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 »
Last week’s headlines highlighted record prices for the Dow Jones stock market average. But who really wins when stock prices soar?
The biggest American winner was Rupert Murdoch, the boss of right-wing Fox News and a global media empire. He made $214.81 million in a single day, according to Forbes magazine. Mexican magnate Carlos Slim did better still, with a staggering $1.09 billion one-day increase in [his] wealth. They, plus the other 98 individuals on Bloomberg’s list of the world’s wealthiest people, made $28.7 billion in a single day.
But what about us? Here are some of the hard economic facts that really matter to the 99 Percent:
» Read more about: The Dow Is Up But the 99 Percent Are Down »
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 »
In the previous week we reposted this fact-packed, viral video (more than four million views at last count) about economic inequality in America. Its deft use of graphics makes this a handy resource — and worth a second look.
Tuesday, a growing coalition of labor unions, environmental groups and tribes made clear that protecting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), our state’s landmark environmental protection law, is essential to California’s future.
Wealthy developers and corporate special interests have attacked CEQA as a hindrance to job creation, and are pushing to “reform” (i.e. gut) the law. But the facts just don’t support their claims. At an event [held] on the steps of the Capitol that morning, the Labor Management Cooperation Trust released a report that finds that since CEQA became law in 1970, California’s manufacturing output, construction activity, per capita GDP and housing (relative to population) all grew as fast or faster than the other 49 states.
The reality is that for more than 40 years, CEQA has been a firewall for California communities, protecting our environment and workplaces from big corporations and developers trying to make a quick profit at the expense of our health and safety.
» Read more about: Keep Predators Off the California Environmental Quality Act »
Let the hand-wringing begin! In last week’s primary election, just over 16 percent of Los Angeles voters turned out at the polls, less than four years ago, which was less than the election before that, which was less than the election before that – and on and on. In Southern California municipalities – big city or small – elections draw about 20 percent of the vote. This is a problem in a democracy.
Low turnouts mean that more and more money gets spent on fewer and fewer voters, and when only a small minority of voters go to the polls, elected officials make major policy decisions based on a narrower group of constituents. In a democratic society, where people are empowered to make decisions that affect their lives, fewer voters mean diminished participation and less accountability.
In the early 1980s, when reformers first took a majority of seats on the City Council in Santa Monica,
» Read more about: Diminishing Returns: Where Have All the Voters Gone? »
(Lisa Schiff is a member of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco. Her post first appeared in BeyondChron and is republished with permission.)
A friend of mine emailed me last fall incredibly worried about the impact of potential sequestration cuts on schools and students across the country. He was a long-time Washington D.C.-based public education advocate, so I was simultaneously unshaken and unnerved by his concern. Sequestration seemed like a D.C.-based fear, so unlikely to actually happen given the blowback that would surely come from such imprecise cuts. But my friend’s many years of fighting for resources for children’s education meant that I couldn’t really ignore his concerns, and so his words remained a low-level worry until March 1, when I had to concede that he’d been right all along.
Funding for shared needs like education is always at risk and the past few weeks have highlighted just how great that risk is.
Shoddy political theater distracts people with vague demons called debt ceiling, fiscal cliff and now, sequester. Party leaders posture for major donors, media boosters and the faithful. They claim to save us from the demons. Meanwhile, backstage they all agree on austerity as the “necessary” response to “our major problem,” namely federal budget “imbalance.” “We” are spending “beyond our means,” accumulating “government debts.” So “we” must raise taxes and cut spending – impose austerity – to regain balance.
On January 1, payroll taxes rose (from 4.2 to 6.2 percent) for 150 million Americans. Their checks shrank as that regressive tax became more so. Obama’s hyped “tax increase for the rich” was comparatively trivial. It affected only the very few Americans earning over $450,000, raising their top tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Our leaders hope we forgot the 1950s and 1960s, when the top tax rate was 91 percent. On March 1,
To the let’s-cut-entitlements crowd, what’s wrong with America is that seniors are living too high off the hog. With the cost of medical care still rising (though not as fast as it used to), the government is shelling out many more dollars per geezer (DPG) than it is per youngster (DPY). The solution, we’re told, is to bring down DPG so we can boost DPY.
We do indeed need to boost DPY. And we need to rein in medical costs by shifting away from the fee-for-service model of billing and paying. But as for changing the way we calculate cost-of-living adjustments for seniors to keep us from overpaying them — an idea beloved of Bowles, Simpson, Republicans and, apparently, the White House — this may not be such a hot idea, for one simple reason: An increasing number of seniors can’t afford to retire.
Nearly one in five Americans age 65 and over — 18.5 percent — were working in 2012,
Janice Slaughter often takes her 19-month-old granddaughter to the Tiny Tots child care center in Jackson, Mississippi, or picks her up in the afternoon so that her daughter, the baby’s mother, can attend school.
Slaughter brought her own children to the same center when they were babies and has known the owner for years.
But, soon, she and her daughter, who receives a federally funded child care subsidy administered by the state, will be required to scan their fingers on a device at Tiny Tots whenever they bring in the baby or pick her up. Everyone else will just walk right in and out.
Susan Williams scans her finger when she picks her daughter up from child care in Jackson, Mississippi. “I don’t mind it, but I really don’t see the point in it, I don’t understand why it’s necessary,” she said. “You have to stand in line and wait for it.”
“It’s inconvenient,
» Read more about: Fingerprinting Indigent Mothers and Other Shaming Rites »