My Uncle Harry used to say, “Rich or poor, it’s always good to have money.” (Wise man, he was). So if the Democrats were to somehow get Obama’s proposed $9 per hour minimum wage passed, it would make a real difference for some of the most desperate. But it’s hard for me to get excited about the audacity of tepid incrementalism for reasons DrugMonkey lays out:
40 hr week (thank you liberal progressive commie America haters….almost 100 years on and America is still not destroyed)
52 weeks per year (yes I know but those should be 2 weeks of paid vacation, dammit)
Like I mentioned, it is about $3,000 more than the current minimum wage of $7.25. But what this ‘pre-defeat’ of a policy fails to address is that the minimum wage has not grown even as the U.S. economy has grown:
If the minimum wage had grown at the same rate as the U.S. economy, it would be $16.54. If nothing else, can’t Democrats, for once, not lead with their final offer? Make no mistake this is part of an agenda to impoverish workers:
Kidding aside, what goes unsaid in this is that many of us are complicit in an economic system that pays people an indecent wage. While these workers are often referred to as the ‘working poor’, they should be accurately called impoverished workers. This is something that is actively done to them. But a lot of people just want cheap, crappy pizza, I guess….
Keep in mind, the majority of the working poor–those who make less than $18,500 for a family of three–completed high school, and more than a third have some college education or are graduates.
This is where neo-liberal class warfare does to us. It is shameful.
And it is within our power to fix this.
An aside: I see no reason why low-wage employers should be subsidized via the EITC and other subsidies. They should pay a decent wage, even if that means lower profits. Does Wal-Mart really need to benefit from a de facto ‘industrial’ policy?