“Values” Voter Raise Minimum Wages

Work just got a little more rewarding in Arizona, Montana, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio and –according to CNN projections – Colorado. Voters in these states just approved increases in their minimum wages – from $5.15 an hour all the way up to $6.85 an hour in Ohio. The six new states join the enlightened 18 that had already raised their minimum wages, for a total of 24 states where it’s beginning to be worthwhile to get up and go to work in the morning.

I’m especially proud of my home state, Montana, which a decade ago was best known for its white supremacist militias. I feel like the Abe Lincoln character in the Rozerem ad: “Welcome back,” I want to say, “We missed you.” Except that the Montanans aren’t falling asleep – they’re waking up from their weird, scary, claustrophobic dream.

If the U.S. electorate was as heavily skewed toward the upper middle class this time as it has been in recent years, many of the people who voted to raise their states’ minimum wages were not in a position to benefit directly. In fact, some of them may end up paying a little more for their landscapers and restaurant meals. In other words, these voters saw the minimum wage as a moral or “values” issue. They decided that restaurant meals don’t taste all that good when they’re served by people who have trouble feeding themselves.

In Colorado, the group opposed to raising the minimum wage – Stop42—tried to seize the moral high ground for itself, with an ad depicting God Himself warning against an increase. The ad shows a Santa-like Moses addressing the Big Guy:

MOSES: We need divine intervention. They want to chisel Amendment 42 into Colorado’s constitution where it doesn’t belong.

GOD: What on earth are you talking about?

MOSES: An annual minimum wage increase in stone for eternity!

GOD: When inflation and recession come, it will be a catastrophe!

MOSES: It’s a plague we’ll face every year.

GOD: We can’t let the people make this mistake. Go. Spread the word. Vote no on 42!

It’s odd that God, for all His omniscience, hadn’t noticed that the states that already had higher minimum wages haven’t yet plunged into “inflation and recession.” Or that the 1997 hike in the federal minimum wage wasn’t followed by nationwide economic calamity. It’s stranger still that the deity would choose to weigh in on the side of the Colorado Restaurant Association and against the poor and downtrodden.

Two weeks ago, in San Francisco, I attended a conference of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice in California (CLUE for short.) The hundred or so assembled ministers, priests, rabbis and imams probably didn’t agree on a lot of issues, like abortion rights, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, or the divinity of Jesus. But they were solidly united on one thing: The moral responsibility of all citizens to improve the lot of the down-and-out. This week’s vote shows that the word is getting out.

Comments

[Anarcissie]

I don't like to rain on anyone's parade, but won't the additional money from the raised minimum wage simply be extracted by landlords, business owners, banks (through raised interest rates) and the government (through taxes)? I suppose it's nice that Caesar throws alms to the unwashed, but....

[Jacqueline]

What would be more to the point is ensuring that there are first enough jobs for every one who is despertely poor because of not getting ANY chances for ANY jobs, and who cannot seem to qualify for any help out of what is left of our eviscerated and shredded safety nets. Also, a minimum wage does nothing for poor, commissions-only paid "self-employed" persons who have been economically excluded from any other job opportunities.

[realpc]

Raising the minimum wage probably won't help the down and out very much, and might hurt some of them.

It may be a nice gesture, but people need better jobs, not a small raise for keeping their lousy job.

And most workers who earn minimum wage are not trying to live on it. They are often housewives or students who work part-time to supplement the family income or help pay tuition.

Even when the minimum wage is higher, it still won't be enough to live on or raise a family on. And in the long run it contributes a little to wage inflation and price inflation. And it might make low-skill jobs a little harder to find.

So the small amount of good it might do is balanced by the small amount of harm it is likely to cause.

So big deal.

[Steph]

The legislated minimum wage isn't perfect, but it is a benchmark and an important indicator of what a state sees as a basic income. I prefer the idea of a guaranteed annual income and no taxation if you make under a certain threshold, because it will help those on contracts, seasonal workers, those on commissions or piecework etc, but I still believe in a strong minimum wage.

And I would refute that those working for minimum wage are doing it for "pin money". As the service sector grows and good paying jobs in more traditional sectors decline this is the wage that new graduates, immigrant workers, the less skilled and many others are working for. If it wasn't there the employers would pay them less and since most mimimum wages are pretty low, I find that idea deplorable.

Additional money for the higher minimum wage can be passed on to others through increased prices, or here's a crazy thought, through less profits. I think The Gap and Wal-Mart can afford to spend less on marketing and union-busting and pay their employees a buck more an hour.

[The Eternal Squire]

I voted for the minimum wage increase in Arizona. And, I voted a Democratic slate at all levels. See... rocking the vote CAN work!!!

Next step for us is to contact the people we voted for to advance our agenda. I hope UP is up to this task.

The Eternal Squire

[Anarcissie]

I don't think there's any chance that employers are going to account for a higher minimum wage by reducing their profits. After all, they're in business to make a profit in the first place. That's their motivation for doing what they do.

[realpc]

"I prefer the idea of a guaranteed annual income and no taxation if you make under a certain threshold"

We already have that, called the Earned Income Credit. It helps low-income workers without punishing employers. Democrats could have emphasized expanding the EIC, but they think punishing business is more fun.

[Jacqueline]

I think Steph made the point about how these huge profits are spent by corporations.

Just think if all that money was NOT spent on union-busting and lobbying to get more anti-worker rights laws passed (such as "Employment-At-Will") which serve to leave workers with NO rights or recourse under the laws. Wouldn't it be better to spend just a fraction of all that money on living wages, health benefits and in the support and creation of more jobs here as opposed to overseas? The corporations would still make out just fine, but the average person here would at least have a chance to be able to make it.

There is NO reason why there should be so few jobs for everyone willing and able to work so that there are more and more homeless people and people going hungry, going without healthcare, without their basic utilities on, etc. Since the US is a major economic player on the world economic stage, impioverishing America is going to impoverish other countries, too and lead to a global depression because too many people without any money or without enough money to live on are people who cannot affrd to buy anything that these corporations make or provide services for. This is why I have always said that the supply-side economics touted by Reagan (and everyone since him) is voo-doo economics. For example, if you are one of the filthy rich and your buddy Bush gives you a whole bunch of corporate welfare goodies plus tax cuts to give you even MORE wealth, that does not mean you will hire poor jobless people just becuase you can afford to. What will cause you to hire job seekers is DEMAND. And if 80% of Americans are unable to afford anything, the demand side is cut out of the equation. This kind of fuzzy math just doesn't benefit anybody in the long run - except the filthy rich who want to create a huge slave class so they can have it all and to hell with everybody else.

[realpc]

Jacqueline,

"there are more and more homeless people and people going hungry"

You would have to back that up with some data. If poverty has gone up at all here, it is only slightly. Maybe you're thinking of inequality, which has increased greatly over the past 10 years. A small number are getting "filthy" rich, but that doesn't take away from the poor and middle class, who may be a little poorer, but not by much.

As for supply-side economics, there is some validity in it, although of course as you point out the demand side is just as important. Businesses do care about consumer demand, and they would not want Americans to become impoverished and unable to buy their products. Businesses do not want to create a slave class -- that is an old disproven Marxist myth.

You also make the mistake of thinking businesses have it made and have no worries. But they are in constant competition with each other, and many of them fail. They do have to worry about their profits. I think if you were a business-owner you might see there is more than one side.

On the other hand, CEO incomes have become ridiculously high, as everyone must admit. But this did not happen because of some wicked plot of the Bush administration. Things have a tendency to go too far and get out of control. The same is true of rock stars and athletes. I don't know if it really hurts the middle class though.

When Reagan was elected, things had gone too far in the direction of high taxes and big government, and it was harming everyone, including workers. Economists disagree about whether Reaganomics was good or bad, but eononomists disagree about everything. They can't easily prove their theories.

I think a healthy economy depends on balancing many factors. Our society has to grope its way in the dark, trying this and that and seeing what seems to work. And something can work for a while and then stop working. There is nothing simple about it, in spite of what the political left says.

[Anarcissie]

Jacqueline: 'Just think if all that [ corporate ] money was NOT spent on union-busting and lobbying to get more anti-worker rights laws passed (such as "Employment-At-Will") which serve to leave workers with NO rights or recourse under the laws. Wouldn't it be better to spend just a fraction of all that money on living wages, health benefits and in the support and creation of more jobs here as opposed to overseas? The corporations would still make out just fine, but the average person here would at least have a chance to be able to make it.'

The people who run corporations are just like most other people: they want the most reward (be it money, power, social status, or the things these can buy) for the least cost for themselves and possibly their near relatives. There is no use waiting for them to become nice. Working people need to form their own institutions, like unions and cooperatives. A hundred years ago they knew this. Now, they seem to expect the rich or the government (which the rich almost always own and operate) to do them favors. They'll wait a long time for that.

[lc2]

Funny how we make all kinds of assumptions about the budgetary needs of min. wage workers. Why not just ask them if they could use the money, and what exactly they would use it for?

Perfect example: I was listening to an NPR pgm. the other day on which a labor market analyst declared that more supermarkets are installing self check-outs because they can't fill the jobs.

Huh? My spouse does the hiring at a large supermarket chain store and turns down people every single day who are willing to do whatever's available. Where is this mythical shortage of minimum wage job seekers -- Malibu? Can it be that all the "housewives" (how is someone a housewife if they're employed outside of the home, btw?) decided en masse to go to work?

Remember that when you're trying to put food on the table and keep the lights on this is not a theoretical discussion about how there should be better jobs out there. The people who perform the minimum wage work where I live are indeed trying to live on it, cobbling jobs together with family members, not chipping in to a mad money fund.

[realpc]

"The people who run corporations are just like most other people: they want the most reward (be it money, power, social status, or the things these can buy) for the least cost for themselves and possibly their near relatives."

Anarcissie,

Yes, of course this is true. But it is just as true of the rest of us, who do not run corporations. Everyone wants to succeed in their chosen field, create a pleasant life for themselves and their families, and impress their friends. This is human nature and it's hard to see how it could be different.

Yes, some people sacrifice their own happiness in order to serve the public and help the poor. But, ironically, they also hope to become successful in that chosen field. Social activists who become well-known are loved and admired by their followers.

We all want success, in some form. Maybe we want to be loved by our children and grandchildren, or appreciated by our customers or employers. None of us want to be poor, and we all want to feel valued in some way by someone.

The people who despise the rich probably wouldn't mind being rich themselves.

I agree with Anarcissie, we have to work with human nature as it is. If you are a low-wage worker, do not wait for corporations to notice you and feel sorry for you. Each group has to organize for its own self-interest.

[Jacqueline]

Here's some additional facts to consider:

If you are between the ages of 18 and 64, you have a 33% chance of becoming disabled at some point during your working years. If you are disabled and female or disabled and black, your chances of ever getting a good job to be able to live decently are at around 4%. That figure diminishes to zero as you age.

Yet, try to get help from Social Security if you are disabled. You have to get a lawyer and fight for YEARS - for a pittance of $534/mo SSI. So even if you finally do get something, you can't live on it if you live alone and have no family. But nobody seems to want to give you a chance for a job that pays enough to live, either.

[Tom]

Eventually, whether we like it or not, this idea of eternal profit is going to have to be replaced. It isn't sustainable, fair (in a lot of sectors), or even realistic in the long run. We have to realize that we're all in this fishbowl together and that we'd do well to organize and help each other in every way possible, feed the planet, and provide stewardship to the environment. War and greed, huge economic divisions in society, and the way it is now clearly aren't working. i don't think we'll have a choice any longer if the next 20 years play out in the "business as usual" way. Some think it's already too late.

[realpc]

"War and greed, huge economic divisions in society, and the way it is now clearly aren't working."

And it seems so obvious that all of that can be fixed. If your car or computer aren't working, all you have to do is find the problem and correct it.

What progressives generally do not understand, though, is that the metaphor is dangerously deceptive.

I am not saying things are great or that we must accept everything as it is. But the idea that you can rush in there and straighten things out has be disproven many times. Maybe you think you're smarter than everyone who tried before (most progressives seem to think that). Maybe you have a plan worked out that goes on for thousands of detailed pages.

We can improve some things, but we are stuck with war and some version of capitalism. We can't escape them any more than we can find a cure for death.

[Anarcissie]

realpc: "We can improve some things, but we are stuck with war and some version of capitalism. We can't escape them any more than we can find a cure for death."

We're not objectively stuck with them. They seem to be a choice.

For instance, people complain about corporate profits, but most people try to benefit themselves individually as much as possible. That is exactly the same thing the owners and managers of the corporations are doing. If everyone is doing it, the society evolves into a hierarchy of people benefiting themselves individually, which we call "capitalism". A similar structuring of society occurs to serve the desire for war and violence. These social structures and practices are sustained by the way we conduct our daily lives.

Oddly, humans also strongly enjoy altruism, but maybe not as strongly as they enjoy violence and individual material benefit. The decision to go with altruism would have to be a conscious choice, not an unthinking reaction. But how are you going to get people to think when they don't want to?

[realpc]

Anarcissie,

No, selfishness and altruism are relative and there has to be balance. Do you know anyone who is 100% altruistic? Are you? Of course we need some selfishness just to survive, and quite a bit to survive well.

Altruism and love are extremely important, but we can't really separate them from selfishness. We get selfish pleasure from being loved and appreciated for our altruism.

It gets complicated, as I hope you can see. We can't simply turn off self-interest and turn on compassion and altruism. That's not how the machine of life on earth works.

Regarding war and violence -- you have not thought these out either. The only way to stop war is to have a global government strong enough to enforce peace. But a government that strong would have absolute power and would therefore turn evil sooner or later.

Why do we in the US feel reasonably safe from violence (in middle and upper class neighborhoods, at least)? Because we have police with guns, backed by the local, state and central US governments.

But even though our government has so much physical power behind it, we still have our freedom. So if we can trust the US with power, why can't we trust a global government the same way?

We can more or less trust our US government because there are other governments that can oppose it when it starts to become evil. Many countries oppose us now because they disapprove of our aggression in Iraq. If the US continued aggressive policies that the world disapproves of, coalitions would form to contain us.

It's the competition and balanced power, backed up by the threat of violence, that protects us from world tyranny.

Leftist fantasies deny the realities of how things work. Why can't we all just love each other and be kind and generous? Try that, even in your own little world of family and friends. I guarantee you get stepped on. Maybe you think you're being kind and generous when you give $25 to a charity, or let your spouse win an argument. That's being a little kind and a little generous. Try going all the way, and you will see that the concepts of selfishness vs. altruism are relative and must be kept in balance.

[realpc]

"how are you going to get people to think when they don't want to?"

We're all thinking, just not necessarily the same way as you. It's typical of progressives to feel intellectually superior. But your thinking is not superior, it's just different. And, in my opinion, your thinking is pretty lax.

[Anarcissie]

realpc: "No, selfishness and altruism are relative and there has to be balance. Do you know anyone who is 100% altruistic? Are you? Of course we need some selfishness just to survive, and quite a bit to survive well."

I wasn't think of 100% anything. What I was saying is that people have certain desires in common, and these desires get translated into political action and institutionalized in various ways. There is a connection between the minutiae of daily life and our great enterprises -- and problems. However the way in which these desires get translated differs depending on the object. Desires for personal gain can be coordinated into capitalist corporations, whereas desires for community and altruism are, at present, highly fragmented. Hence capitalism appears to be inevitable and universal. But, as I said, I don't think this is objectively necessary, it's a collective choice.

[Anarcissie]

realpc: "And, in my opinion, your thinking is pretty lax."

I'm not going to write armor-plated political theory in someone else's blog. I'm just trying to provoke some conversation on subjects that interest me and seem to be related to the bloggist's.

[realpc]

Sorry Anarcissie, I should not have insulted your thinking. I can disagree with your ideas without saying your thinking is lax.

[chris]

lc2 wrote:

"I was listening to an NPR pgm. the other day on which a labor market analyst declared that more supermarkets are installing self check-outs because they can't fill the jobs."

Perhaps a "labor market analyst" would claim that supermarkets install self check-out aisles because the supermarkets can't fill the jobs, but a Wall Street analyst will tell you that it costs less to operate a self check-out aisle than it does to pay a cashier operating the same equipment for a customer.

Gas jockeys have almost disappeared because operating a gas pump is a no-skill job that anyone can perform. The trick is getting the customer to pay. That's been solved with advancing electronic payment technology.

[lc2]

Good point chris, and it raises a question for me:

How far can the Wall St. tycoons push matters before the natives get really, really restless? You can't mechanize all the low-skill jobs and export some of the higher-skill ones too, still have nonstop media saturation telling you "buybuybuybuybuybuy" and expect no more than a little grumbling among the masses. Something will have to give soon, and I suspect that the election was the cue that the pendulum must swing back a bit before real unrest erupts. GW Bush tiptoed into the waters of socail security and quit while he was ahead -- all efforts to see just how far the privileged titans of industry can press their luck.

But my question regarding all this widespread mechanization in the midst of rampant outsourcing is: are we past the point of no return? Where are the jobs of the future that will fill this void?

[realpc]

lc2,

Who do you think is guilty of the mechanization? Are you blaming that on Bush, or capitalism, or what? Do you want to make mechanization illegal? Maybe instead of posting on blogs, we should be carving stone tablets.

You may have heard this before, but you can't have it both ways. You can't have all the modern conveniences and toys, while preventing mechanization.

[chris]

lc2 asks:

"But my question...is: are we past the point of no return?"

There is no "point of no return."

You asked:
"Where are the jobs of the future that will fill this void?"

There is no "void". The US is an advanced nation. That means people must learn more sophisticated forms of work or learn how to leverage simple work.

Today's farmers are no longer just the kids who grew up on farms. The new farmers are going to college and studying agriculture and finance.

We graduate very few engineers in this country despite the abundance of very smart students. My undergraduate degree is in engineering. I went to school with mostly Americans. But engineering graduate school is populated mostly by foreign students.

Sometimes they stay in the US, but many return home. There is no shortage of engineering jobs here.

Millions of jobs that are common today didn't exist 25 years ago. But it's always like that.

[lc2]

realpc: I'm not blaming anyone or making this a moral issue. You must have me confused with another poster you've bullied off of another thread -- your apparent pastime.

Just wondering how far the privileged will push their luck this time. The fact is, they are vastly outnumbered and they know it. Like anyone seeking maximum profit, the titans of industry will look to cut labor costs as much as possible, which is to be expected. Mechanization is inevitable to a degree but sometimes it's penny wise and pound foolish if consequences like environmental impacts aren't considered. And in terms of social unrest: it seems to me that to have it occuring in tandem with such rapid and rampant outsourcing of previously-thought high-skilled jobs is a phenomenon. It threatens to make it more difficult to convince 95% of the people out there that investing their most productive years in this system is in their best interest. After all, we all want to maximize our interests. An objective analysis, not a moral one, but I anticipate being caricatured as a naive idealist anyway.

[chris]

lc2, you wrote:

"Just wondering how far the privileged will push their luck this time. The fact is, they are vastly outnumbered and they know it."

This sounds like a call to revolution. A threat to kill the aristocracy.

Who would revolt? Who would the revolutionaries hang in the public square?

You wrote:
"Like anyone seeking maximum profit, the titans of industry will look to cut labor costs as much as possible, which is to be expected."

The "Titans of Industry"? Please. How about the guy who runs the corner deli, the gas station, the small retail store.

Major corporations don't hire illegal aliens. They might contract with those who do, those who clean offices and maintain property, but illegal aliens aren't important to the organization like they are to the deli, conenience stores, bodegas, and restaurants of New York City and probably every other city.

You wrote:
"Mechanization is inevitable to a degree but sometimes it's penny wise and pound foolish if consequences like environmental impacts aren't considered."

We're way past the mechanical age. We're well into the microelectronic age. Meanwhile, China and India are not deeply concerned about environmental issues. Neither are lots of other nations. Therefore, our efforts don't mean much in the long run.

India is about to start production of an SUV that it expects to sell in the US. I think that's great news.

[lc2]

You read way too much into my comments -- they were a statement of fact, not a call to revolution. I don't think it comes as news to the American aristocracy such as it is that they must throw a bone to the rest of us -- it makes good business sense. And let's not forget that Bush and Cheney, for starters, are businessmen.

My point is that it would be unwise to push too much change all at once -- hence the hasty retreat Bush beat from the Social Security reform agenda. I think he and co. realized to leave well enough alone. I always wonder though if someone will get too greedy and push it further than they'd intended. I would've thought that the tax cuts to the wealthy would've raised the ire of the general public, but that didn't do it.

[Sukrit Sabhlok]

There is no problem with employers being able to hire and fire if their bottom line calls for it. We should abolish all minimum wages, in part because the people on the minimum wage are not poor people but often young people working part-time who come from comfortably middle class families. It's better we get people into gainful employment and let the welfare system take care of those who fall through the cracks. Businesses should not be made to unnecessarily bear the costs of value judgements of what's “fair” and what constitutes “social justice”.