For Merleane S., a 19-year-old, single mom, her work shift on March 15 included taking and filling orders at a fast food restaurant in Palm Coast, Florida. She was earning the state’s minimum wage of $7.79 per hour. Similar to other U.S. workers, she was trying to make sure her family was secure.
That same day, in the nation’s capital, lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously voted against an amendment to H.R. 803, a job training bill. That amendment would have gradually increased the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour by the end of 2015.
The amendment marked one of the most recent efforts regarding an issue that is gaining momentum nationally — an increased minimum wage. If the idea is approved, it would affect millions of workers across the income spectrum, including the middle class.
Merleane,
» Read more about: Not Only the Poor Benefit from Raised Minimum Wage »
The minimum wage is back on the rise. Last month Sen. Tom Harkin and Rep. George Miller introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, which would raise the federal wage to $10.10. State legislatures aren’t waiting. The New York state assembly approved an increase to $9 plus indexing, the New Mexico state senate approved an increase to $8.50, and the Hawaii state senate and house each passed increases.
But that hasn’t stopped the doomsayers. The conservative Cato Institute called the minimum wage “zombie economics.” Paul Ryan said that “history is very clear” that it “costs jobs.” Marco Rubio said that “We have a lot of history to prove” that “raising the minimum wage does not grow the middle class.”
In fact, the historical record is quite clear. “Consider the Source: 100 years of Broken Record Opposition to the Minimum Wage,
» Read more about: What ‘Zombie Economics?’ The Minimum Wage & Its Critics »
Our Nation so richly endowed with natural resources and with a capable and industrious population should be able to devise ways and means of insuring to all our able-bodied working men and women a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. A self-supporting and self-respecting democracy can plead no justification for the existence of child labor, no economic reason for chiseling workers’ wages or stretching workers’ hours.
Enlightened business is learning that competition ought not to cause bad social consequences which inevitably react upon the profits of business itself. All but the hopelessly reactionary will agree that to conserve our primary resources of man power, government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages, the evil of child labor and the exploitation of unorganized labor. –FDR, May 1937
In his recent State of the Union address,
» Read more about: The Minimum Wage Offers the Working Poor Maximum Help »
In her Congressional testimony from 1959, Eleanor Roosevelt noted the repetitive quality of objections raised by minimum wage opponents over the previous five decades. More than 50 years later, it appears that nothing has changed.
Our new report, published with the National Employment Law Project, documents the rhetorical onslaught launched by minimum wage opponents over the past 100 years. Rather than approaching these claims at face value, we step back and review how minimum wage opponents have presented their case through roughly a century’s worth of public statements, congressional testimonies, editorials, media interviews, and other public records, devoting a critical eye to the trajectory of these criticisms over time.
Sample quotes from Consider the Source: 100 Years of Broken-Record Opposition to the Minimum Wage:
1937
“Rome, 2,000 years ago, fell because the government began fixing the prices of services and commodities.
» Read more about: Minimum Wage Foes: Crying Wolf All the Way to the Bank »
On Sunday the Los Angeles Times published a story about the important successes of campaigns to pass local minimum wage and living wage laws. However, while highlighting new developments that will impact local economies and the lives of workers, the Times missed the real story and forces behind this growing trend.
The piece focused on two ballot-box victories for living wage laws: a minimum wage for hotel workers in Long Beach and a citywide minimum wage increase in San Jose.
“The victories put these two California cities on the cusp of an emerging trend,” wrote Wesley Lowery. “Ballot initiatives, labor experts say, have the potential to rewrite labor’s playbook for how to win concessions from management.” Throughout the piece, Lowery presented the minimum wage ballot measures as a tactic put in place and managed from behind the scenes by labor leaders.
In fact,
» Read more about: L.A. Times Misses the Story Behind Living Wage Campaigns »
When President Obama proposed an increase in the federal minimum wage last month, you could almost hear conservative economists and pundits smacking their lips in anticipation. After all, there’s nothing that gets this crowd going like mandating a wage increase, even if it’s from the downright Dickensian $7.25 currently required, to a still paltry $9 — or just under $19,000 a year.
Minimum wage foes almost always base their opposition on the supposed damage that these laws do to the businesses that have to pay them and the workers who receive them. Despite reams of research to the contrary, they persist in claiming that minimum wage increases force businesses to lay off workers, hurting the very people who should benefit.
There is another argument, however, against minimum wage laws, one that was trotted out in a column by Slate’s Matt Yglesias. The real problem with these laws is not that they hurt workers and their employers,
» Read more about: The Right to Be Poor: Matt Yglesias’ View of Minimum Wage Laws »
Sustainable economies are built on good jobs. If people don’t earn enough money, they can’t keep the economy growing by buying goods and services.
This basic fact is lost on opponents of minimum-wage increases, who for decades have been arguing that these pay hikes hurt businesses, cause job loss and therefore are bad for the economy.
Repetition of an argument might keep it in the news, but it doesn’t make it factually credible. So it is with minimum-wage rejectionists, who have succeeded in getting at least equal time for their assertions with every proposed wage increase, even though their claims have been debunked over and over again.
It is no surprise, then, that the Reason Foundation’s Adam Summers in his op-ed in the Business Journal predicts dire consequences if California were to increase its minimum wage law (“Higher Minimum Wage Will Lower Job Prospects,” February 11).
» Read more about: Raising the Minimum Wage Will Lift the Economy »
(This post first appeared February 20 on Truthout and is republished with permission.)
Republicans were quick to criticize President Obama last week after he proposed raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 during his State of the Union address, but now a poll shows that a majority of voters agree with the president that the current minimum wage is not a living wage and a hike is in order.
A Rasmussen Reports national survey released on Tuesday found that only 15 percent of voters believe the current minimum wage provides workers with enough money to live on, while 72 percent said $7.25 an hour is not a living wage.
Voters remain more closely divided on actually raising the minimum wage, with 54 percent in favor of the raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour and 36 percent opposed to the proposal.
In his State of the Union Address this month, President Obama called for a much-needed increase to the federal minimum wage. Almost four million American workers are paid at or below the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour for their work, adding up to about $14,500 per year, per person for a full-time, 40 hour per week job. This doesn’t come close to covering the cost of living for a single person, let alone a family.
In the food retail sector, unfortunately, raising the minimum wage might not make much of a difference to those employees that are most vulnerable. Grocery stores and other food retail outlets are already avoiding minimum wage and benefit requirements for many workers by keeping them in part-time jobs. Realistically, if a worker can’t get scheduled for 40 hours per week of work, then minimum wage requirements cease to be effective in ensuring an annual income floor.
My friend pastors a vibrant congregation in the Mid-City area of Los Angeles. Her people reflect the neighborhood and the church worships in both Spanish and English. In a conversation this week I asked her how her folks were doing. Her voice dropped, and she shook her head. “There are no jobs,” she said, “and the ones who work can only get part-time hours.” With dismay, she said, “I don’t know how they are making it.”
I don’t either. At one extreme, high-end properties – homes that sell for several millions of dollars – had a banner year in 2012. Sales of super-expensive automobiles reached record levels. Exotic vacation destinations are packed. The number of jobs in Los Angeles County has reached about 4.3 million, almost the number we had before the Great Recession began five years ago, although there are now also more people looking for work than then.
» Read more about: Of Biblical Proportions: Inequality and Poverty Wages »
Most of us know how badly Walmart treats its employees. Yet whenever the remedy of paying a living wage is proposed, opponents always argue that the cost to Walmart shoppers is too high, and that low-income consumers will be hurt the most.[1]The question is: What will a living wage for Walmart workers cost Walmart shoppers?
First, some background. A 2005 study found that Walmart jobs in metropolitan areas pay less and are less likely to offer benefits. Other researchers demonstrated that Walmart workers earn on average 31 percent less than workers in large retail stores as a whole and about 60 percent of the wages of unionized workers. They also found that an astounding 75 percent of full-time workers with at least one year on the job made below $10 an hour and less than half were enrolled in Walmart’s cost-prohibitive health plan.
Moreover,
» Read more about: Walmart: The Low Cost of High Road Retailers »
As the economy slowly rebounds, we need to ask what kind of recovery we want in Los Angeles.
Experts point to tourism as a key industry poised to help drive recovery and growth in our region. The potential is certainly there. Tourism is the largest employer in Los Angeles, accounting for one in ten jobs. And hotels in particular have recovered past pre-recession levels, with projections for strong growth. Industry analysts PFK Hospitality Research forecast revenue per available room in Los Angeles to grow by an average of 5.6 percent per year over the next five years – on top of an 11.7 percent increase this year. (For comparison, the long-run average is 3.3 percent.)
However, jobs in hospitality and tourism come in very different shapes. Some of our large hotels succeed while paying good middle-class wages and benefits. Others offer only poverty jobs that leave workers struggling to support themselves,
» Read more about: The Economy Improves — Will the Minimum Wage? »
Tens of millions of Americans earn under $25,000 a year, and real wages in many of their lines of work have been stagnant for the past 40 years. California entrepreneur and magazine publisher Ron Unz has a suggestion for how to help them: “Perhaps the most effective means of raising their wages is simply to raise their wages.”
Specifically, Unz, in a paper for the New America Foundation, proposes raising the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour. This would, he concedes, raise prices of most things for all Americans and drive some enterprises out of business, but Unz argues that neither of these drawbacks would be terribly severe.
The cost rises would be minimal, and the sectors most threatened—ones that are magnets for illegal employment arrangements between undocumented workers and low-paying owners—impose external costs on society that outweigh their benefits to begin with. “Sweatshops and similar industries,” Unz writes,
(This opinion piece first appeared in today’s Los Angeles Times.)
The U.S. economy has turned a corner. The national unemployment rate hit a post-recession low of 7.8 percent in September. Rising consumer confidence, increasing home prices and other leading economic indicators confirm the trend.
Unemployment is still too high, but a focus on the number of jobs obscures a serious long-term crisis of declining wages and a shrinking middle class that is having a harder and harder time making ends meet. New jobs pay less, raises are rare and benefits even rarer. According to a National Employment Law Project study released in August, the majority of new jobs created in the last two years pay just $13.83 an hour or less. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz recently said, “Increasing inequality means a weaker economy” for all of us.
» Read more about: Raising the Minimum Wage Is the Least We Can Do »
These pages are filled with stories of bad corporate actors — companies that attempt to boost profits by cutting labor costs at the expense of safe and ethical work environments. It’s a pleasure, then, to report on a multinational company’s CEO who is trying to make a difference.
Karl-Johan Persson, the CEO of H&M, recently traveled to Bangladesh, a country from which the fashion giant sources tons of textiles, to meet with Prime Minister Sheik Hasina and ask that textile workers be paid a fair wage.
The visit was pure activism as H&M does not actually own any Bangladeshi factories, it simply sources from the country. The argument Persson used with the PM is strikingly similar to that used by U.S. living wage advocates: A higher wage will be good for the country, not just workers.
Corporate Social Responsibility Newswire reports on the strategy behind the visit:
In addition to working with suppliers to increase wages,
» Read more about: A Responsible Persson: H&M's Boss Argues for Wage Hikes »
Big Food companies and their lobbying groups have lied to us many times. They convinced Congress to include tomato paste on pizzas as a vegetable. They say we need industrial, chemical-laden agriculture to feed the world. (Check out Anna Lappé’s new video Food MythBusters to learn that we don’t.) And Big Food has also spread the mythology that if the minimum wage is raised, food will become so expensive that none of us will be able to afford to eat out – or eat at all – again.
Yes, that’s a lie! On this Food Day 2012, our organizations are releasing a new report, A Dime a Day: The Impact of the Miller/Harkin Minimum Wage Proposal on the Price of Food. The proposed Fair Minimum Wage Act, introduced this year by Representative George Miller (D-CA) in the House and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) in the Senate would raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.80 per hour over the next three years and the tipped minimum wage from $2.13 to 70 percent of the regular minimum wage.
» Read more about: What Can You Get for a Dime a Day? A Lot, Actually »
As pundits constantly remind us, when it comes to the national elections, it’s the economy, stupid.
But the parameters of the debate about our dire economic straits has been disappointingly narrow, leaving out some of the most pressing issues facing tens of millions of Americans.
If national leaders are serious about reviving the economic fortunes of our struggling middle class, the unemployed and the growing ranks of the working poor, they would do well to take a long, hard look at the new report, “10 Ways to Rebuild the Middle Class for Hard-Working Americans: Making Work Pay in the 21st Century.” Released today by a consortium of two dozen organizations across the country, the report is a clarion call for a set of policies that are largely off the radar screen of both major parties. This deafening silence notwithstanding, the prospect of a true economic recovery that restores the promise of broadly shared prosperity is nearly inconceivable without the adoption of most of these proposals.
» Read more about: A Prescription for Middle Class Recovery »
There is little disagreement that consumer spending is a critical driver of American economic growth. The recession that began in 2007, while precipitated by the meltdown in the financial sector, is at root a crisis of aggregate demand. The halting recovery has been punctuated by disappointing monthly job reports and—just as important—by gloomy predictions from the Conference Board’s monthly survey of consumer confidence. Even business surveys admit (here and here) that anemic consumer demand (not “job-killing regulations”) is holding back new job creation and economic recovery.
Yet, despite worries about sagging consumer confidence and shrinking paychecks, business leaders seem unconcerned about the declining standard of living of middle-class America, or about the growing number of American families slipping into poverty. Over the last generation, wages for middle-class workers haven’t budged, while compensation for corporate executives and owners is reaching stratospheric levels.
My grandchildren live on pizza. Oh, they eat other things that young children like, but whenever mom or dad work late or events intervene, the call goes out for pizza man to deliver.
I was thinking about this when I read a piece in The Week a while back about franchisers who will soon need to cover the cost of health insurance for their low-wage workers or pay a fine. The case study focused on a guy who owns a string of chicken and Mexican fast food stops and who employs 425 workers. Some of these people run the front counter. Some do the deep frying. Some sweep up. None, apparently, have any health insurance.
The owner complains that providing these workers health insurance will cost him $546,000 a year – a cost that he says his business plan simply cannot support. Really? I thought.
» Read more about: Pizza, Health Care and the Minimum Wage »
Few American institutions have been subjected to such a consistent stream of vitriol and assault as the minimum wage, which celebrates its 74th birthday this week. The first federal minimum wage was established when FDR signed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on June 25, 1938. The FLSA also established the eight-hour day, paid overtime and child labor protections into federal law. Since then, it has been amended nine times to expand coverage and to raise the wage to keep it in line with the nation’s economic growth.
Business leaders, industry associations, politicians and more recently think tanks have opposed the FLSA and every legislative amendment since. They said it would destroy American civilization, kill jobs and hurt black people. Business owners predicted they would be forced into bankruptcy.
One business opponent of the 1938 legislation even warned that the minimum wage would lead to the decline of the American empire.
» Read more about: Minimum Wage Doomsayers Still Wrong After 74 Years »