An awesome workout machine I like: Ultimate Body Press.
Real Estate in North Carolina: The Peaks at Wolf Ridge.
Attention Dial-up users! Support corporate-free media by switching to IndyLink for your internet access and hosting needs:
Here's a great CD by RudePundit:
To: Democrats of the 110th Congress
Copies to: The American People
From: Paul -V-
Date/Time: Thursday - January 11, 2006 @ 06:00 AM EST
Subject: Control the debate by talking about "living wage" over "minimum wage"
Like most Americans, I'm pleased that Democrats in Congress are pushing for a raise in the minimum wage. This move is long-overdue. However, if you wish to control the debate over how much compensation a laborer should be paid to avoid exploitation by her employer, you must drop the phrase "minimum wage".
Allow me to explain.
The problem with the word "minimum" is that it is defined as: "The least quantity or amount possible, assignable, allowable, or the like."
This is an inherently poor standard to determine how much of something people need to pursue happiness. For example, you only need a minimum of 1000 calories of food a day to survive. However, if you were forced to live on such a limited diet you would not be capable of much activity beyond crawling out of bed and checking the mail.
Just as our hypothetical "minimum calorie" diet does not engender good health, a minimum wage does not build sustainable local economies or raise living standards. It is a fact that even the thriftiest of people who are paid on a minimum wage (Even at the proposed $7.25.) are not capable of saving for emergencies, healthcare, or even pay regular utilities without depending on social services.
In other words, not only does a minimum wage not break the cycle of poverty, it is in fact a de-facto subsidy to businesses - since it is the taxpayer that ultimately pays when the poor cannot.
Besides, striving for the minimum is not the American way. The founding fathers didn't fight for "minimum" freedom, Martin Luther King did not march for "minimum" Civil Rights, and citizens would be rightfully insulted of you tried to pass legislation with wording like "minimum justice" for all Americans.
Yet we freely banter around the word "minimum" when dealing with the poor.
Interesting.
You don't need to pass a living wage law to take control of the debate. In fact, such a national benchmark may not be a good idea since the definition of "living wage" varies so much from region to region. For example, in Asheville, NC $15 an hour would meet the requirements of a sustainable lifestyle, while nearby Boone, NC the rate might only need to be be $10.
Instead, I propose that Democrats start talking about living wages the way FDR and past Democrats have done. Start pushing for policies that encourage states to allow cities and counties to set their own living wage.
Not only would such legislation do more to lift the working poor out of poverty than a $2.10 increase, you also make life very uncomfortable for Republicans - who now have to explain why working Americans don't deserve to be able to save for the future, invest in themselves or provide simple pleasures for their children. You also force them to explain why Wal-Mart's labor force should be subsidized by the taxpayer.
I reiterate that raising the minimum is a good idea, and you deserve to be congratulated on your efforts. Just remember that until all Americans are payed a living wage, the plight of the working poor will not be fully addressed.
---
Read counterpoint here.
Tags: Memo - Minimum Wage - Living Wage - Democrats - Congress - language
Bookmark/Search this post with: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
People who register with Brainshrub.com get the following features: