A Federal Minimum Wage Increase Is Urgent, Regardless of Election Outcome
By Matthew Cardinale,
Working American families can't wait four more years more for a more sympathetic President to fight for an increase in the federal minimum wage increase. It's time to raise it now.
2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry said he was going to fight for an increase to $7.00 an hour as President, but he can still lead this charge as a Senator and party spokesperson. Progressive activists need to carry on the crucial fight, with or without Kerry in the White House.
"A job should be a bridge out of poverty," says the AFL-CIO, "an opportunity to make a living from work. But for minimum wage workers, especially those with families, it is not."
For a national culture that supposedly values "hard work," we certainly don't put our money where our mouth is. Often we see the hardest working Americans only sinking further into debt, unable to afford health care, and even going through episodes of homelessness. And yet we see wealthy Americans, many of whom inherited wealth, who don't work hard but enjoy a system today where enough money can practically multiply itself.
These kinds of contradictions, where our policies don't match our values, are leading to disillusionment among the children of working families today. Poor and minority youth ask, why should we work harder and harder if it won't get us ahead?
According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), 38% of minimum wage earners in 2003 lived at least 200% below the poverty line.
The federal minimum wage is still $5.15 as it's been since 1997. As of this writing, that was seven years ago. Due to inflation and rising costs of living, the benefit of the 1997 increase, where the wage went up from $4.25, has already been eroded.
"The minimum wage is not just about helping the impoverished. It is about fairness, the value of work, and the opportunities that work provides," write Jeff Chapman and Michael Ettlinger of EPI.
An increase in the federal minimum wage would benefit low and middle income families tremendously. For instance, if the 2004 Fair Minimum Wage Act were enacted, which would raise minimum wage to $7.00, the bottom 40% of American workers would receive 60% of the benefits of the wage increase, even though this group presently only receives 16% of earnings.
The federal minimum wage was first instituted in 1938, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, at which time the wage was twenty-five cents ($0.25). Increases are not automatic, even though costs of living increase; instead, they must be approved by the U.S. Congress.
According to Network, a Catholic Social Justice Lobby, "Congress has written legislation six times to increase its salary by $23,400 over the last seven years, but the minimum wage remains stagnant at $10,700 a year. Hence, the raises that Congress has given itself over the last five years are twice the salary of a minimum wage worker."
In April 2004, Senator Kennedy introduced S. 2370, The Fair Minimum Wage Act, which, including him, has a total of 26 co-sponsors. Most recently, Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) offered this as an amendment to a class action lawsuit bill. Republican leader Sen. Frist (R-TN) tabled the entire bill, rather than permit a voice vote.
It's like Republicans don't want to go on the record as being against a fair wage, so they'd rather keep this item off the agenda altogether.
It makes sense, though, because it's embarrassing to be against fair wages. Making Republican opposition to fair wages apparent would seriously undermine the party's self-presentation as an alleged populist organization.
April 2004, H.R. 4256 was put forth by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, with the same objective as S. 2370.
Before that was Senate Bill S. 224, sponsored by Senator Tom Daschle
(D-SD) and co-sponsored by 37 senators, which would have raised the federal minimum wage in two stages by a total of $1.50, creating a new wage of $6.65. This bill has been offered as an amendment to other bills several times by Kennedy and Boxer, but stalled by a Republican-controlled Senate since it was introduced and read twice on the floor in January 2003.
S. 224 had garnered 38 co-sponsors, including Daschle, 37 other Democrats, as well as Independent Jim Jeffords (I-VT). But zero (0) Republican senators sponsored the fair wage bill. Also, there were 11 Democratic Senators who did not sign on to S. 224.
Who are these 11 so-called "Democratic" Senators who neglected to support a basic minimum wage increase? According to Thomas.loc.gov, they
are: Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Bill Nelson (D-FL), retiring Bob Graham (D-FL), retiring Zell Miller (D-GA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), retiring John Breaux (D-LA), Max Baucus (D-MT), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and retiring Fritz Hollings (D-SC).
With friends like these, who needs enemies, is a thought that comes to mind.
An hourly minimum wage of $8.46 would be required today to have kept pace with inflation from 1968 when the wage was $1.60. So actually, the proposed increase to $6.65 is a modest proposal.
To be sure, many states and cities have been enacting living wages in their own areas, and this should continue, especially where the costs of living are higher in certain areas like say California.
But state-level minimum wage increases only fuel Republican arguments at the state level that "businesses will leave our city/state for another city/state if we raise our wage and there will be job losses." That is why minimum wage must be increased at the federal level. Federal, state, and local increases must complement each other in order to prevent a "race to the bottom" by states and localities.
Progressives must unite in rabble-rousing around some major reform issues no matter who was or was not elected President this year. Increasing the federal minimum wage is broadly needed and should be a signature issue leading the progressive agenda.
But progressives shouldn't be alone in this struggle. Many conservatives should be able to support this issue. Network, the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, argues the "moral majority"
should recall that Jesus and the Pope have both favored the poor consistently in their teachings.
Matthew Cardinale is a freelance writer, activist, and graduate student in sociology and democracy studies at UC Irvine. He can be reached at mcardina@uci.edu.
NEW!! Add your comments below
