Labor

Recently, a friend of mine sent an email to Senator Mel Martinez of Florida asking him to defend his initial opposition to raising the minimum wage. In response, the Senator wrote:

"Minimum wage decisions should be left to individual states, and not dictated by the federal government."

Thankfully, the Senator did eventually give in to the will of the People and voted for the increase. Kudos to him.

However, I would like to address the link between "states rights" and the minimum wage. I'm sure it's an excuse we'll hear again from Republicans as they oppose measures that improve the plight of the working poor.

Frankly, I'm amazed that conservatives still love to brandy the "states rights" concept despite the many times it has shot them in the foot.

Isn't "states rights" exactly the same excuse used by the pro-Slavery faction in the ante-bellum South, and later by racists at the height of the segregation?

Repeatedly, those who wish to deny their fellow citizens economic and political reform - both Democrat and Republican - have used "states rights" to give themselves a fig-leaf of respectability during the debate over human rights. I suppose it's easier to talk about "states rights", than to openly admit to being a racist, a homophobe, or, in the case against raising the minimum wage, a classist.

Even if one ignores all the times "states rights" has been used to justify bad social policy; the bottom line is that setting a minimum wage is not a "states rights" issue even with the most conservative reading of the United States Constitution.

Senator Martinez needs to re-read Article I Section 8 which grants congress the power: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

Congress therefore, certainly does have the power to establish or change a national minimum wage under it's interstate commerce powers.

So if you want to fight against raising the minimum wage, do so on sound economic policy. The "states rights" argument simply does not hold water

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: States Rights - Minimum Wage - Senator Martinez - Florida

Note: This post was co-written by Paul -V-.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
| | | | | | |

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:
| | | | | | |

In a victory for European consumers, labor, local businesses and fair trade: Wal-Mart is pulling out of Germany.

Wal-Mart to Sell Division to Metro, Exiting Germany

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, will retreat from Germany by selling its 85 stores to Metro AG at a $1 billion loss, two months after exiting South Korea.

Wal-Mart failed to make money in Germany, Europe's largest economy, where consumer spending didn't grow last year and closely held Aldi Group and Lidl dominate. Its U.K. unit, the Asda supermarket chain, missed profit and sales goals last year, and the company is leaving South Korea after failing to win customers. The German unit had revenue of 2 billion euros ($2.54 billion) last year, compared with the parent's $312.4 billion.

The real story here is that even if you factor in the pro-corporate spin that Bloomberg added to the above article; without monopolistic practices, government subsidies and under-priced labor - Wal-Mart was unable to compete.

This is another example that demonstrates how Wal-Mart's strength doesn't come from superior management or distribution, but from the ability to bully their opponents into giving them what they want.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: Wal-Mart - Labor - Germany - South Korea - competition

Bookmark/Search this post with:
| | | | | | |