The "Minimum Wage" Issue is a loser for Dems.

It's a ho-hum issue to most people ..Most people make OVER minimum wage already, and the ones who make minimum wage are likely to be kids who cannot vote, or undocumented people who cannot vote .

It's also an idea that feeds right into the myth of the "excessive costs of the small businessman".

If you are running a small business, and already pay your employees $6 an hour, it does not affect you one bit, BUT the issue itself will scare them into thinking that now they will have to raise the wages for the people they already have. With the current pay at 85cents above minimum, the employees might expect to be paid 85cents over the NEW minimum.

The republican mantra will be that the only people who "make" minimum wage are lazy slackers, kids who already have parents to take care of them, ex-cons inbetween jail sentences, and "illegals".....so the dems will be on DEFENSE from DAY ONE.

Why are they apparently choosing THIS idea, above all others, as their "signature" issue?

Because they lack imagination, initiative, and courage.

The list of WINNING issues is so vast, it's almost comical to even try to list them, but here goes:

Environmental degradation
Oil and its connection to war expenses and deaths
Nationalization of health care
Nationalization of energy
Outsourcing of "family-supporting" jobs
Insourcing of "slave labor"
Union-busting
Corporate corruption/lobbying
The shrinking middle class
The unaffordability of college
The sorry state of the infrastructure of the country
The under-funding of retirement plans and social security
Rebuilding our standing in the world
and so many others..

ALL of these issues impact on EVERY citizen in the US, and everyone has their futures and the futures of their children riding on how we address these issues.

Minimum wage is a mite on the backside of an elephant compared to the important issues we face.

If this is the best that we can come up with, we might as well run Joe Liberman-Zell Miller


*******EDITED TO ADD*****

I THINK THE MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD BE AT LEAST $10.00..I AM NOT AGAINST POOR PEOPLE MAKING A LIVING WAGE...I AM AGAINST PELOSI TRUMPETING HOW THIS ISSUE IS THE SIGNATURE ISSUE OF THE CAMPAIGN...ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO PASS ANYWAY...coming out in favor of rain in a thunderstorm takes little imagination or insight

I think many of our Dems right now just won't stand by those things, choosing rather trivial issues.

the other white meat.

It was the discussion on Washington Journal this morning. I tivo so couldn't call to say, "Are they high, first of all we all pay no matter what, if somebody is making min wage, they have to be getting some kind of assistance, which we the tax payers pay for. Secondly I believe it should be up to the states. I believe health care should be the #1 issue. We need single-payer...PERIOD...

However more and more states are raising the minimum wage. Right now, it is under discussion here in Arkansas, of all places, and looks like it will win, despite all the arguments to the contrary. But then again, here it is very possible to find breadwinners of voting age working for $5.15 an hour.

But since this is going through the states, maybe just let the issue lie. I agree that the following from your list of issues resonate with Arkansans I know (and this includes a certain number of Bush supporters whose support is wavering if not broken):

Underfunding Social Security-around here, this is the retirement plan of most.

Oil and its connections to war-a double edged issue here; many many National Guardsmen and Reservists from Arkansas, and they are hurting. When an Arkansas soldier dies, the whole town goes into mourning and most attend the funeral. Oil prices are really hurting, with Arkansas being mostly small towns with most having a bit of a commute to go to work.

and then ask them for their vote. If Democrats aren't interested in raising the minimum wage, they might as well vote third party.

The states that don't, will have to take a long hard look at their own legislatures, and the draconian measures their elected officials put into place to harm their poor people.

Raising the already low fderal minimum wage to yet another "too low" level, will just give lipservice to the long list of detractors.

I am NOT saying it chould not happe..just that it should not be our "signature" issue.

the rest are on the Federal average or lower.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

There are HOMELESS SHELTERS here full of working people who are earning the minimum wage--which is so little that it will not
cover the cost of apartment rental. A modest one-bedroom apartment here costs about $470 per month. Annual rent is over 50% of
what a minimum wage worker gets. And that doesn't include utilities, phone or groceries.

When a child is thrown into the mix, the picture is even bleaker.

And don't say "Section 8": there's a waiting list of hundreds of families there.

And don't say, "get a second job," either. They are already doing that.

I once volunteered to help indigent people to prepare their income taxes. You'd be surprised at the number of ADULT family heads
who are working TWO or even THREE minimum wage jobs just to keep body and soul together. These people are exhausted and burned-out.

It simply isn't right that the federal minimum wage level in the US is equal to about only 85% of the poverty line (that is to say, the average minimum wage is 15% LESS than what a person would need to survive at the level of bare poverty). Is it too much to ask that the minimum wage be set EQUAL to the federal poverty line?

There are plenty of people who make minimum wage and can't make ends meet that are able to vote. Anyway, it's not about rather it can be a winning strategy for us, it's about the need for a long overdue increase in the minimum wage.

"minimum wage".

A "living wage" is the wage at which NO OTHER ASSISTANCE IS NEEDED!

It would be different in each locale.

for some reason I feel assaulted...

I think the minimum wage should be $10.00 an hour..

I just hate to see our side be on defense from the get go.

We need to be on OFFENSE..I am truly OFFENDED at what republicans have done to our country, and I want forceful candidates who will attack on the BIG issues...the ones that are KILLING us.

Why not $20.00 per hour? You are being kind of stingy aren't you??....

They need to fight for a "living" wage. Enough wage to live on is what people need. In adition it needs to be indexed to Congressional pay.

and maybe more if you live in a "high rent" area.. It chould be dependent upon WHERE YOU LIVE..

Making is $6.50 or whatever makes no sense because if you live in San Francisco, you will still be starving:(

Lets forget the federal minimum wage and let the states decide what their minimum wage should be. Every state and locale has different economics. The state is in a much better position to figure out what their minimum wage should be.

not everything should be done by at the federal level. We have state governments we should really use them.

Enough so the "jobs US citizens wont do" myth goes away.

Lets raise it to $20.00 hour plus health care and completely wipe out poverty. That way Americans will be lining up to do the jobs the illegal immigrants are doing now. There would be no need for welfare because every body will want to work to make that $20.00 an hour.

If you believe that do I have a deal for you on some ocean side property here in Kansas.

The minimum wage should be a state issue. There is no way the federal government can come up with a one size fits all minimum wage. Every state and local area has its own unique economic criteria.

The minimum wage is absolutely not a federal issue.

As one state competes with another, as we've seen with tax breaks and incentives within sates and between states. This is the old right to work line, all over again. Yes, the right to work for less. I'd rather see standards that level the playing field. A rising tide lifts all boats. This trickle down has turned to trickle on. The idea of unique economies passed a long time ago. Goods and services, the cost of living, is being standardized across the Country. The small differences in prices is evaporating and is primarily achieved now by forcing some people to take less. As we are competing in a global economy we will need to deal with these issues at the federal level.

Why does everything have to be the same as mandated by a centralized government.

Diversity is a good thing.

Wage slaves are what I'm writing about. I didn't write that every worker should make the same. I wrote that every worker should make a living at the very least. Why was it right for the federal government to outlaw slavery? The workers were provided basic food shelter and care. Was ownership the only thing wrong with slavery? What's wrong with a day's pay for a day's work?

what a day's pay should be?

Why should minium wage be decided by the federal government?

There is a Department of Labor. They oversee training programs and a prevailing wage is established on federally funded projects. They use regional wage standards to determine wages for different occupations. They set the standards for interstate commerce also. Individual states can do the same for state funded projects and intrastate commerce. Some municipalities also set minimums. The federal government is responsible for the health, education, and welfare of it's citizens. It's hard to imagine why anyone feeling differently would be engaged on a Democratic forum. Libertarians don't see a role for the federal government beyond defense. The GOP feels that business should determine these issues. That is why I don't participate in Libertarian or GOP forums.

god forbid I have a different opinion.

Gee maybe I think Democrats should work at the state level, because really not everything should be done by the federal government. There should not be only one right way for everybody. If people in different parts of the nation have different ideas about how things should be done then those differences should be encouraged. We cannot nor should we all be the same.

But, as the United States, it is the job of the federal government to establish a basic level for the nation. There was a Civil War fought on that principle and while states do have rights, they have obligations under the federal charter. As I pointed out some states and cities already have higher standards. Different ideas are fine as long as they don't deprive citizens of the USA of their Constitutional rights as citizens.

by lack of an increased federal minimum wage?

Give me a dollar figure as to what the federal minimum wage should be. Would $20.00 per hour be high enough? I do not know anybody that is making the current minimum wage here in Wichita, Kansas.

If there is somebody that is just making the current minimum wage there is probably a good reason. Some people would be over paid if they were getting a $1.00 an hour.

But anyway I would be very interested if you could give me a one size fits all figure for a federal minimum wage.

If some one is overpaid at $1.00, you fire them.

A minimum wage is a band-aid. It is a quick fix that is soon overtaken by events and inflation.

Push for a living wage, have it indexed to the rate of inflation, and have the official federal poverty level tied in, as well, and then there will be something to talk about. It is obscene that someone making the minimum wage should qualify for food stamps because they are below the poverty line -- something there is not in line with the rest of it.

The ideal should be that anyone who works a 40 hour week should be living above the poverty line. Simple as that. A 40 hour job should provide housing, sustenance, and health insurance for a family of four. Like it did back in the 60s. By having two workers in the family, or by working more than 40 hours, a person should be able to work himself above this minimum level and get extra goodies, savings, vacations, whatever. But the minimum standard should be a living wage.

And potentially winning ones.

Come to a small town like mine, for example. Unless you have a college degree or are experienced in a physically demanding trade, the only jobs available are minimum wage. Period. And shortages of good jobs, due to offshoring/outsourcing is requiring well qualified people to take minimum wage work.

A great deal of these people DO vote, and they're tired of being the working poor. And they outnumber business owners who bitch about raising the minimum wage.

I don't think we are choosing this issue "above all others". Does it really hurt to do the right thing?

Why is 30 million Americans working in povetry not an enough of an issue for you? Maybe not until you are one.

:thumbsdown:

Maybe she's wrong.. I hope so.

The "Contract on America" worked because it was a PACKAGE of "ideas".

They were linked.. If we are going to copy their idea, we should at least have the imagination to come up with a bone with a little more meat on it :)

It's not a losing issue, but has a lot of support.

Of course, it's not the number one issue, but it's a very important one.

and would prefer gasoline to be less that $4 a gallon.
They might also want to know their food supply was less mad-cowish
they might like to know they were not training their own replacement
and to not die at work when they are 85 yrs old and still punching a time clock

I believe 80% do support it. I support an increase too. But they aren't going to make the federal minimum $10 an hour anytime soon. And you need at least that much in any large city or states such a s Cali and NY. You start talking raising the fed min to $10 or more an hour and a lot of that support will drop off fast.

On top of it, those already making around the $10 an hour mark will be punished by their employers with a "fine...no raises this year or the next". Business owners, small and large will use coping mechanisms that will hurt workers more than help them.

and I am getting closer and closer to making that minimum wage. No, my wages have not gone up.

And that is what many business owners (small and big) do. Minimum wage goes up, wages are frozen.

up, why the hell WOULDN'T minimum wage go up too?! I have been a small business owner. If the increase is gradual and not abrupt, you can cover it, the same way you cover all these other increases which are totally out of your control.It is a completely specious argument to say that a slight gradual increase in minimum wages over time will drive businesses out of business. It's called "the cost of doing business" and it will be passed along as an increase to the consumer as it should be.

The best idea I've ever had is the one I expressed in an earlier thread - that Congress should not be able to vote any increases for themselves unless there was an accompanying increase in the minimum wage. God, how I would love that!

and who spend time around other people who make more than minimum.

For the people who work 3 jobs to feed their kids or to afford their medication, this is not "ho-hum", this is life or death.

It is a basic labor issue, along with health care and job safety and security. These things go hand-in-hand,and the fact that there are almost no politicians from either party pushing hard for them contributes greatly to the almost 50% of Americans who rarely vote.

And if the Dems don't start seriously representing these people they will be alienating more and more of America.

RE-unionization.

UNIONS are the answer to low wages.For decades, companies who didn't "want" to deal with uppity employees just picked up and moved south, where they could easily find cheap labor..but guess what?

eventuallly, eveny the cheap labor started wanting to be paid a fair wage, so they took the compnay to Mexico..and then the Mexicans wanted fair wages, so they took the company to India and China and Myanmar, and Viet Nam and ...and ...and..and..

Corporate corruption ALLOWS this to happen...

why pay someone $8 an hour to do what you can get a foreign "drone" to do for 50cents a DAY?

To the corporate bosses, minimum wage is inconsequential.. It could be $2 an hr and they would still want cheaper.. They want FREE..

There are thousands of small towns all over the US that USED to be thriving little communities whith conpanies and factories, and stores and lots of jobs.. th emoney made in those jobs was recycled throughout that town.. Those towns are dead now, and all that's left are service jobs, selling stuff that people cannot afford, to people who are living on the edge of survival.

That's what;s coming our way all over if we do not get this under control soon.

Minimum wage increases are a part of it..but not the sginature issue.. especially since it's likely to pass anyway.. It's like coming out in favor of rain, in a thunderstorm..

instead of corporations? Why did they let CAFTA pass when a unified Dem party would have stopped it?

Why do the Dem voters seem to understand these issues but not the Dem politicians?

I guess I am just really frustrated by the 'party of the people' talk but the 'party of the corporations' action over the last couple years.

:(

That's what I am talking about.. Lipservice to an issue that's already accepted takes no GUTS.. I want(and we NEED) a leader with vision.. to tackle the hard stuff..

We have been shoving the hard stuff under the rug for decades, and it fills the whole room now..the rug is just a doilie on top of the pile o'crap..

They time for mealy-mouthed platitudinous sloganeers is OVER..

Outsourcing of "family-supporting" jobs and insourcing slave labor as well. But it seems too many have lost sight that the middle class votes too.

Most small businesses try to pay their employees a living wage. It's giant corporations that are making money paying slave wages. I'm sorry, but $5.15 an hour is freakin slave wages. Soon that won't buy enough gas to get to work. When the repukes claim they are keeping the minimum wage down to save small business owners they are just blowing smoke. They only care about big business. Dems would get alot of support from the poor and lower middle class by making a living wage a wedge issue.

Everybody gets excited when the minimum wage is raised probably to a mean $6/h. The amount is a joke! Workers should take home more than $10 an hour. When a CEO makes millions a year......

I tend to think that legislated minimum wages are generally ineffective. I won't list the arguments here, you've heard them.

I DO think that wages in general are artificially suppressed, through taxation, in comparision to returns on 'ownership'.

Unlike many people who share this opinion, I realize that taxing Capital, when such capital is the product of labor, is an indirect tax on Labor.

More to the point - that which is taxed is consumed less. Especially when the demand for that being taxed is relatively elastic. American Labor can be substituted by Indonesian labor, Chinese Labor, mechanical Labor, or just not consumed.

If you are NOT a minimum wage worker, your labor is taxed at:
15.3% direct payroll tax
15-25% direct income taxes against wages
5-10% direct state and local income taxes against wages
Total: your employer pays a 35-45% premium on your labor.
PLUS: your labor is taxed at 15-25% when it is resold by your employer to it's customers, through corporate taxes and sales taxes. Your labor buys 0-5% less due to sales taxes. Your labor is taxed the equivalent of 20-40% if the product of your labor is subject to property taxes.

All these things mean that the national demand for labor is reduced by some portion of the 40% it is taxed.

Compare this to the plethora of tax breaks one gets for owning real estate. While popular amongst the harry homeowner set, the bulk of these real estate benefits go to the 10% of the people who own 90% of the real estate value.

I say work on eliminating taxes on wages (payroll and income). As these taxes are eliminated, workers will recieve two benefits: 1) they'll take home more and 2) more people will be employed. While nominal wages and salaries wouldn't move much, real take-home wages would. With more people having more disposable income, commerce will receive a boon. As more people spend money, more people will be employed 'earning' that money. Shortly, unemployment will decrease to the point that employers will have to compete for employees, offering better wages and working conditions.

The official rolls of unemployment are approximately 8 million. The total jobs in this country are around 150 million. Removing the 15% payroll tax would eventually create more jobs than we have people who want to work. Employers would have to raise wages to attract workers.

No increase in salaries for House or Senate members without living wage adjustments for the working poor. What's more why should a congressman's or senator's salary from a poor state be the same as the salary for one from a richer state?

Our elected public "servants," are paid way to fucking much, and they are always eager to give themselves raises.

It's OUR issue, and we need to represent for it. It's got to be increased.

http://www.letjusticeroll.org/pressroom/pressroom-apr7.html

snip

Twenty states (Arkansas is the latest to date) have raised their state minimum wages above the federal level. States with higher minimums have had better employment trends, including for retail and small businesses than those that have not. Successful businesses, large and small, have shown that good wages are good business because they lower turnover and increase morale, productivity, quality, customer satisfaction and consumer purchasing power.

“Paying your employees well is not only the right thing to do but it makes for good business,” Costco CEO James Sinegal told Business Week. “Fair wages are good for business,” says Joel Marks, national director of the American Small Business Alliance.

and 87% of the people in this country know the minimum wage needs to rise--a lot--so that sounds like a winning issue to me.

It's also an issue the GOP has absolutely no answer to, since they're the ones blocking any rise in wages at any time throughout their whole rotten history.

Outsourcing of "family-supporting" jobs
Insourcing of "slave labor"
Union-busting
The shrinking middle class
The unaffordability of college
The sorry state of the infrastructure of the country
The under-funding of retirement plans and social security

All these things can be traced to the degradation of wages in this country. Give the poorest a pay raise, they will spend it, increasing demand across the board for goods and services. They will also pay more taxes, especially OASDI. Foreigners being paid the starvation wage of $5.15 won't look nearly as attractive if the starting wage is $9.00, and employers would much rather hire people they can talk to.

Even outsourcing is looking less attractive to employers since most of them have been less than satisfied with foreign labor vendors. They simply can't afford to hire people here because their customer base has shrunk so much due to slave labor wages paid to too many people.

A day's work should be worth a day's pay. Work should pay. Hard work should be rewarded. The slogans to sell this idea are endless, and the GOP would be forced into the position of looking unbearably stingy.

This is the wedge issue, wages. Any Democrat who doesn't campaign on it is a fool.

In my crowd of 60 something years old, some retired, "Prodigal Democrats" (who have wondered over to the GOP side) the gross incompetence of this administration, coupled with run away cronyism and corruption is the issue.

They see it manifested in the Keystone Kops response to Katrina, the Marx Brothers planning for Iraq, followed by the Laurel and Hardy execution of Iraq, they see it in the Medicare Drug Plan's "Dough Nut Hole", and on and on and on.

And they know that they would have fired a jerk who screwed up consistently.

Competence counts.

on any site associated with the Democratic Party. But -- sadly -- I'm not at all surprised; this is precisely the indistinguishable-from-Republican stance that prompts so many lower-income, blue-collar and rural Americans to dismiss the whole two-party system as a scam: "Both parties hate us but at least the Republicans will let us keep our guns" or "Both parties only represent the rich, and if you're not rich there's no reason to bother voting."

This issue the OP so cavalierly dismisses as "a mite on the backside of an elephant" directly impacts about seven million four hundred thousand workers, 7,400,000: imagine a sweatshop containing the entire 1990 population of the five boroughs of New York -- a sweatshop where all the legal workers make only $5.15 per hour -- about $10,712 per year. (And bear in mind that a great many UNCOUNTED workers -- illegal immigrants reduced to defacto slaves by fat-cat capitalists doing what capitalists do best -- are making far less than $5.15.)

Here are the facts about the minimum wage:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp151

But these facts typically fall on sociopathically deaf ears: to understand the bitter degree to which viciously anti-worker bias has found a home in the Democratic Party, look at the anti-labor, anti-worker, anti-poor-and-disabled voting records of my own two senators, Cantwell and Murray: NAFTA, CAFTA, the Medicare Prescription Drug Lord Benefit, the re-imposition of indentured servitude via "bankruptcy reform" etc. ad nauseum. I even know the origin of the bias: the class conflicts lingering from the Vietnam Era -- the hatred of the draft-exempt bourgeois elite for those of us who served (most of us blue-collar or low-income folk and still despised for it even now)-- this smoldering malice further inflamed by the fact that a sneering yuppie whether Republican or Democrat is politically indistinguishable in self-righteousness and greed.

If we're going to take back the country, we have to raise anew the banner of the New Deal -- which includes fighting for workers' rights -- especially the minimum wage. Quoth Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not only the finest president ever, but truly one of the great men of history:

No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

And in order to unfurl again the bright banner of the New Deal, we have to first banish forever the obscenely haughty, classically yuppoid attitude that economic justice is merely "a mite on the backside of an elephant."

Pulling people out of poverty is a "losing issue." That, is what raising the minimum wage is about---fighting poverty. A parent who works FULL TIME, at minimum wage, is living in poverty.

NO ONE, who works full time, should fall below the poverty line.

I guess some don't believe in core progressive issues like economic justice for ALL.

Democrats need to have some spine and fight for our core beliefs; stop being candy asses and pandering to the yuppoid DINO class. Sickening.

and no benefits. Last time I checked, they still count in the Democratic agenda.

In fact, its these women whose lives have become so desperate that many of them have stopped voting. We need to speak to their needs and get them out to vote again.

enough to work for peanuts. They fight raising the minimum wage everytime it's brought up. If you want to help people lift their self out of poverty then the minimum wage needs to be a lot higher. These people can't even afford a car..

And what makes you think this is true?



It might be the mite on the backside of a Republican elephant, since they are the ones who have pooh-poohed it every chance they get, but it sure matters to alot more folks than you may be aware of.

My state happens to have a minimum wage of $7.65 and I think that most other blue states have independently raised theirs, also. Even tho it's still measly, when talking politics and economy with friends and neighbors, I will sooner or later point out to them that we have it better than most red states because of that one issue...minimum wage, and that many of the "right to work" states not only have no built-in protections for their working-class, but their rate has stagnated at $5.15 an hour for almost a decade. It's one helluva good talking-point when trying to forge ahead in getting people up and out to vote. Especially around here in my area, since many are long-ago transplants from North Carolina, and they have been bringing more relatives out in the past decade, in droves, due to the better standard of living.

If you want to give people the incentive to take an interest in the democratic process, they need to know that the politicians actually care and have an interest in working people, so they won't feel as tho voting is a waste of time, energy, and these days, gas.


I also think your statement that most people who make minimum wage cannot vote is dead wrong. I'd more accurately put it that many people who make minimum wage see no reason to vote, (many simply haven't got the time cause of multiple jobs). Policies handed down from either party for the past 30 years have generally not been in favor of the working-class and the minimum wage is the one issue that will prick the ears of lots of registered non-voters. Reforming all of those "SHAFT-A" pacts that our government is so hell-bent on would be another important issue to address, since the forcing thru of NAFTA enraged people years ago and they won't vote for anybody, til that blunder is fixed. Instead, every year more sell-out deals are made, with no Democratic disapproval. Don't kid yourself that folks who work hard for a living in this country haven't noticed.

the cost of living is different thoughout the whole country, so each state should decide for itself what its minimum wage is.

Besides some diversity between the states is good because it lets us see what works and what doesnt. Not everything has to be done, nor should it be done at the federal level.

The states with rampant corruption, like Mine, which have no minimum wage legislation, they will never pass it. So, without a federal wage to fall back on, wages will drop to whatever is the minimum acceptable, probably around 4-5 dollars an hour or so, probably less, so people making that may squeak by at a poverty level living out in the middle of no where, like in Foristell Missouri, while those that are nearer to the Urban Centers, like Kansas City and St. Louis would have HUGE variations in what would be City Minimum Wages, one area, probably no larger than a mile square, would have a minimum wage at what was federal levels, the areas around it would not, so businesses will spring up AROUND this city or town, depriving it of tax revenue, and further stratifying "Ghettoization", if you think many areas are blighted and high in crime now, just wait till your idea passes!

Not to mention that the Minimum wage wasn't intended to be a BE ALL that it is made out to be, it was intended as the BOTTOM FLOOR for wages nationwide, to reflect what is the absolute minimum needed for someone to live. It no longer reflects that, and due to the INACTION by most states, I say it needs to be changed, to make it even stronger, and to better reflect inflation and LOCAL costs of living.

Basically have the FEDERAL Government set up a federal LIVING wage based on the best Census data available for each and every single county in the country. They already have this data, just put it to good use for once. That way people working in New York are guaranteed to be able to actually AFFORD to live there as well, and the people out in Oklahoma wouldn't all of the sudden be paid a kings ransom out where they live. Simple solution, don't you think?

You see things clearly. I see that clearly. I wonder why it is so hard for other people to see it.

It's the right thing to do, to make minimum wage an issue--many live and depend on hoping & praying for a little boost in their lminimum wage.

And the abortion issue is a loser,

And the gay-marriage issue is a loser,

And the separation of church and state issue is a loser,

And the immigration issue is a loser,




And because we never take a stand on any issues for fear of losing we end up losing because we look like a bunch of ineffectual pussies with no ideas.

:shrug:

Here in MI we Dems were circulating petitions to get the minimum wage ont he ballot this November. The Rethugs in Lansing were so shocked at the rapid pace petitions were being signed (min. wage increase had 70%+ approval in MI) and so scared, they nearly broke their necks to pass legislation raising the minimum wage.

That's what we call "running scared" and the most effective tool we have found so far was minimum wage.

Just a little real life story to figure into the speculation.

Julie

Minimum wage has the rare virtue of being simple. It that can be framed in black and white--unusual for an issue promoted by Democrats.

It opens the door for discussion of other economic justice issues as well such as the use of illegal aliens by companies to undercut the wages of American.

Any opportunity to portray Republicans as greedy bastards should not be missed.

...And now you know how the Democratic Party lost the votes of the entire middle class...

This is not the first time you have posted a thread expressing a very offensive attitude toward a group, based on class, that you felt superior toward, and could not even describe accurately; recall when the mines exploded in West Virginia, you had a thread on the "type" of people who work in mines generation after generation, and had to be strongly corrected on your many misperceptions by West Virginia and etc. posters here. I will not, therefore, direct you to the recent thread "Living wage: effects upon the economy?" which contained many replies, debunking the myth of "wages are killing rich employers," etc., as they account for very little of the employer's expense, and after all, the work of the employees is bringing in all the profit. I linked to two Economic Policy Institute studies proving that prices do not need to go up when salaries are raised, etc., but since people like you never read these things anyway--skip it. Your list of "winner" issues is also strange, because "outsourcing," "union-busting," "shrinking of the middle class," "underfunding of retirement plans and Social Security" and others, directly relate to the general dire situation of those on or near minimum wage.

You do not have a clear impression of which issues affect "EVERY citizen in the U.S.," any more than the rich people who think that raising gas prices at the pump will "make people drive their (your) SUVs less," when the middle class and poor need to drive to and from work at possibly even three (underpaid) jobs, and can't reduce driving other than by quitting a job. If you people want gas usage to go down, raise the minimum wage so one job will provide a livable, middle class wage again. I live in Michigan, where our previously-union/manufacturing economy has been so decimated that people trained to work on assembly lines that no longer exist and will never come back, now flip hamburgers and bag groceries, not because they are teens or drug addicts, as you claim from your SUV, but because it all happened so quickly, and there was no plant-closure warning for most people. I take it from your user name that you are from California. Let me think--you elected Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor, and we elected Jennifer Granholm. How 'bout if you don't give us any more advice, okay? This is the ignorant arrogance that makes us wish for a huge earthquake that will send California right into the sea--oh, yes we do!

As unaware as the country has been of the Gulf victims of Katrina and Rita, they have also been of the Midwest (do you people even know that we still have farm families who need help--how embarrassing!), the middle class, and poverty. This country, and the Democratic Party, will never get back on track until people take over leadership from this "D"LC type, and address the problems that the citizens of the country are really having, stop pandering to the media and corporations, get off the "framing," and face the Depression that we are suffering right at this moment.

I don't hate poor people, really I don't; I use them for odd jobs all the time.

it must be nice that some people can be so insulated from reality that they think no one is earning min. wage except the high school students

be a woman in the south and see how far it gets you

in many areas if you do not have the sales personality, you are not going to earn more than minimum wage for many, many, many years

and by highlighting the need for a higher minimum wage, it forces them to reveal what cheapskates they really are.

well it does affect the part of middle class that owns a store.

Because to low a minimum wage means these low income families buy less stuff. To low a minimum wage has a negative effect on the economy.

this as a signature issue?

There are other things to fix first: War in Iraq, Bush tax cuts, the U.S.'s image, deregulation, etc. But there should be a federal minimum wage so that no state sets their wage at an even more inhuman level than it's at now. It should be at least Ted Kennedy's $7.25 everywhere, with more increases after we fix the economic infrastructure.

with a solid majority. It didn't bring enough people to the polls to elect Kerry and our senate candidate, but it certainly didn't hurt

you gave a nice list of issues, but I don't see them as any more universal than minimum wage.

"most" people make more than minimum wage?

in my area not so until katrina came to town

certainly most women even now would not make more than minimum wage and we are not all 16 yr olds still in high school i'm afraid

End of story.

Some stories should never begin.

Nice right wing talking point you got right there. Seriously, now we know why the country is in the downward spiral its in right now, because of attitudes like yours. :puke:

But, I'm not going to end it there, there are innumerable situations where you can lose the ability to support your family AFTER you had them and were able to support them in the past. The first would be sickness in the family, whether the breadwinner's or a spouse, parent, or child, that can eat up most of whatever you make, and make you go from middle class to homeless REALLY quick. Other examples are downsizing, forcing you to go from a good paying job to a minimum wage job, forcing you to poverty. Other examples are wage freezes, insurance premiums going up, and other examples, that can force you to not be able to support your family in a 40 hour workweek. Oddly enough, this is why the MAJORITY of people that DO have families they can't support are IN that situation in the first place! Talk about blaming the victim!

without the means to support them. People who are unemployed or underemployed shouldn't begin families. Everyone is not a victim.

:hi:

If someone IS working 40 hours a week, what is the argument for them NOT being able to support their family?

If they have a large family and choose to work in a field that does not requires little education or skill, they will probably fail to meet their families needs.

because some people are irresponsible?

if that's the case, we should definately toss out any pro-business legislation, too, because there's no denying quite a few cases of irresponsibility with taxpayer money.

Government action should be neutral. If legislation is proposed to do something for one person, it should be modified to do the same for all people.

I don't see what your tangent has to do with that statement.

If you lack the aptitude, education or ambition, you do not have the right to a salary that affords that which you desire.

As far as 40 hours a week goes—I haven't worked that few hours or for an hourly wage since my college days. I work until the job is done. If someone is going to sit around and wait for the clock to strike 40, odds are they are not going to do as well as those who approach their profession differently.

Including the freedom to reproduce apparently.

Time to raise it to about $7 an hour.