The Absolute Minimum
This is the amount of service, leadership, social mobility, and vision the US Senate is prepared to give us: The Absolute Minimum.
The national minimum wage has not been raised in eight years from $5.15 [only two dollars over a gallon of gasoline, and that spread will likely decrease quickly], and it certainly didn't get raised today. The typical argument in support of keeping the minimum wage low is that it hurts small business, does not create jobs, stifles the free market, promotes outsourcing, etc. Check here for a reference chart of the arguments, heavily weighted toward abolishment of the minimum wage for economic philosophy reasons. It should be noted that on this chart there are eight reasons to abolish the minimum wage, and three to maintain it. The reasons to maintain it should be carefully considered, however: Workers need a minimum amount of income from their work to survive and pay the bills; Businesses have more power to abuse the labor market.
Much of the middle wage debate is an economic philosophical argument- on both sides of the debate ideology infuses argument more than reality. But let's look at today's report in the NYT:
Kennedy strikes two emotional chords- first, that the Senate's wealth disconnect has an absurdity to it. But this isn't unconscionable so much as it is simply absurd, simply the wealth complex of America's representation in action.
That a single parent makes only 70% of the poverty rate, which is truly unconscionable. He doesn't add the other factors into his equation of poverty, however, which must be considered- that a single parent makes only 70% on minimum wage, has to then take multiple jobs, misses out on their education which will enable their upward social mobility out of poverty. Plus there is the extremely volatile problem of health insurance and other benefits- in minimum wage jobs none of these exist. So, if, say, you're a single mother working two jobs, you have to take a third in order to pay any health bills your child might have that aren't covered by medicare.
In the end, this costs America lots of money; and costs insurance providers lots, and insurance subscribers [read- everybody else] even more. Because we end up paying for all of the deficiencies which are, by virtue of our minimum wage's provision of 70% of poverty level, not being adequately provided to our workers.
You think it's cheaper to pay to maintain poverty in America like we're doing, pay to maintain the status quo which we're preserving with this? Or cheaper to raise wages a buck and provide meaningful health care services?
The national minimum wage has not been raised in eight years from $5.15 [only two dollars over a gallon of gasoline, and that spread will likely decrease quickly], and it certainly didn't get raised today. The typical argument in support of keeping the minimum wage low is that it hurts small business, does not create jobs, stifles the free market, promotes outsourcing, etc. Check here for a reference chart of the arguments, heavily weighted toward abolishment of the minimum wage for economic philosophy reasons. It should be noted that on this chart there are eight reasons to abolish the minimum wage, and three to maintain it. The reasons to maintain it should be carefully considered, however: Workers need a minimum amount of income from their work to survive and pay the bills; Businesses have more power to abuse the labor market.
Much of the middle wage debate is an economic philosophical argument- on both sides of the debate ideology infuses argument more than reality. But let's look at today's report in the NYT:
Kennedy, D-Mass., said Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the depth of poverty in the country and he pointed out that a single parent with two children working a minimum wage earns $10,700 a year, $4,500 below the poverty line.Starting with Enzi. Enzi is an accountant from Wyoming. His state is one of the very few in America where, in many places, somebody can actually make it by on minimum wage. They are just squeaking by, but they can. In Wyoming, there are rich people- very rich- but they aren't being joined by the people making minimum. Wyoming is a state whereby the minimum wage operates adequately for what it is intended: enabling the status quo. If Enzi is "serving his constituents," he is doing so by making sure that nothing changes for them- at least very quickly.
He said it was "absolutely unconscionable" that in the same period that Congress has denied a minimum wage increase, lawmakers have voted themselves seven pay raises worth $28,000.
But Republican opponents, echoing the arguments of business groups, said higher minimum wages can work against the poor if they force small businesses to cut payrolls or go out of business.
"Mandated hikes in the minimum wage do not cure poverty and they clearly do not create jobs," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., who offered the Republican alternative.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, asked Wednesday about Kennedy's measure, said President Bush "believes that we should look at having a reasonable increase in the minimum wage. ... But we need to make sure that, as we do that, that it is not a step that hurts small business or prices people out of the job market."
Kennedy strikes two emotional chords- first, that the Senate's wealth disconnect has an absurdity to it. But this isn't unconscionable so much as it is simply absurd, simply the wealth complex of America's representation in action.
That a single parent makes only 70% of the poverty rate, which is truly unconscionable. He doesn't add the other factors into his equation of poverty, however, which must be considered- that a single parent makes only 70% on minimum wage, has to then take multiple jobs, misses out on their education which will enable their upward social mobility out of poverty. Plus there is the extremely volatile problem of health insurance and other benefits- in minimum wage jobs none of these exist. So, if, say, you're a single mother working two jobs, you have to take a third in order to pay any health bills your child might have that aren't covered by medicare.
In the end, this costs America lots of money; and costs insurance providers lots, and insurance subscribers [read- everybody else] even more. Because we end up paying for all of the deficiencies which are, by virtue of our minimum wage's provision of 70% of poverty level, not being adequately provided to our workers.
You think it's cheaper to pay to maintain poverty in America like we're doing, pay to maintain the status quo which we're preserving with this? Or cheaper to raise wages a buck and provide meaningful health care services?
posted by General Stan at 6:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home