richest country in world has minimum wage leaving families in poverty

The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15

BLOG | Posted 02/18/2006 @ 3:18pm
By the Numbers
Katrina vanden Heuvel

After I blogged yesterday about the shameful fact that the richest country in the world has a minimum wage that 1) hasn't budged since 1997 and 2) leaves hardworking people and families living in poverty, I came across this fact: 11,600 minimum-wage workers could be paid for an entire year from the Yahoo CEO's 2004 compensation.

Just think about that for a while. These numbers come from "By the Numbers" http://sabo.house.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={186C3295-AC24-4E21-AC2C-429F6607D921}&DE={E1541E96-2552-484D-9FA7-C09B25AE9713}--a list put together by Representative Martin Olav Sabo, a Democrat from Minnesota. Sabo's Income Equity Act of 2005 http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060217 would limit the tax-deductible salary of a corporation's CEO to twenty-five times the annual salary of its lowest-paid worker. Currently, that limit is set at $1 million, regardless of the salaries of the workers. There's a lot more to be done to achieve true economic justice and fairness in this country, but I say this is a proposal that Dems should fight for.

For more on how to make America help the working poor, read this powerful op-ed by former vice presidential candidate John Edwards and John Wilhelm,http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/17/making_america_work_for_the_working_poor president of UNITE HERE http://www.unitehere.org hotel workers union.

Thank you, Republican leadership!

There are so many people today working 2 and even 3 jobs. And to no fault of their own, they can't make it above the poverty line.

It's a direct result of our failure in this country to be concerned about the least among us, and to do things like raise the minimum wage.

I'm reminded of Dr. Martin Luther King's "Been to the Mountaintop" speech.

Everyone knows the last part of that speech, where he' talks about he's not fearing any man, and he's been to the mountaintop, etc.

But the most poignant part of that speech for me, the one that truly hits home, is this part right here:

"It's all right to talk about "long white robes over yonder," in all of its symbolism. But ultimately people want some suits and dresses and shoes to wear down here. It's all right to talk about "streets flowing with milk and honey," but God has commanded us to be concerned about the slums down here, and his children who can't eat three square meals a day. It's all right to talk about the new Jerusalem, but one day, God's preachers must talk about the New York, the new Atlanta, the new Philadelphia, the new Los Angeles, the new Memphis, Tennessee. This is what we have to do."

- Dr. Martin Luther King- on the day before he was killed

for war to care about the poor.

...lies with "the working poor" themselves. Or at least that portion of them who, as in Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas?, will vote their "values" over their interests -- and then let the right wing sell them their values without a moment's thought.

A survey done recently, and covered in The American Prospect, provides a sobering look at what we're up against. It found that, over the past decade (and even before 9/11), the average American had become considerably more authoritarian and "Darwinist" (i.e. holding the belief that life is a struggle for survival against others, and that you wind up with the lot in life you deserve). In other words, these people see no reason to change their station in life, and figure they deserve pretty much what they're getting, no matter how hard-off they may be.

Part of it may be their belief that neither party can do anything concrete to change the status quo, another part might be holding certain unrelated-to-their-socioeconomic-position religious or ethical beliefs that would cause them to vote against their self-interest. But there appears to be at least a significant segment (enough to sway a national election?) that holds that "they are where they deserve to be" on the socioeconomic ladder, and sees anything that might change that, even for the better, as "unnatural" and "wrong." And as long as a large bloc of the people we speak about as the "working poor" will not only refuse to vote their interest, but will actively vote against it, I see little hope for change in this country beyond re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

:-(

of these people you speak about are too ignorant to realize they are voting adainst their own interests. they have been hoodwinked by the thug spin machine and believe their snappy slogans(it's your money; no child left behind). they do not look past the headlines to discover the true story, therefore I also see little hope for change, but I haven't given up.

working poor would have the balls to get out there and fight,and possibly die,for the cause,as the earlier labor groups did.

have either lost power or sold out--it happened to me.

the deck is so very stacked that it is all but impossible to set up a union against a determined employer. Once a union IS certified, it can be destroyed or made impotent by a lack of good faith bargaining on the part of the employer. This has come about by a 50 year effort to weaken the unions starting with the Taft Hartley act passed by a GOP congress over the veto of Pres Truman. It continues and is reinforced by the current practice of one dollar on vote effect of campaign donation. To even begin to reverse the trend of lower wages for working people we need campaign finance reform. We need public financing to leverage the will of the people into electable candidates that reflect their will, and not just the desires of the moneyed elite.

By far the best system we can have is the clean money clean elections system in effect in Maine and Arizona. For more information check out public campaign's web site.
http://www.publicampaign.org/

take a huge cut in benefits and pay. But GM workers make
$65/hour in pay and benefits. Therefore the minimum wage
earners certainly deserve a hefty raise.

living alone cannot make it on minimum wage.

heat, etc.

meaning that no one making that wage can meet the basic human needs of food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and transportation to and from work. A patchwork of substandard and dangerous shelter (like camper cabs on cinderblocks), high fat and carbo food with little protein, and just hoping you don't get sick or injured while you hitch a ride to work is what people on minimum wage face unless they're healthy enough to work multiple jobs.

Everybody in this country outside those old maids in pants in Congress agrees that the minimum wage needs a hike and a very big hike, at that. Congress won't do it, though, terrified to incur the temporary ire of conservative small businessmen who never seem to catch on that every rise in the minimum wage increases their business and more than pays for itself.

It's frightening how close we are to the tipping point of having people so completely tapped out that the economy collapses overnight.

..."the richest country in the world?" :sarcasm:

a permanent underclass, legal or illegal, that does not speak English or have any skills

We can look at our European brethern to see that government does not legislate its way to deal with the working poor.