Via CalPundit comes a link to this article by Douglas McKinnon, former press secretary to Bob Dole. McKinnon is taking his fellow Republicans to task for not supporting a minimum wage increase. Well-- he takes the Democrats to task too, but since he's a Republican it's more fun to play that side of things up.
A lightly trimmed version of the entire article, presented for your edification:
In politics, those in power rarely witness the consequences of their actions or look into the eyes of the people devastated by the cold stroke of a pen or an impersonal yea or nay vote. Such is the case with the much-needed minimum-wage hike now stalled in the Senate Labor Committee.
What price are we, as Americans, willing to put on human worth, on safety, decent medical care and hope? If a minimum-wage increase isn't passed, Congress will have decided that $5.15 an hour is that price a number that should bring shame to anyone who truly cares about those barely existing below the poverty line.
I'm a Republican with a somewhat unusual perspective on this issue: I grew up in abject poverty and was homeless a number of times as a child. Poverty has never been an academic or partisan issue for me. It destroys the human spirit, creates crime, divides classes, fosters misunderstandings and, worst of all, crushes innocent children.
On both sides of the aisle, senators and representatives are insulated from the consequences of such stratagems and positions. Few have ever experienced real poverty. They live in a cocoon of security and ignorance, and they earn pay that lumps them with the highest-earning 1% of all Americans. Not a lifestyle conducive to understanding what it's like to try to live on $5.15 per hour. The last time the minimum wage was increased was 1997. Since that time, members of Congress have voted themselves $21,000 in pay raises.
The accepted "poverty line" for a family of three in the United States is about $14,800 per year, another national disgrace. Pick up a newspaper in any large city in our country and try to find a decent apartment for less than $1,000 per month. Figure in money for food, clothes, medical bills, transportation to and from the $14,800-a-year job, utilities, entertainment and unexpected expenses. It doesn't add up.
Now imagine trying and failing to live on today's minimum wage: $5.15 per hour works out to $206 a week, or $10,712 per year. That's $4,000 less than what most would agree no American family can survive on.
And the really bad news about the proposed minimum-wage hike is that even if it goes through, the minimum wage will be only $6.65 per hour. That's $266 a week, or $13,832 a year.
Americans who exist below the poverty line do so mostly because of accidents of birth or circumstances beyond their control. Instead of the Hamptons, they were born in Harlem. Instead of order, they are surrounded by dysfunction. Until you've been there, you have no idea of the pain, humiliation and hopelessness. The poor in the United States are not "non-persons." They have the same hopes, dreams, fears and integrity that the well-to-do have. All they lack is enough money to care for their children and themselves.
The minimum-wage hike is not much but, below the poverty line, every penny counts. The Senate should strip it out of the foreign aid authorization bill and approve it immediately. Morally, it is the right thing to do. As a Republican, I would say that to represent the majority, we must serve the majority. We must be there for those in need.
Damn straight. I'm not a bleeding-heart Democrat because I realize that trying to help everyone in every way results in actually helping very few at the expense of all. But this is another matter entirely. The collateral benefits of raising the minimum wage would be very great, far outweighing the theoretical hardships facing employers to meet the new minimum.
For my part, I used to subsist at $.25 above minimum wage, while living in a part of the nation where the cost of living is pretty cheap, especially compared to coastal New England where I now live. I was supporting myself only, economizing reasonably, and I couldn't save a penny. Granted, I wasn't interested in saving at the time, and if I'd have cut out the beer, I could have done so. But I was a single young adult male, renting a single room, childless and without any major expenses such as car payments/insurance, and I could barely get by at minimum wage.
Yet, we expect entire families to make do for a year with less than it takes to buy a new Toyota Corolla.
McKinnon is right-- it is shameful. I understand the money has to come from somewhere, that it doesn't just grow on trees, but congressmen on both sides of the aisle are not doing their jobs if they don't find that money.
[update]Income disparity, while in and of itself neither good nor bad, is nevertheless on the rise in the US, and has been for a while. I would rather see a higher minimum wage (actually, much higher-- $8 or more) than a permanently disenfranchised and debt-ridden underclass. Such things are bad for democracy, bad for neighborhoods, and bad for the country.
This brings up a point that Windy City Mike raised a few months back-- that many, if not most, of the social problems attributed in this country to lingering racism are actually class-based. A higher minimum wage, loosely indexed to the actual cost of living, might help this quietly yawning chasm from growing wider.
Actually... this reminds me of a second point. Buckethead is fond of citing Chicago-School economics as the road to new American prosperity. Although Mr. Bucket ("Bouquet") , or is that Mr. Head, brought this philosophy up in defense of tax cuts, the principle would apply here as well. By raising the minimum wage, and also raising (Raising! not Eliminating!) the EITC to recognize the higher baseline assumption, we could put more cash in the hands of consumers and further drive the economy.
Of course, this is assuming that the Chicago School of economic philosophy has merits.
A final thought. The job market is not efficient. An efficient market assumes rational players who have choices. People who need money, and now, often take out of desperation the first offer that comes along. An argument that the minimum wage is what it is because it's what the market has set is both specious and droolingly moronic. People generally want to work, because it's what gets them money. Why not make it possible for more wage-earners to actually save what they earn and turn it into hard assets? Higher minimum wage-- yes!
on
| § 0
