Friday, July 14, 2006

Minimum wage - are "they" worth it?

The recent "decision" by the repugs to not raise the minimum wage sparked me to write my senator, John Cornyn. He's a repub, too, and although I did NOT vote for him, he's the one I got stuck with.

Anyway, my question was - why not? Why can't we raise the min. wage just a little? They (the senators) raised their own pay recently, so why not for the lesser paid ones? Are they not worth it? Do they not contribute anything worth giving them a "bump" out of poverty for?

His (my senator's) reply, in part:
As you may know, the Minimum Wage Increase Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-188) established the current minimum wage level of $5.15 per hour. Several proposals have been introduced in the 109th Congress to further increase the minimum wage.

I understand the concerns that many Americans have about the economy and the difficulties confronting low-wage workers. While increasing the minimum wage may be well intentioned, I do not believe it would be a wise decision. Such an increase would further the financial burden on businesses and ultimately translate into higher product prices and layoffs. These consequences would disproportionately hurt low-wage workers.

So, letting "them" earn a little bit more is going to hurt them?

Some more of his reply:
To improve the well-being of American workers, Congress must focus on rebuilding the economy, reducing the tax burden, and increasing production. A strong, thriving economy is the best situation for workers at every income level. You may be certain that I will keep your comments in mind as I work with my colleagues in the Senate to promote economic growth and secure the financial well-being of all Americans.

Well, that made it clear, didn't it? A strong, thriving economy (businesses doing well), with reduced tax burden (big guys pay less), and increasing production ("slave" labor) is what our top brass are going for. Forget the little guy - s/he doesn't really matter right now, and they're sure things will be ok down the road.

I have another question: Why wouldn't a push to eradicate poverty be good for the economy? A desire to eradicate (or at least ease) poverty is known as Social Conscience. "Giving” to the poor (offering the bottom tiers relief, in different forms and fashions) would not necessarily "further the financial burden on businesses and ultimately translate into higher product prices and layoffs." I contend it would do just the opposite, at least in the overall effect.

“Those folks,” the lower-wage workers, are also known as “engines of economy.” Whatever they bring in this week, they spend this week. And the next, and the next. With no discretionary income, you spend everything you have.

This, in direct and immediate turn, helps the shops and stores of the depressed areas these “folks” (usually) live in. They aid the economy from the bottom up, directly, with cash in hand. This obviously flows up and out from there. What better way to help?

Unless, of course, “help” is not in your conscience. If not, then we truly do need a change of direction.

posted by DadEO @ 8:40 AM