Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Minimum Wage: Catching up with 1968
How inert can the Democratic Party be? Do they really want to defeat the Congressional Republicans in the fall by doing the right thing?
A winning issue is to raise the federal minimum wage, stuck at $7.25 since 2007. If it was adjusted for inflation since 1968, not to mention other erosions of wage levels, the federal minimum would be around $10.
Here are some arguments for raising the minimum wage this year to catch up with 1968 when worker productivity was half of what it is today.
"At the University of Virginia, twelve students have begun a hunger strike to protest the low wages and other injustices inflicted on contract service-sector employees." (Photo : Cavalier Daily)
1. Pure fairness for millions of hard-pressed American workers and their families. Over 70 percent of Americans in national polls support a minimum wage that keeps up with inflation.
2. Already eighteen states have enacted higher minimum wages led by Washington state to $9.04 an hour. With the support of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the New York State legislature is considering a bill to raise the state's minimum wage. The legislature should pass the long-blocked farm workers wage bill at the same time.
3. Since at least 1968, businesses and their executives have been raising prices and their salaries (note: Walmart's CEO making over $11,000 an hour!) while they have been getting a profitable windfall from their struggling workers, whose federal minimum is $2.75 lower in purchasing power than it was 44 years ago.
4. The tens of billions of dollars that a $10 minimum will provide to consumers' buying power will create more sales and more jobs. Aren't economists all saying the most important way out of the recession and the investment stall is to increase consumer spending?
5. Most independent studies collected by the Economic Policy Institute show no decrease in employment following a minimum wage increase. Most studies show job numbers overall go up. The landmark study rebutting claims of lost jobs was conducted by Professors David Card and Alan Krueger in 1994. Professor Krueger is now chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.
6. Many organizations with millions of members are on the record favoring an inflation-adjusted increase in the federal minimum wage. They include the AFL-CIO and member unions, the NAACP and La Raza, and hundreds of non-profit social service and religious organizations. They need to move from being on the record to being on the ramparts.
7. With many Republicans supporting a higher minimum wage and with Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum on their side, a push in Congress will split the iron unity of the Republicans under Senator Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner and gain some Republican lawmakers for passage. This issue may also encourage some Republican voters to vote for Democrats this fall. A Republican worker in McDonalds or Walmart or a cleaning company still wants a living wage.
8. President Barack Obama declared in 2008 that he wanted a $9.50 federal minimum by year 2011. If lip-service is the first step toward action, he is on board too. There is no better time to enact a higher minimum wage than during an election year. Against millions of dollars in opposition ads in Florida in 2004, over 70 percent of the voters in a statewide referendum went for a minimum wage promoted by a penniless coalition of citizen groups.
9. The Occupy movement can supply the continuing civic jolts around the local offices of 535 members of Congress, a slim majority of whom are not opposed to raising the minimum wage but who need that high profile pressure back home. Winning this issue will give the Occupy activists many new recruits, and much more power for getting something done in an otherwise do-nothing or obstructionist corporate indentured Congress. About 80 percent of the workers affected by a minimum wage increase are over 20 years of age.
Remember there is no need to offset a higher minimum wage with lower taxes on small business a higher minimum wage. Since Obama took office there have already been 17 tax cuts for small business and no increase in the federal minimum wage.
At the University of Virginia, twelve students have begun a hunger strike to protest the low wages and other injustices inflicted on contract service-sector employees. Students at other universities are likely to follow with their Living Wage Campaigns in this American Spring. They are fed up with millions of dollars for such top administrators' salaries or amenities as fancy practice facilities for athletes, while the blue collar workers can't pay for the necessities of life.
Raising the federal wage to 1968 levels, inflation adjusted, is a winning issue. It just needs a few million Americans to rouse themselves for a few months as they do for their favorite sports team and connect with all those large concurring organizations and their powerful legislators, like Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a big supporter, to start the rumble that will make it a reality.
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...
53 Comments so far
Show AllLivable wages for all, guaranteed incomes for those who are unable to work.!
Let's forget about groveling for this raise or that and establish that we all have a right to an income that provides a decent life PERIOD.
Thanks for your lifetime of courageous work, Ralph Nader; but on this one, I fear you are nibbling at the edges.
Solidarity,
tj
Obama and the DNC do not want to "defeat Congressional Republicans in the fall by doing the right thing".
A GOP controlled Congress gives Obama cover to move his agenda rightward at an ever accelerating pace, thereby netting he and the Democratic Party ever more corporate money.
Just as Obama displayed a Cheshire Cat grin after the GOP took control of the House in the November 2010 election (and he told us how excited he was to engage in "bipartisanship"), Obama will be gushy with "bipartisanship spirit" on November 7 when he announces that the GOP will control both houses of Congress.
Correct.
The question must then become: why does Nader propose this?
I agree with your question.
My speculation is: Nader proposes this because he understands that a (livable) minimum wage is a core issue of human economics.
I don't think he actually understands the reality of his proposal. At the bottom, Nader is a courageous reformer to whom we all owe a sense of gratitude.
But the situation that we are in now demands revolution of some sort that we're not exactly clear about. Nader steadfastly holds to reform.
As far as I'm concerned, that's fine, considering the efforts and sacrifices he has made. He helped to open space for numerous others.
I don't see anything underhanded in his motives.
How very sad.
How utterly bankrupt liberal and progressive politics are proving to be.
No doubt, Nader's motives are pure, his intentions stellar, his track record impeccable, and his credentials are sound.
So, if Nader says we should be advocating for the Democrats to "do the right thing" and if Nader says that an increase in the federal minimum wage is an important step, that supporting it would make Occupy effective and practical and "real," then who would dare to disagree?
I will. That is not to attack Nader, nor those who admire him. It is a difference of opinion.
Of course, many think that certain opinions deserve more consideration than others, based on the credentials of the speaker. That, of course, is oppositional to democracy. Liberal and progressive organizations are all anti-democratic, and this business of having celebrities and icons that cannot be questioned is a symptom of those dysfunctional and hypocritical conditions.
You probably recall Nader's recent fiction work, "Only The Rich Can Save Us."
Here's how I see it: this man, a true David standing up to the Goliath of corporations all his life now has to face the sickening reality that the tide has rolled back under him. In spite of a lifetime's achievements in bringing the worst corporate polluters to heel, all that effort got up-ended by the cancerous growth of the lobby system in D.C. And next came the revolving door syndrome that allows so-called regulators to take a government job for sometimes less than a year (and thereby learn the insider scoop), only to move onto a cushy job with the very corps they previously were paid to REGULATE. Add both of these insidious trends, each which ought to be illegal, to the democratically-bankrupt "Citizens United" Decision, and you see that corporate "freedom" absolutely towers over citizens rights. Nader's fought that beast all his life only to see it larger than ever...
Who ever did more than Nader to counter these trends? That the man can get out of bed in the morning and not jump out of a window is a testament to his integrity and ferocity of will!
My point is that I think, based on these trends, that he's come to an accommodation with corporate evil. In his 70's, he doesn't have the stomach for revolution. And a lot of the "Testosterone Cowboys" in this forum who chomp at the bit in a sort of Bush-style "bring it (the revolution) on!" style, have no understanding of what war looks like up close and personal. Sane persons seek to avoid bloody outcomes at all costs.
I look to the cosmic clockworks and get my strength from the knowledge that absolute corruption (as is the case now) cannot retain its hold on power. The wheel of time turns to give rise to every purpose under the heavens. Nor has any dynasty, empire, or nation state been yet able to withstand the force of TIME and its embedded cycles. Another great THEME is arising... the era of the corporate pharaohs is dying.
Please be kind to Nader. He's one of the best specimens of a human being our race has ever produced. (I cloned him in fiction... the book, formerly a movie script, is entitled, "The Caretakers.")
Thanks for that.
Pity Nader, because "in his 70's, he doesn't have the stomach for revolution?"
When did OWS call for "revolution?" Never.
Nader's strategy is a good one. He distinguishes between Republican-in-Democrat's-clothing, serial-liar Obama and other individual candidates who choose to run on a Democratic ticket, and especially those candidates who are willing to campaign on the issue of raising the minimum wage to $10/hr. Anyone who can't understand that is either a fool or a Republican tool.
CD's armchair "revolutionaries?" How lame. I have yet to see anyone here claiming to be on the streets with OWS, much less any real revolutionary cell.
Are you one of those who calls for turning radicals in to the authorities, and then turns around and mocks radicals for not revealing to you what they are doing?
Of course Occupy, by implication, has been calling for revolutionary change. The wealthy Wall Street folks know that. That is why there is such massive blow-back and efforts at suppression. Democratic party apologists and many liberal and progressive icons know that, and that is why there is such panic and a concerted effort going on to herd people back into safe and moderate channels.
You mock CD's armchair "revolutionaries?" and say "How lame." Many of those you ridicule, I happen to know, are ill, elderly, handicapped or homeless. They may be "wheel chair" revolutionaries. So you are correct. Some of us are literally "lame." But that does not mean that we cannot add our voices and contribute, nor does it invalidate what we are saying.
So, someone who says that $10 an hour is woefully insufficient is "a fool or a Republican tool?" Where are these Republicans who are saying that a $10 an hour wage is too low?
Now we see Two America's true agenda revealed.
He constantly argues for illegal U.S. employers' right to recruit and hire illegal migrant workers from foreign countries, and smears all who oppose that scofflaw, neo-slavery policy as "racist."
But, in his opposition to raising the minimum wage, we can now see he is no humanitarian. Instead, he is most likely someone profiting from the slave trade. Perhaps a subcontractor to Walmart, Home Depot or fast-food restaurant chains, providing off-the-books janitorial crews of desperate illegals whom he exploits with sub-minimum wages and zero benefits, and with deportation threats for any who dare talk with a union organizer or claim a work-related injury.
I am not surprised.
Nice smear job.
I don't oppose raising the minimum wage. I say that $10 an hour is a weak and inadequate demand.
I don't support "illegal U.S. employers' right to recruit and hire illegal migrant workers." I support amnesty.
I have never profited from another person's labor. I don't employ anyone, and I don't work for any sort of employment agency or procure labor for anyone.
I am not a subcontractor for WalMart or anyone else. I work with immigrant rights groups. I have fought WalMart to protect small farmers from their predatory practices several times.
If I called someone's comments racist, in regards to an immigration debate or on any other topic, it was because their remarks were racist.
I'm with you on this one, Two Americas. Naturally's smear job is transparent, not to mention poorly executed.
Everything I said is true and correct. Two Americas' Romney-like flip-flop that he never said he "disagrees" with Nader that "an increase in the federal minimum wage is an important step," (that's exactly what he said) but that he really meant "$10 an hour is a weak and inadequate demand" (something he expressly did not say) is as transparent a lie as you will ever see.
All you have to do is go back and read his post.
And calling people "racist" is his long-time stock in trade.
As I said, his opposition to a $10/hr minimum wage reveals who he truly is, and his post will stand as a permanent marker of his true identity.
Quite a stretch there. I doubt it will persuade anyone.
So, in your mind being against a $10 minimum wage because it is too little is the same as opposing an increase? By what logic?
I have never once at CD called anyone a racist. Never. I do not think racism is a state of being. I think that we are all liable to make racist remarks, since we live in a thoroughly racist culture. I have challenged racist statements. Your opportunity to defend your remarks was at the time when I challenged them.
According to Two Americas' original post in this thread, Ralph Nader is a "sad" and "utterly bankrupt liberal."
According to Two Americas, "if Nader says that an increase in the federal minimum wage is an important step...then who would dare to disagree? I will."
His words, not mine. Now he tries to backpedal, claiming he never said them. But there they are. Claiming he qualified them by adding that Nader's proposed increase was too little. But he did not.
Could it be that Two Americas is engaging in character assassination because Nader speaks persuasively against amnesty (forgiveness of past crimes and erasure of criminal penalties) for both illegal employers and their subsidized illegal labor force, and outs people like Two Americas?
Nader: "So, its a low-wage policy that's the root of this approach, and a lot of liberals have bought into it because they confuse this strategic policy by the Wall St. Journal types, with civil rights! ...The important thing is that we have to control our borders. Anybody who thinks we should have open borders is an apostle of the Wall St. Journal low-wage policy, in this country, against minorities."
"Against minorities!" Clearly so, as illuminated by Two Americas' own words here.
Ah, I understand now. This is a carryover from a previous discussion about immigration. We can debate that when it comes up again.
On this issue, let me restate my position for the sake of clarity.
1. I support amnesty.
2. I support a guaranteed income for all, much higher than this $10 an hour minimum wage proposal.
3. I oppose efforts at co-opting Occupy and steering it into safe and moderate initiatives, such as what Nader is doing.
4. I reject the notion that Occupy and other mobilizations are of no value until and unless they are translated into electoral or legislative actions.
I don't know what could be more clear and unambiguous than that.
Disagree if you like, but disagree with what I actually said, not with what you want others to imagine I said.
Two Americas: Nader is "sad" and an "utterly bankrupt liberal."
I disagree with what you actually said.
Two Americas: "If Nader says that an increase in the federal minimum wage is an important step...then who would dare to disagree? I will."
I disagree with what you actually said.
In fact, disagreement with what you actually said was the whole point of my posts. And very clearly so.
But, I don't mind repeating.
Two Americas ACTUALLY SAID he disagrees that "an increase in the federal minimum wage is an important step."
Here is what I actually said, and I stand by it:
How very sad.
How utterly bankrupt liberal and progressive politics are proving to be.
No doubt, Nader's motives are pure, his intentions stellar, his track record impeccable, and his credentials are sound.
So, if Nader says we should be advocating for the Democrats to "do the right thing" and if Nader says that an increase in the federal minimum wage is an important step, that supporting it would make Occupy effective and practical and "real," then who would dare to disagree?
I will. That is not to attack Nader, nor those who admire him. It is a difference of opinion.
Of course, many think that certain opinions deserve more consideration than others, based on the credentials of the speaker. That, of course, is oppositional to democracy. Liberal and progressive organizations are all anti-democratic, and this business of having celebrities and icons that cannot be questioned is a symptom of those dysfunctional and hypocritical conditions.
Thanks for confirming that you ACTUALLY SAID you "disagree" that "an increase in the federal minimum wage is an important step."
And thanks for clarifying that you STAND BY that statement.
Correct.
That is what I said.
Promoting a weak effort at an dramatically inadequate minimum wage increase is not an important step, it is not powerful, it is not useful as a cause for Occupy to rally around, and is part of an attempt to co-opt Occupy and steer it into safe and moderate channels.
Events have moved far, far beyond legislative battles over increases in the minimum wage being powerful or important. It represents scaling back, diminishing, and weakening the growing resistance to those in power. it is not a step forward.
Certainly, it could be argued that a few crumbs from the table "are better than nothing." But lumping those who think that we should get no crumbs in with those who say that the crumbs are pathetically inadequate and that we should stop settling for crumbs is illogical.
I stand by that, and have supported and defended it.
Two,
There is nothing about democracy that requires that we listen equally to everyone, regardless of intelligence, wisdom, experience, honesty, past record or other qualifications. In true democracy, everyone has a voice, and a chance to put forward their best. Everyone deserves to be listened to, and democracy is served best by listening to all. But those in a position to know more or judge better about things in general or something in particular should be given more credence. That has nothing to do with being unquestionable, and it is a perfect manifestation of democracy.
To paint all liberal and progressive organizations as antidemocratic seems ridiculous and hostile to me, but in the interest of hearing all, why do you say that?
I am not talking about giving some voices more or less credence, nor about "listening to everyone equally."
I am talking about the organizations that are run as top-down petty dictatorships, and yes, that is for all practical purposes all of the liberal and progressives organizations. Those conditions can be fairly and accurately labeled "anti-democratic."
"Those in a position to know more or judge better about things in general or something in particular" can "be given more credence," if the group so delegates them democratically. In practice those supposedly knowing more or being in a better position are often given, or take, more power. That is anti-democratic.
meet you at the end
You are correct! Cause if they raise minimum wage no one will hire illegals if they have to pay higher wages for them they won't be worth the trouble.
$7.25 is below poverty and needs subsidy from the government. If you raise that wage there will be no need for subsidy.
2 Americas could be a she and employer.
LOL.
I support at least a $20 an hour income for all, working or not. I support amnesty for immigrants.
How can those positions - always very clearly presented by me - be construed as opposition to an increase in the minimum wage or to supporting the hiring of undocumented workers? They can not with any logic or accuracy.
I am not an employer. Never have been,
Thanks for the compliment - thinking that I am female. Most males posting here are obviously so. I try to be aware of gender bias in my thinking and in what I post.
Recall in 2006, Pelosi, looked like a deer caught in headlights when the Dems took over the House.
She said, "impeachment (of W) was off the table" and then threw the liberals a bone by raising the minimum wage to 66% of what it had been in 1974. I didn't remember that even being an issue in the 2006 mid-terms. Henry Waxman, Chair of House Oversight, investigated nothing.
After eight years of W, the Dems were still the only viable option in 2010. Still, with control of the House, Senate & the White House the Dems did little - because of that nasty old filibuster in the Senate.
As Richard Connolly put it:
The Senate has the filibuster, an institution so sacred that is has not been altered since 1979. Or perhaps the Democrats are deeply committed to the democratic principle that 11% of the country’s population – those in the 21 least populous states – should exercise veto power over the other 89%.
I never saw a woman look so relieved as Pelosi, when then Dems lost control of the House in 2010. She could return to supporting liberal causes that will never be implemented and opposing conservative bills that become law.
Congress has a 9% approval rating but they all know that 90% of them will be re-elected.
Aside from interpreting how Pelosi looked, that's a fair description of misplaced party loyalty (and misplaced optimism about the new President) by Congressional Democratic leadership. Pelosi and others in Congress should have stood against Obama's continuation of Bush's policies and agenda every step of the way.
But, it's not a reason to condemn all individuals who run for office on a Democratic ticket, especially those willing to campaign on raising the minimum wage to $10.hr.
Ray, there's a major difference between "Obama and the DNC" and the vast swath of Democratic candidates for office. Pushing the Democratic Party to the left by electing pro-99% candidates (just as Teavangelicals have done in pushing the Republican party to the right by electing pro-1% candidates) is clearly achievable, wise, and does not preclude other political action by 99 per-centers.
Good suggestion, Ralph, but you still assume that politicians give a shit about us.
As long as they are funded by the 1%, they don't need us.
Ralph, You are a knight in shinning armor. For the last 50 years the masses haven't had the brains, conscience, or energy to appreciate your message. If only they would listen, instead of to the corporate whore media. Many thanks for representing "real hope" and inspiration. Peace
Thank you, Ralph! Great point(s)!
In 1965 I supported myself and went to Cal while making minimum wage. I had a car paid rent and fed myself, paid university fees, bought books with some left over for entertainment and I had no student loan, in fact I only heard about them when my children decided to go to college. I made $1.50 /hr the minimum in CA at the time.
People making minimum wage don't use the entire basket of goods and service in the consumer price index Food, transportation, education, shelter clothes and entertainment are the basics they use.
To put it in perspective I use what I call the Hersey Bar standard. In 1965 for an hours work at minimum wage one could buy 30 Hersey Bars. By that standard minimum wage should be $ 30 an hour. I could buy 10 NY subway tokens for one hour of work. To buy 10 now the minimum wage would have to be $25/hr. One could purchase two LP's or 2 movie tickets for one hour of work. Now $20/hr at the least would be comparable. One hour would buy 5 gallons of gas now $20/hr would be minimum. 40 hours of work would pay for a semester at Cal now $100/hr minimum would be comparable. A new VW bug would take 800 hours of work to buy a comparable car minimum would have to be $20/ hr. A three bedroom apt in Berkeley cost $110/mo. The same apt, 46 years older is now $1500/mo. $20/ hr would be the equivalent. The point is that $10/hr is not nearly the equivalent of minimum wage in 1965. The younger generation should have revolted long ago. With a minimum wage the equivalent of 3 times what it is now CA was able to flourish and it would again with a living wage provided to everybody including those who don't work or who go to school. There are countries such as New Zealand that pay students to go to school and it works to everybody's benefit. With our productivity we no longer need the work force we once had. The idea that people should work to be able to live is outmoded. This of course will require a redistribution of wealth and increasing the minimum wage to $25/hr would be a start. Then you will find that all the jobs that Americans are "not willing to do" will suddenly become more attractive and not requireing the services of underpaid and oppressed and frightened undocumented people.
great real-world examples of what a dollar is actually worth.
Agreed.
AX: Your post is so wonderfully simple. I love the Hershey Bar as "gold standard." You should tighten this up and send it to a mainstream newspaper's Letter To The Editor Section, even C-span. You've created a formula ANYONE can follow and relate to. Bravo!
The University of Mexico has no tuition. That border fence may be there to keep college-age Californians out.
"The idea that people should work to be able to live is outmoded. "
The questions then is, who will work? And those who are not working, what kind of standard of living are they expecting?
Personally i don't mind working. I love my job and look forward to going to work every day. Now if some dude wants to slack all his life, I don't mind contributing, provided the dude stays out of my face, shuts up and is thankful. Somehow, tho, I really doubt that ...
You answer your own question. You would work, for one.
I would, too, and be more productive since I wouldn't have to do stupid and useless things in exchange for money. (I refuse to do do destructive things and so have never been rich.) I could spend all my time doing the best I could to make my life, the life of those around me, and the land better according to my skills. Given a world made so much healthier psychologically by the abandonment of the slave ethic, my guess is almost everyone raised in such a culture would choose to work.
Local, that is tribal/band organization, equality and equal "ownership" of the tribe's land would encourage that even more. I'm not suggesting this is possible on any short time scale but it's someting to aim for. "Primitive" people worked an average of about 20 hours a week, at a relaxed pace usually, in a social way, and no one since in any society has been happier or been better for the Earth and the land they lived on.
Forward to the past, with benefits.
Brilliant post. Thank you.
"A Republican worker in McDonalds or Walmart or a cleaning company still wants a living wage."
If you are working at McDonalds or Walmart and are a Republican - you deserve your lot in life.
Anyone who wants to use the Hersey Bar Standard is welcome to and thanks Siouxrose. It does say a lot with a little. Almost the equivalent of 99% but not quite.
Axkershaw's brief litany of price differentials between now and 1965 nearly perfectly reflects my memory of this creeping inflation simultaneous with reduced purchasing power. Back in the early 60s almost anyone who had a job could manage if they had any sense (migrant workers and 'illegal' immigrants a separate issue just for sake of discussion). I am probably Axkershaw's age. I recall nickel Hershey bars (one ounce). For my own part, though, I use the price of PIZZA as the measure. When I worked in Manhattan in the early 60s there were little store-front pizza shops everywhere, at 10-cents a slice, 15-cents with pepperoni. Subway tokens were a dime. (I started hoarding the little tokens, but then they changed the machines to accept only the bigger, more expensive tokens. They changed the subway "currency"!) In the Midwest, gasoline was 35-cents a gallon!
Probably, if we created a market-basket of similarly iconic favorites we would have a better measure of the "real" level of inflation, and we could track the time when Speculation in world commodities markets (oil, wheat, dairy, toilet paper!, etc.) became more important than honest trading... Wages used to reflect the "cost of living". In the age of computerized, essentially unregulated instantaneous market manipulation, previous price/earnings correlations cease to exist. Today the Wall Street Tail wags the Main Street Dog. Their hands on the tail, poop on them!
.... -30-
The best reason for a minimum wage hike is because there is no longer any credibility to conventional economic "theory". Now everyone understands that the truth about economics is exactly what the people have suspected all along: It's simply a big game of chicken, where the one with the most "chutzpah" wins over the ones with less. Now that the people understand this, the elite emperors are, well, butt naked. Now the people know that setting the minimum wage to, say, $50 per hour merely increases the value of that production relative to other production. Everything else adjusts. So for example, if you value the production of an APPLE over the production of junk garbage deriva-kaka from Wall Struck, you just pay more for the apple. The people are learning how to place an appropriate value on things. Apples good, deriva-kaka bad. It's called "demand-side" economics where the people are in control. The people will set the wage according to common sense bells ringing inside them. Elite propaganda will just bounce off. Elites are really hurting today. Grim future for the elites. Exciting times for the people.
Hmmm
Great article that raises an issue that goes to the heart of the economic crisis the working people of America are being forced to pay for. That issue is income inequity between the 1% the working people of America. One point that should be made is that the $10 per hour figure is based on published government inflation rates. If you use the true rates of inflation the minimum wage would be around $20 per hour. We had the head the Federal Reserve telling the people he was going keep inflation around 1-1/2%. What a joke that number is. Virtually every independent measure of inflation has the rate above 8% and it has been above 10% for the last 4 years. This is how the FED steals our wealth.
I think that the term minimum wage needs to be replaced with living wage..
It is my understanding that the term ‘minimum wage was adopted during the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency, too describe what one would need to make to be able to afford the necessities of life.(A roof over ones head, food , clothing and car to get back and forth to a job).
The minimum wage today certainly does not provide that. In fact the minimum wage today is a tragedy under those terms.
Unfortunately, most definitions of "living wage" call for differences based on marital status and children. Single, childless people would be paid less. That would make wages more akin to welfare and, while I haven't looked into the issue deeply, strikes me as unfair and unpopular.
Regardless of what you may think of economic theory, the minimum wage does increase the cost of hiring someone, so in all likelihood it does contribute to unemployment. Is that really what we need right now, more unemployment?
I propose an alternative to the minimum wage. A subsidy from the federal government to bring up everyone's income to a livable income, regardless of whether they work or not. Then working becomes not a matter of survival, but a matter of affording things you want to buy to improve your life. It wouldn't be that bad if a worker only got $2 an hour, because that is purely disposable income for him. There would be no disincentive to hire people. Moreover, workers would have more bargaining power because they could afford to reject job offers they don't like. This would improve working conditions and boost wages - so not only would they be able to survive, thanks to the government subsidy, they would prosper because of higher wages of disposable income. Employers would have to compete more for workers.
Once Upon a Time, in those Rosy days of the Past, the Father worked and the Mother took care of the kids and did PTA and had Dinner on the table every night. They could live on a single income. I grew up in those days.
But now, a 2 parent family with 2 children of preschool age, both working full time at $7.25 per hour, make $2220 monthly gross. Their child care for those 2 children is $200 per child per week. (that may be higher in larger cities). That is $1600 per month for child care, which is $440 more a month than one parent Grosses. This means that the second parent can not afford to work. Which means that this family is living on $13,920 per year, or $1160 per month, or $290 per week. Even if they are using food stamps, this income does not cover their rent and utilities.
So many families that I work with are living in Motels. Run down Motels. They lose a job and then lose their homes. When they get another job, they can't afford the deposits and other expenses to move into an apartment. I feel so sad when I follow a school bus that unloads kids at these motels.
It only recently occurred to me that my part time position in a San Francisco public school doesn't pay me the SF minimum wage or $10.24 and hour. San Francisco has the highest minimum wage in the country, but not if you help out your local public school every day for a couple of hours. I've still not got an explanation from the district yet but I'm on my sixth phone tag with them. I wasn't even getting the previous minimum of $9.92. Instead I was getting $9.3748. Yeah, you saw that right, somewhere, somehow, some accounting mechanism couldn't even round up this hourly wage to the nearest half penny. And this for a job watching over 50 to 70 kids for a period not to exceed 2 hours in one day.
Raise minimum wage to $15. per hour and cut corporate tax rate to 15%.