same Congress that passed huge tax cuts for wealthy refuse to help poor

[dajoki]

NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/opinion/03tues1.html?th&emc=th

A Fair Day's Pay

Published: January 3, 2006

The federal minimum wage has been a paltry $5.15 an hour for more than eight years. Polls show that there is strong popular support for raising it, but Congress has resisted. Unions, community groups and advocates for the poor are increasingly taking the matter directly to voters through state referendums to raise their states' minimum wages, according to an article yesterday in The Times. Their intentions are laudable, but the efforts only highlight Congress's failure to set the federal minimum wage at a reasonable level.

The federal minimum wage got its start in 1938, when the Fair Labor Standards Act required the employers it covered to pay workers at least 25 cents an hour. Because the law is not indexed for inflation, Congress has to pass legislation to increase the minimum wage. Its record of doing this is disappointing. The last time the minimum rose was in September 1997. Since then, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the minimum wage's purchasing power has fallen more than 15 percent. It is now less than one-third of the average wage for private nonsupervisory workers - the lowest percentage in 56 years.

Keeping the minimum wage at a reasonable level has appeal across the political spectrum. Liberals see a higher minimum wage as a way to lift the working poor out of poverty and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Many conservatives see it as a way to reward work. In a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 86 percent of respondents, including 79 percent of social conservatives, supported increasing the minimum wage to $6.45 an hour.

But the idea has some influential opponents. Business interests, led by the restaurant industry, have lobbied to keep the minimum wage low. Some free-market conservatives, heirs to the original opponents of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, oppose it on ideological grounds. In recent years, these forces have prevailed. The same Congress that has passed huge tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations has consistently refused to help those on the other side of the economic divide.

[Old Smokey]

1. They've never

given a damn about working people. never have and never will

[newyawker99]

6. Hi Old Smokey!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[rkc3]

2. This is the same group of people who believe in

"Trickle Down" and "Supply-Side" Economics.

Neither make any sense when you consider consumers make up 2/3 of annual expenditures in this country.

Why should we be surprised when an article like this gets published?

[dajoki]

3. who's surprised?

[rkc3]

4. My guess very few people here would be - perhaps 45 million

of the 50 million who voted for bush (he's a compassionate conservative doncha know) might be surprised.

[dajoki]

17. you're right...

there are just way too many ignorant people out there.

[TheFarseer]

8. What about "Demand-Side Economics"

I'd love to see some democrat touting this in 2008. It makes more sense than Supply Side just inherently and even more so now with globalization.

[rkc3]

11. That would be wonderful.

Can you imagine the size of Rush's aneurysm over stealing Supply-Side from the right?

[dajoki]

13. great idea n/t

[Jayhawk Lib]

5. I am going to get flamed but??

I think that every state should be responsible for setting the minimum wage for their people. The cost of living for every state is different. An example would be the cost of housing for California compared to our little rural state here in Kansas.

A average 1500 square foot house might cost $80 to $100k in Kansas. A home similar to this in California would be $150k to $250k. The same goes for other necessities in California verses Kansas.

For these reasons the minimum wage should be set by the states and not by the federal government.

[dajoki]

7. some states...

do set their own minimum wage and some are proposing it.

[rkc3]

9. PA is working on raising its minimum wage.

[dajoki]

12. good...

but it's controlled by pubs except the governor.

[TheFarseer]

14. I don't like that idea - here's why

Just like states compete to get companies to locate in their state with tax breaks now, they will compete to get companies to locate in their state by lowering minimum wage. It’s fair in theory but I can’t see it working in practice.

[trotsky]

15. Exactly.

There needs to be a federal minimum so that no state can undercut another to the detriment of workers. Plus the people earning minimum wage aren't exactly mobile enough to just pick up and move to another state if the minimum wage in that state gets too low.

[Jayhawk Lib]

16. It is already that way

Why don't these companies start leaving Calf. and New York and all the other high cost of living states now. I think the minimum wage in New York and California is still higher than what anyone is proposing for a federal minimum wage.

Why aren't these companies flocking to Arkansas and other low wage states?

[zbdent]

10. Plus the fact that the Repuke congress just raised their salaries

AND John Roberts was pushing for raising the salaries of the Justices . . .