I respect Nader and Hedges. The minimum wage should be raised-significantly - and enforced. In a pre-what ever era we are in now- this would be a no brainer. Even ardent capitalists would agree. But this is a dystopic environment. Europe is collapsing under the weight of banker-politician imposed austerity. The Wall Street bankers post the collapse have strengthened their hold on the political and economic system and further concentrated their wealth. Focusing on the minimum wage feels like asking ones jailer for a few more crumbs. Fighting for those crumbs seems to bolster the forces that hold the keys to the prison. Perhaps I am seeing things too darkly.
Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, dogs gotta scratch, and liberal icons gotta pander to "middle class" sensibilities and curry favor there. They are not bad people, they are doing the only thing they can do - scamper back into the "middle class" and attack anyone who is a threat to that. Occupy was a threat. If they can use Occupy to advance partisan "progressive" politics, fine. If not, they will turn on it.
That was my first response, too, LJG, almost word for word. Respect, Nader, Hedges, crumbs, check. Menial work. Not important.
But I think it would garner support among millions in a way the more important, harder struggles to come won't. (And it certainly would help a lot of people who need it. At the same time, helping to match up homeless people with peopless homes might be a good idea.)
We're not going to make a lot of friends battling over Glass-Steagall or even the long tough battle to repeal corporate personhood. The most important work for Occupy, making sure we all change enough to avoid climate catastrophe, very likely involves changing the entire economic system of the US and therefore the world. That's not a fight you take on with a few thousand hippies whose tents have been stolen by the police. We need more help. We can get it by helping others, in ways that mean the most to the others.
When you give someone a gift YOU want that's crass self-centeredness. When you give someone a gift THEYwant, even if you don't quite get it or even dislike it, that's selflessness and generosity that gives back to both of you.
“The Occupy movement arose by embracing a rejectionist attitude toward politics, but in the end that is lethal,” Nader said. “It is a form of ideological immolation."
Absolutely. I saw at least one in these forums, who continued to engage in mystical obfuscation about rejecting any and all political demands. Political demands belonged to the "20th century," he said, and now, in the 21st century, we're in a new world. When asked to explain, he produced a lot vague ideas. But if you make no demands you'll never get anything. If all you want to do is parade around in the street forever, you'll get some media, get arrested and a lot of bruises and broken bones, but that's about it. I support Nader's proposal.
You have, perhaps inadvertently, revealed that the real message here is not so much about minimum wage but rather about attacking Occupy.
You say that you support Nader's proposal because of your opposition to Occupy. You talk about what is wrong with Occupy, and say very little about wages.
I have never attacked Occupy. Don't don't falsely attribute to me what I did not say. Nor, to my knowledge, have Nader or Hedges attacked Ocoupy. I have and do attack the vague and counterproductive suggestions of various people I've encountered online, e.g., this site, who SAY they support Occupy, but also incomprehensibly reject any and all attempts to get Occupy to coalesce around any tangible demands, and who argue, weakly, that Occupy will be "strengthened" by never making any demands, and eschewing any and all political involvement beyond street actions. As for wages, If anything I think $10 an hour is too little for a livable. Better to demand higher, maybe $17/hr. and then settle for $15 or possibly $12.
There is an ongoing attack on Occupy, whether or not it is conscience and intentional on the part of this or that individual is not really relevant, and the fact that it is dishonest and deceptive does not mean that it is not happening. It merely means that many are being deceived by it, that is all. Nader and Hedges are merely falling back on their old thinking, merely doing what seems to them to be logical and consistent. They are not therefore evil people, or anything, and I don't think anyone is saying that they are.
1., Occupy was nattered about by liberal pundits for weeks - what are their demands? Who are their leaders? What "real" results in the "political process" are they achieving? At the same time they were saying "don't get me wrong, I support Occupy, BUT..." which was followed by all sorts of criticism, and paternalistic "advice." Some "support" that was.
Can you see how that was all a set up?
2. Then, Democratic mayors and college presidents around the country unleashed the police in vicious attacks on Occupy, coordinated and orchestrated from the highest levels - the White House and Homeland Security.
3. Next, all of the "reasonable" liberals started decrying the violence, and the blaming and scapegoating of "Anarchists" and "Black Bloc" and "radicals" began, and soon reached a feverish pitch. This was a classic example of bait and switch propaganda: the cops were the ones who became violent, and Occupy was blamed.
4. While the liberal pundits claimed it was only the "few" they objected to within Occupy - those supposedly "advocating violence" - that was always coupled with suggestions that the movement had outlived its usefulness, that it was time to move it to the "next phase," the next phase being to herd people back into the same old liberal causes and tactical and strategical approach, the approach that would put the liberal establishment and the Democratic party back in control of events.
5. Anyone who objected to the first four steps in the program, or pointed out what was happening, was labeled "radical" and "crazy" and "dangerous" and added in to the mix of people to be ignored or attacked along with the "Black Bloc."
6. Astroturf groups sprang up overnight around all of the old liberal causes, financed and run by all of the liberal organizations and the Democratic party, with new groups and new "coalitions" saying that "we are the 99%" and "Occupy this that or the other."
7. Now the trap was sprung. Liberal icons such as Hedges and Nader try to use Occupy to push various "good" causes - all quite weak and moderate, as is this call for raising the minimum wage is, and all predicated on the supremacy and exclusivity of the electoral and legislative process. This is a clear and obvious set up for what is to follow - the "lesser of two evils" and "write your Congressperson" and "get more progressive people elected" appeals.
As this happens, we are witnessing the amazing divisive effect it has, as bitter and irreconcilable debates flare up all throughout the community. We can also see how this acts to disperse people, as they retreat back into the areas of their interest, the causes that emotionally resonate with them personally, and see all outsiders as the enemy.
We are being dispersed, divided, and herded back into the system and placed back under the control of the liberal establishment and the Democratic party.
Two Americas,
Let us stipulate that everything you say is true, and certainly most of it is. Do you really think that Nader and Hedges are secretly working with the Democratic Party and want to weaken Occupy, water it down and channel it into weak need liberal reforms? Second, does Occupy only get one demand to make for all time? or is it possible it could become an effective, non-partisan group that pushes the whole system toward progressive initiatives? Third, was not everything you said totally predictable? Fourth, Nader is a democratic socialist, not a "liberal." Hedges is not a liberal either, from what I can see. I doubt very much that Nader and Hedges were among the liberal pundits complaining last October about how Occupy had no agenda. Corporate media pundits were, certainly. And it was friggin' LIE, because it was already clear what Occupy wanted October, from the various Occupy GAs. The primary division within Occupy has been more focused on HOW to go about achieving the agenda, whether to embrace conventional politics, either by forming a party, or pushing for legislative change within the system.
Personally, I think Michael Parenti's suggestions in an article here in the last few months, was better than Nader's, but the bottom line is we've GOT to make some demands and be willing to back it up, or we'll get nowhere. It is also true that there is no inherent contradiction between acting WITHIN the legislative arena and also outside it, in the streets. We need to act at every level, but please we've got to let go of this puerile nonsense of avoiding specific demands.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
No, I do not think that "Nader and Hedges are secretly working with the Democratic Party."
No, I do not think they want to "weaken Occupy, water it down." I think they don't realize they are doing that.
Yes, I do think they want to channel Occupy into liberal reforms. That is all they know, all they can imagine.
Is it possible that Occupy could become an effective, non-partisan group that pushes the whole system toward progressive initiatives? No, because there is no such thing. You can be effective, or you can push progressive initiatives. You cannot do both.
Is everything I say predictable? I don't know. Would that be a bad thing?
Liberal is as liberal does. What people claim to "be" does not tell us anything,
There need not be a conflict between acting WITHIN the legislative arena and also outside it, in theory. In practice, though, the calls for working within the system are for the purpose of getting people off of the streets and safely into moderate and ineffective channels.
The "specific demands" from Occupy is first and foremost to be able to gather, to use public spaces, to be free from police violence, and to practice democracy. That process IS the program, and it is that program that those in power, including liberals and Democrats, are trying to stamp out. Surrender on that and all is lost.
TA,
"Is everything I say predictable? I don't know. Would that be a bad thing?"
I'm not highlighting what YOU say. it's the reality that the course of events you describe would happen to ANY broad based social movement for progressive change in the US. Yes, it would, because the course you describe--of psyops, coordinated ruling class techniques, COINTELPRO-IZATION, etc. point to the fact that we live in a Police State, one that is uniformly hostile to democracy.
The point of my statement about that is that I cannot imagine ANY revolutionary movement, or even reformist movement, in the US that would not elicit that type of response from the ruling class. We cannot blame "liberals" for it, or people who want to form third parties, or populist conservatives, except the cretins involved in that deception, who work in the corporate media, the police and security and "intelligence" services, the politicians.
You say "process is program." Okay, I can buy that, at least provisionally. But ultimately, "democracy" is about making decisions and getting things done on behalf of We the People. If you get people who don't want to form a third party (because that would be working within The System), and still others who eschew any and all concrete legislative proposals (because that would be working within The System), I think it is reasonable for folks to ask, "What is your strategy then for how to turn this this police state into a functioning democracy?"
How can you get the support of the masses without having some kind of third party or agenda? Early on, as Nader agrees (and so do I), it was a good thing not to allow ourselves to be pinned down or straitjacked by labels. It appealed to the broadest cross-section of people. And, in fact, it was NEVER true that Occupy had "no agenda."
That was a LIE put out by the corporate media punditocracy. Nonetheless, there HAVE been divisions about a STRATEGY for how to get money out of politics, and how broad an agenda Occupy should have. Do we demand Medicare for all? an end to the Fed? an end to corporate personhood? or do we just focus on money out of politics?
"The "specific demands" from Occupy is first and foremost to be able to gather, to use public spaces, to be free from police violence, and to practice democracy. That process IS the program, and it is that program that those in power, including liberals and Democrats, are trying to stamp out. Surrender on that and all is lost."
Ok, we agree the PTB want to stamp out any outbreak of real democracy. But if one becomes fixated on "process as program" as being the *only* thing Occupy is about, then we lose sight of the inequity that led to Occupy to begin with. Also, not everyone can go to these protests and be heard there. Not everyone can risk arrest, injury, etc.
And finally, it must be said, paradoxically, that process is process, and program is program, and they can never be the same. As anyone who has ever been involved in consensus decision making knows, meetings can go on and on, and finding consensus around anything can be very elusive. There are often big egos who block consensus for trivial reasons, perhaps precisely because for them, "process is program." Once you have that as your firm conviction, getting results is secondary. And, any results obtained will tend to be more and more trivial.
At least, these are my general perceptions about Occupy. There have been schisms, which I suppose is inevitable in any movement. Some want to form a party, some don't. Some will embrace some kind of reformism, some won't. I don't pretend to have kept up with the latest details of what Occupy is doing. I'm just trying to find a job and stave off homelessness.
I took part for a time in drafting the "99% Declaration" and don't even know what's become of it. It was very controversial within Occupy from the start because some said it was never consensed upon by the NYC GA. I still thought it was a good idea, because one can't stay disorganized forever. Every day and month that we are in the streets, getting arrested, getting brutalized, being subjected to the Mighty Wurlitzer of the media, is another month we gradually lose mass support.
The problem with "process as program" is that most Americans don't get it. In fact, even I don't get it, if the idea is to pursue that forever, and NEVER get organized around a concrete set of demands, a party platform, etc. I do not think even the most progressive, radical people would support that as a workable agenda. Certainly not Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Hedges and Nader. They know enough to realize that "process as program"--pursued without end--is a recipe for permanent marginalization.
PS - Here is Parenti's article on Occupy. I think his suggestions are MUCH better than Nader's latest, because Nader demands too little. So I withdraw my support for Nader's proposal, which is a good one, insofar as it goes in the right direction. The problem is, it doesn't go nearly far enough.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/09-0
Yes, Parenti's article is good.
In politics the process is the program, it is the end, it is not a means to the end.
The general public "gets" that the process is the program much more so than they get the "ends" promoted by the various advocates.
Yes, we pursue that forever. The idea that we must stop the process, stop debate, stop democracy, in order to get concrete things accomplished is false. The opposite is true.
You are correct when you say that "most progressive, radical people" would not "support that as a workable agenda" including Chomsky, Michael Parenti, Hedges and Nader. They would lose their status and positions in a true democracy.
minimum wage occupation...
big shots swipe billions off the little guys’ crumbs...
the bottom line can’t lay straight ‘til a fair ratio runs...
and thoughts focused elsewhere won’t change topside malice...
for it takes baseline action to fix that blatant imbalance!...
If the process IS the program, which it is, then how can it be separated? How can you separate something from itself?
Occupy arose because all other forms of expression about what was wrong and what the solutions were, were systematically cut off. All meaningful feedback to the system, except one positive feedback loop of excitation over turning living beings into dead trash, was drowned out (stolen elections, television) and bought out (Clear Channel) and ridiculed (Faux News) when it could be, violently suppressed when it couldn’t, (highest % prison population in the world) or co-opted, or made invisible through psychological means (framing, for one) or made illegal and isolated and vilified as ‘terrorism’, of an eco or other variety…
So the first order on Occupy’s agenda had to be to point that out. It did so, through its process, and the reaction from the whorporate media was to ridicule it of course, and when that didn’t make it disappear, to try to co-opt it, ignore it, misreport it as violent. Occupy brilliantly (and sometimes stumblingly) shrugged off all those by continuing its process. So then the escalating reaction from Democratic and Republican mayors was to use the bludgeoning tool of the police to violently suppress it, to make it invisible again. I think that should have been peacefully shrugged off as well, until every single Occupy person were in jail, and thousands more or millions more had joined in response. But it’s easier to say that from where I was (helping and involved but not living there). We’ll see how we can revive the movement and continue with the process—which at this point I think is a Spring revitalizing and solidifying of its democracy and decision-making, sinking local roots into every neighborhood in the US by talking—and even more importantly—listening. And then choosing the next move.
That next move for the Black Panthers was to help those in need—providing food, education, safety and other basic necessities in the neighborhoods the Panthers drew their membership (and their hope for support) from. Each of those actions taken was far more trivial than backing and obtaining a living wage for all in this country—a huge reversal of the direction of the last 35 years and a huge accomplishment in its own right, a dramatic and generous boon to tens of millions in this country. The Swaraj movement in India took similar steps, educating through its newsletter not just about politics but about sanitation, homesteading, and similar topics, sometimes relating them to politics.
Spinning wheels and salt were their symbols and reality (process and program in one); bicycle wheels and guerilla fruit trees could be ours. And a living wage. $20 an hour for every worker in the country? Multipurpose: breaking up the trend and the concentration of wealth; redistributing more fairly the proceeds from economic activity; serving notice that Occupy intends to keep its ideals intact while doing good for all; increasing the income and therefore the time available among those most likely to get involved; making allies among the working poor, NGOs and yes, even liberals and liberal activists… and more. Sounds like a fantastic goal to me.
Occupy demanded an end to the theft by the 1%.
Turning that into a demand for a $10 minimum wage dramatically compromises the initial stance, wakens it, waters it down, surrenders on it. It is a perfect example of "being practical and realistic" - in other words, not asking for anything that might antagonize the 1% - and of "lesser of two evils" thinking.
It is a also horrible negotiating, You never start out by offering that which you would settle for.
The other side is playing for keeps, not compromising, taking everything they want. In response are we to play "pretty please with sugar on it?"
No. What we're proposing here is to take one of the most enormous, revolutionary steps in a century in the US, and not ask but demand, that everyone in the country who works gets a living wage (and people who aren't working but could, get jobs, and people who can't work get what they need to live.) We're demanding a complete reversal of the conservative wave that has dominated the US for 35 years.We're demanding that every human in the country be respected and be accorded the life that comes with that respect. And we're proposing, or at least I am, that we not stop until we've won, in so doing forged close links with labor, poor people--especially minorities and women--green jobs groups, and found something that all the splintered left can agree on (except you, of course. You have bigger things in mind.)
So you think the few 10,000s or so of us should just stay in the squares and parks and demand the system collapse until it does? Is that your plan?
I get that you're angry and want destruction but that's not going to help anyone. I think a better plan than to be angry is to recruit more people, continue the work of radical equality and democracy within and spread it until the numbers and ideas are irresistible. Your idea is to... what? Ask for things so impossible AT THIS MOMENT that the requests are laughed at? And then what? Ask again... THEN retreat to minimum wage? Blow things up? Throw rocks at Starbucks?
Occupy has made no demands yet. Whatever the first one is won't be the last IF we do it right and make it one that can get us more, and more comitted, allies.
You don't win a marathon by one day going out and running 26.2 miles. You don't learn Chinese as a second language by one day sitting down with a dictionary and reading it cover to cover. You don't build a political party that can take on corporations that made 100 billion in profits last year by emailing all your Facebook friends one day and all deciding to vote for Fred Schmedlap for president. I don't understand why you object to objectives on the way to the goals. That's the only way goals are met.
By the way, I said $20. $10/hour is not enough.